Russell and Duenes

Archive for September 2012

I See Cass Sunstein Believes the Moon is Made of Green Cheese

leave a comment »

Cass Sunstein, professor of law at both the University of Chicago and Harvard University, wrote a broadsides against Justice Scalia back in 1997. See Justice Scalia’s Democratic Formalism, 107 Yale L.J. 529. In it, Sunstein calls into question Scalia’s preferred mode of jurisprudence, by which, in Sunstein’s words, Scalia “favors clear rules, seeks to treat statutory and constitutional texts as rules, and distrusts the view that legal texts should be understood by reference either to intentions or to canons of construction that live outside of authoritative texts.” That is, Scalia thinks that judges ought to try, using various legitimate tools of interpretation and hermeneutics, to discern the original public meaning of legal texts, and most importantly, of the text of the Constitution, so as to keep judicial rulings in line with the meaning of the text. This may be called a “textualist” perspective.

Sunstein has various critical things to say about Scalia’s approach, but he made one specific argument which struck me as particularly problematic. He argues that there are judges who, though they are willing largely to eschew the attempt to grasp or adhere to the original public meaning of the Constitution text, “might well think of themselves as originalists.” Having thought of themselves as originalists, Sunstein asserts that “it is by no means clear that judges of that kind have less legitimacy or are worse than originalist judges of the kind Justice Scalia favors.” And why not? Because,

     A federal judiciary that proceeds in common law fashion (i.e., judge-made law) and that treats constitutional rights as aspirations (given content by concrete cases and invoked sparingly to invalidate the outcomes of ordinary politics) might well, because of its very insulation, produce a better system of constitutional democracy. It might do so because it has certain advantages in deliberating on questions of basic justice, or – in my view far more likely – it might do so because and to the extent that it focuses on ensuring the preconditions for a well-functioning democratic regime.

In other words, judges who feel a certain liberty to depart from the meaning of the constitutional text, to insert their preferences (albeit, to be sure, not arbitrary and capricious preferences) into the ambiguous causeways of legal interpretation, and to tailor their decisions to achieve what they take to be “better” political and social outcomes, are just as, if not more, legitimate than judges who try to find the objective meaning of a text and apply it to particular contexts as such. Justice Scalia would not agree. Indeed, Sunstein concludes, and this is really the kicker,

      Justice Scalia thinks that, even if [the above] is true, a judicial role of this kind is fundamentally illegitimate and without authority, because it is not authorized by the Constitution. But the Constitution does not set out the principles governing its own interpretation; certainly the Constitution itself does not contain an interpretive principle of originalism. Any judgment about the appropriate content of governing interpretive principles must invoke not the Constitution but political theory of some kind. The claim that the text must be interpreted in light of the original understanding as Justice Scalia conceives it is not an implausible argument. But it depends both on contested ideals and on highly contingent and largely empirical claims about what system of interpretation is likely to be or to do best, all things considered.” (emphasis mine).

That’s a lot to unpack, and I cannot hope to address all the issues here, but I think that, if I’m understanding Sunstein’s last words correctly, he is saying something of profound importance and weight. So let me take his thoughts in order.

He holds that “the Constitution does not set out the principles governing its own interpretation.” Indeed it does not, but importantly, virtually no particular piece of writing “sets out the principles governing its own interpretation.” In other words, if I sit down to read The New York Times on a leisurely Sunday afternoon, has the article I’m attempting to read and understand “set out the principles governing its own interpretation?” Same question if I’m reading Shakespeare or Plato or Harry Potter, or . . . Cass Sunstein. I’m afraid that Mr. Sunstein has not given me an interpretive framework by which to read his little article here, so I’ve decided that I’m free to supply my own interpretive notions, whose legitimacy can hardly be questioned without appealing to some kind of normative interpretive system. And based on my interpretation, I’ve decided that Mr. Sunstein is arguing that the moon is made of green cheese.

“But wait, you can’t do that! No judge is doing that. You’re hyperbole is noted, but inapt, since judges are not just reading whatever they want into the Constitution.” To which I reply: What does it matter how far one strays from the meaning of the text? What does it matter if I misinterpret Sunstein one click or one hundred, in the long run, at least? He will still protest that I have not correctly discerned what he has said. And I just want to know upon what basis he will tell me that my interpretation of what he has said is illegitimate, seeing as he has not supplied me with interpretive principles for reading his essay within the essay itself.

