National Review guys do not care for your slick baby-killing lawyerly ways. Also the gays, feh.
Someone (everyone?) at National Review Online had a serious breakdown this morning and published an early entry for the Festivus Airing Of Grievances directed at the ACLU, baby-killing moms and gays, but not at black people because they haven’t replaced the Derb yet so you blah people are off the hook on this one. Consider yourselves lucky. What set The Editors coughDrunkRichLowrycough off this morning resulting in one of those and-another-thing-also-too screeds that we have become accustomed to when they come from Grandma Sarah Palin who is Lowry’s TV masturbation date,? Oh, just the ACLU doing that thing they do where they attempt to save us from the Orwellian boot stamping on a human face forever, but now the ACLU IS THE BOOT. Yes, he wrote that:
The ACLU once was an organization that occasionally (and opportunistically) interceded against the Orwellian boot stamping on a human face forever. The organization has even come to the assistance of this magazine in the matter of Michael Mann’s risible lawsuit against us. But in this matter, the ACLU is choosing to be the boot.
Oh yeah, that Mann lawsuit where National Review published Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg calling climate scientist Michael Mann a fraud and compared him to Penn State pedophile coach Jerry Sandusky because Mann was butt-raping environmental statistics or something. That was just good fun and joshing and, c’mon, lighten up, baby-butt-raping fraud scientist. Why so serious?
But let’s get back to today’s difficulties with the ACLU who obviously bestow their legal favors promiscuously just like the litigious tramps that they are.
The ACLU is suing the U.S. Catholic bishops over the case of Tamesha Means, a woman who sought treatment for a pregnancy-related problem at a Catholic hospital, Mercy Health Partners. The ACLU contends that Miss Means should have been prescribed an abortion, but Catholic hospitals do not offer that gruesome service. The ACLU hopes to see the power of the state deployed to force them to do so.
This is not a question of legal access to abortion: There is an abortionist two blocks away from the main Mercy Health campus in Muskegon, Mich.
Tamesha rushed to Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, when her water broke after only 18 weeks of pregnancy. Based on the bishops’ religious directives, the hospital sent her home twice even though Tamesha was in excruciating pain; there was virtually no chance that her pregnancy could survive, and continuing the pregnancy posed significant risks to her health.
Because of its Catholic affiliation and binding directives, the hospital told Tamesha that there was nothing it could do and did not tell Tamesha that terminating her pregnancy was an option and the safest course for her condition. When Tamesha returned to the hospital a third time in extreme distress and with an infection, the hospital once again prepared to send her home. While staff prepared her discharge paperwork, she began to deliver. Only then did the hospital begin tending to Tamesha’s miscarriage.
The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk. They also direct health care providers not to inform patients about alternatives inconsistent with those directives even when those alternatives are the best option for the patient’s health.
Also, the church doesn’t allow their health care provider employees to direct a woman to a clinic where her needs can be appropriately addressed because that is almost exactly like yanking the baby out yourself and throwing in the nearest woodchipper and then how are you going to get into heaven, hunh? Probably not. Also, why isn’t there a Nearest Abortion Clinic app? I mean, besides the fact that it wouldn’t work in a lot of states.
The Catholic Church historically has built hospitals because it intends to minister to the whole man, and the whole woman, healing the sick as it feeds the hungry. The ACLU and the like-minded are happy to accept such benefits as Catholic charity offers, but only on their own terms.Because their politics are totalitarian, they believe that they have the right — legal, constitutional, and ethical — to make their moral preferences mandatory.
…. says the guy who will accept the help of the totalitarian baby-killers at the ACLU when his income stream ass is on the line.
And, another thing, by the way, also, too. The gays:
This belief is hardly limited to abortion. It was only ten years ago that the Supreme Court discovered, lurking in a particularly dark constitutional penumbra, a fundamental right to gay sex. In the ensuing decade, the federal government’s right to define marriage for its own purposes was found unconstitutional, and wedding professionals have been legally conscripted, as a matter of civil rights, into participating in ceremonies they object to on moral grounds. Which is to say, in the ten years following Lawrence v. Texas’s invention of a constitutional right to gay sex, participation in gay marriages has become legally obligatory. What began as the pursuit of toleration has become a demand for moral conformity. It is one thing to believe that gay people should be allowed to conduct their own affairs free of government intrusion; it is another to believe that the law should be deployed to force others to participate in them.
Why is everyone’s private sexual freedom getting in the way of my public intolerance freedom and why is everyone being forced to participate in gay weddings like it was jury duty or something? We are all going to hell in a eloquent and tasteful hand basket, I tells ya.
Finally, lest you think Rich Lowry or the other guys at National Review are squishy, or even marginally thoughtful, with regard to a woman’s right to control her reproductive freedom, here you go:
Any abortionist with eyes in his head knows exactly what sort of grisly business he is about, and the abortion faction, conscious of the blood on its hands, desires that everybody should have the same blood on their hands, so as to deepen the national commitment to the cause of elective homicide that in the vast majority of cases is practiced for the sole purpose of furthering sexual convenience.
The only difference between these guys and the wonderful folks from Westboro Baptist Church is a lack of gumption and a column at Politico.