Florida Republicans Mandate Purchase of Health Care Services

The Florida Senate recently passed a bill that would require women pay for and get an ultrasound before any abortion can be performed. They don't have to look at the ultrasound if they fill out a form but they still have to get it and pay for it. 

One of the "arguments" is that this simply gives the woman more information. There are two problems with that. It's information that's not needed and it mandates an unnecessary medical procedure. 

Oh the hypocrisy from the right abounds. One of their arguments against the health care reform bill is that it mandates that an individual purchase a product/service. Isn't this exactly what this bill does? It mandates that anyone seeking an abortion must also purchase an ultrasound whether it is medically necessary or not.  

Ultimately what this bill represents is their perception of women as being emotional creatures that if only they saw a picture of the little baby they are about to murder, they wouldn't get the abortion. There is no other reason, medical or otherwise, to mandate an ultrasound. 

This bill also seeks to make abortion so expensive that most people simply can't afford it. Look again at the health care debate. Not only did they not want federal money going to abortions but even private insurance money as well thus forcing anyone that wants an abortion to have to pay out of pocket and now they want to tack on a little more cost to the procedure. 

When it comes to medical procedures, the only thing the government should be concerned with is, is it safe and effective? They should leave it up to the doctor and their patient as to whether or not it is medically necessary. 

Links:

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2010/04/senate_passes_ultrasound_abort.html

Punishment Should Fit the Crime

In the debate over immigration we hear over and over about the costs to society of illegal immigrants. Completely ignoring the benefits of cheaper products let's accept that for arguments sake. 

What I keep wondering is why I never hear about the real reason they are here? We all know that most of them come here to "take away the jobs of Americans" but what about those Americans who are offering them jobs? Isn't their conduct the prime reason they are here? 

If there were no employers willing to hire illegal immigrants, there wouldn't be any reason for people to come here. So why are there so many Americans willing to hire illegal immigrants? Because it is profitable. Yes, it's really as simple as that. As long as it is profitable to hire illegal immigrants the best any solution such as the recent Arizona law can do is put a dent in the problem. It can never solve it.

Now while you may hear people talking about enforcement of laws against these employers, yes there are laws on the books on this, the fines almost never include jail time and the fines pathetically small. Especially when you consider the claimed costs to society.

For example, a Subway sandwich store owner in Phoenix was fined $431 for knowingly hiring an illegal worker. Now it's great to hear that they are in fact enforcing the laws on the books but, $431? Really? That's it? Oh yeah, he had to close his store for two days. All that did was inconvenience his customers and penalize his legal workers.

Such a fine is easily compensated for by hiring illegal immigrants so there is no incentive to only hire legal workers. We need to strengthen the punishments to include jail time and large enough fines that can put some of these people out of business and make it a real consequence instead of merely a short term inconvenience. 

If we take into consideration the harm to society that these employers cause, shouldn't the fines be commensurate with that harm? I bet if the fine was $431,000, there would be very few employers willing to take on that kind of risk. So let the punishment fit the crime. Fine these illegal employers are rates that are commensurate with the costs to society for their actions. 

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2010/03/az_employers_ad.html

National Day of Prayer

A judge in the Ninth Circuit Court recently ruled that the law passed by Congress and signed by the president proclaiming a national day of prayer as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Predictably the religious right has condemned the ruling as that of an activist judge trying to remove God from the public square. 

I hear this argument most frequently as, "yes, you have freedom of religion but you don't have freedom from religion." This is really a straw man argument for what "freedom from religion" has traditionally meant is different from how they mean it. 

Freedom from religion to those on the religious right is freedom from all religion, anywhere while, it has traditionally meant, "freedom from government religion." There are very few that would argue that we must be free from religion anywhere. Free from having a church on main street or a person on a street corner holding a Luke or John sign has never been an argument made by anyone I know.

It does make for an easy target though and that's why they continue to use it that way. The reality is, you can't have freedom of religion if you are not free from government religion. As soon as government is allowed to define what is orthodox (normal) in religion then that strips all of us of our right to define what is orthodox in religion. Even if you agree with their definition, your right to define it has been taken away.

In God We Trust on our money, "under God" in our pledge, and the national day of prayer defines what is orthodox in religion. If we are to truly have religious freedom we should never hand our religion over to the government and we should never accept the government's attempts to define what is orthodox in religion. 

Any encroachment on our religious freedom by the government that is left unchallenged only invites further encroachment. The Constitution is not likely to die from a single mortal blow but by numerous seemingly insignificant wounds.

 

Your Paperz

Arizona has just passed a law that mandates the police check the citizenship of anyone they encounter that appears "suspicious" when it comes to their citizenship status. Yet, what amounts to suspicion when it comes to citizenship? Don't ask the governor because she doesn't know. Don't ask Sheriff Joe Arpaio for he won't comment on policies and procedures. One state senator said he could tell by the shoes they wear. 

What is certain is that none of the supporters of the law will find themselves having to prove their citizenship to avoid a trip to jail, not because they are wearing the right shoes but because they were born with the right skin color.  The fact is, unless you are brown or speak with an accent, you won't be pressed for your papers. 

Yes immigration is a problem but why single out the immigrants when the real problem is sleazy employers that exploit them? Without the incentive of employment they simply would not be here. Instead of harassing citizens of color, why not go after the largely white employers that illegally employ them? 

If the feds start putting employers in jail the problem of illegal immigration would simply vanish. If there are no jobs to be had, there is no reason to come.