In a state with such a morally conservative ideology, it is almost surprising that more women's clinics aren't attacked or seriously threatened; in fact, it seems shocking that this state actually has facilities that perform abortions. However, we do have abortion clinics (at least for the time being) despite some people's varied attempts to shut them down (or blow them up).
Paul Ross Evans plead guilty to an attempted bombing of the Women's Clinic on I-35 around Oltorf. People like Paul make me sick. First of all, his bomb would have killed or at least injured entirely innocent people. How can you even justify that? Secondly, they don't seem to even really understand the fact that our state's foster care is saturated with so many unadopted children, the lower income families are making less money compared to school costs and health care is getting more expensive by the day. In some ways, the abortion clinics are doing a service by preventing these fetuses from ever being born. I don't think it is fair for someone to, with a bomb, make decisions for other people. What is "freedom" or "right" for one person may actually be "slavery" or "wrong" for another. Additionally, killing the physicians and staff because they are murderers is just foolish; taking an eye for an eye only ends with a room full of blind people.
This issue really seems to be a religious argument. Most people who oppose abortions seem to do so based on the Christian faith. The First Amendment gives people the right to practice their religion without fear of persecution, but does not give them the right to force their religion onto others. By killing abortion clinic patients, staff or physicians (not to mention innocent bystanders just passing by), I believe you are forcing your religious views on others.
The sentence Mr. Evans received, in my mind, is reasonable. He won't be released into public until he is of retirement age; that should give him plenty of time to reflect on his concept of justice while he experiences federal prison justice. The Austin American Statesman has more here.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
This T-Shirt backed by the U.S. Constitution
In this day and age, it seems as if the government is assaulting our personal freedoms left and right. From tapping phones, leaking covert operatives, maintaining secret prisons and filling them with citizens and "enemy combatants" as well as limiting access to government records by investigative agencies, this particular administration seems to be ratcheting down the nation's control over her citizens without remaining accountable for their actions. Now, it seems as if the states are following suit in this travesty of civil rights reduction by placing limits on the First Amendment.
By no means is this the first instance of the government putting limitations on free speech; during World War I, limitations were placed that prevented people from distributing fliers that opposed the draft. This was likened to shouting fire in a crowded theater; i.e. it puts the country in a clear and present danger. However, this was overruled by Brandenburg v Ohio which ruled that speech may only be infringed upon if it will incite imminent lawless action. However, in this case, an attempt is being made to stifle a T-Shirt. The shirts (from two different independent sources) list all of the men and women who have fallen in Iraq since the war began. Texas will be the fifth state to pass a bill banning these shirts by, in effect, requiring the T-Shirt makers to get permission from a family member of each and every name that appears on their shirts. While the bill asserts that the T-Shirt makers are using the names to their own advantage, it seems that the bill is using the sheer volume of names to remove the shirts from circulation.
This article in the Austin American Statesman describes the issue. I won't deny that the concept behind the shirt's design isn't shocking or perhaps even offensive, however, I believe it is a non-issue as to whether or not it is going to incite the "imminent lawless action" required to ban this speech. This article and, furthermore, this topic is important as we try to come to terms with and hopefully take back some of our lost liberties.
By no means is this the first instance of the government putting limitations on free speech; during World War I, limitations were placed that prevented people from distributing fliers that opposed the draft. This was likened to shouting fire in a crowded theater; i.e. it puts the country in a clear and present danger. However, this was overruled by Brandenburg v Ohio which ruled that speech may only be infringed upon if it will incite imminent lawless action. However, in this case, an attempt is being made to stifle a T-Shirt. The shirts (from two different independent sources) list all of the men and women who have fallen in Iraq since the war began. Texas will be the fifth state to pass a bill banning these shirts by, in effect, requiring the T-Shirt makers to get permission from a family member of each and every name that appears on their shirts. While the bill asserts that the T-Shirt makers are using the names to their own advantage, it seems that the bill is using the sheer volume of names to remove the shirts from circulation.
This article in the Austin American Statesman describes the issue. I won't deny that the concept behind the shirt's design isn't shocking or perhaps even offensive, however, I believe it is a non-issue as to whether or not it is going to incite the "imminent lawless action" required to ban this speech. This article and, furthermore, this topic is important as we try to come to terms with and hopefully take back some of our lost liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)