Sunstein says that, because we cannot invoke an interpretive principle supplied by the Constitution itself, we will have to get our interpretive principles from “political theory of some kind.” But is attempting to understand an author’s meaning in a text a “political theory?” I always just thought it was taking other human beings seriously, more like a moral theory. In other words, all written documents contain an unstated interpretive principle of originalism, whether they be an encyclopedia, a dime novel, poetry, a biography, a sci-fi thriller, or a law review article. Some author will have written each one of these things, and that someone expects to be given the dignity of having his or her words understood in a particular way, not subject to the whim of the reader. The Democrat who extols the virtues of President Obama in an op-ed piece does not expect, and would highly object to, his readers making him out to be a Romney supporter. But why? Doesn’t he know that his op-ed had no “interpretive principle of originalism in it?” And because it didn’t, why should the op-ed writer expect his readers to interpret it the way he thinks it should be interpreted, according to its original public meaning?

Sunstein compounds his error by implying that interpretive methodologies are really, at root, relative, because dependent “on contested ideals and on highly contingent and largely empirical claims about what system of interpretation is likely to be or to do best, all things considered.” In other words, because the argument that texts should be interpreted and adhered to based on their original public meaning runs into “contested ideals” and “highly contingent and largely empirical claims,” then it really cannot claim to be more legitimate than interpretive frameworks that depart from the text’s objective meaning. Indeed, I think the true import of Sunstein’s argument is: Texts do not have any one particular original public meaning, at least not one that can be discerned by any judge, and which can be proclaimed as “the right way to read it.” Which leaves us where?

It leaves us in the world we now inhabit – for Scalia’s school of thought is in much ridicule from virtually all quarters today – wherein texts have no objective meaning, everything is subject to deconstruction for political or social advantage, cynicism abounds about people’s words and we feel that we are not rightly held accountable for the things we say and write, for our words can always be reworked and remade, yea reinterpreted, and still remain legitimate. Our schoolchildren are given the impression that nothing written before the last decade has any value for them, and even if it did, its meaning cannot be known. We hear and believe mantras like, “You can make (insert text here) mean whatever you want it to mean,” and we have public figures proclaiming that they were “taken out of context,” no matter how straightforwardly they spoke. Our public discourse takes on the nature of children shouting past one another, and people’s words are mocked with sarcasm and ridicule. And we are not thus living in “a well-functioning democratic regime.”

Contrary to what I take to be Sunstein’s argument (and if I’m wrong about Sunstein, if I’ve misinterpreted him, I’m happy to be so informed and to retract all of the above analysis), I believe there are better and worse ways to interpret texts. That is, there is rightness and wrongness to the issue of constitutional interpretation, and the right way to interpret it is not just some crap shoot which no one can claim to legitimately employ. The Constitution purports to be something, based on its own text, and thus, it constitutes a particular genre which brings specific interpretive principles into play, as do all unique genres. Moreover, I think I know this, not because it is based on some “political theory.” Further, it matters not that this knowledge is “contested” in some way, for all truths are contested in some way. I take my cues from our Lord Jesus. He was at pains to interpret the Bible, and he expected others to do so as well, knowing full well that the Scriptures did not come with principles set out “governing its own interpretation.” How could Jesus then expect people to rightly interpret it? I think Jesus put a lot of stock in the notion that there is a nature of things in God’s world, and that means, there is a nature of texts and thus, better or worse ways of interpreting and ascertaining the meaning of those texts. When Jesus said, as He often did, to His followers, “Have you never read . . .?” He meant, in effect, “Have you not properly interpreted and understood what God meant when He said . . .?”

I’m not trying to oversimplify things, and delving into the principles of finding the meaning in particular texts is beyond the scope of this essay, which has already become too long. But I at least take my starting point with the truth that texts do indeed have objective meanings and those meanings can be known and understood, if not perfectly. Having surrendered this truth on a large scale, we should not be surprised to find that our human relationships are consequently impoverished and our souls dry and shriveled.



Written by Michael Duenes

September 28, 2012 at 6:16 am

Dred Scott v. Sandford

with 3 comments

In 1856, in a nation deeply riven with strife, half of its territory guiltily wading in the blood of man’s inhumanity to man, where, as Lincoln would soon say, there were “persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it,” the nation’s fifth Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger Brooke Taney, wrote these words:

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?

His answer:

We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens‘ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

Thus, Justice Taney concluded:

It is very clear . . . that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

That is, no State has the power to consider an African a “person,” or a “new member of the political community,” when the Constitution would, by law, exclude the African from being a legal person.

The Dred Scott case, so deeply rooted in our nation’s lore, if perhaps largely left unread by most of her citizens, is a cautionary tale. It’s tale we have not heeded.

We think ourselves above such brazen racist ideologies. We’ve left all that behind in our enlightened, urbane, sophisticated social progress. But for all that, we do worse. For we not only define a class of persons as subhuman and inferior, but we literally define them out of existence. We muddy things up and assuage our consciences by telling us that there are “some lives not worth living” and that making abortion illegal would only drive women into the back alleys, as though abortion clinics now are paragons of love, safety, care and health. We have been told by our current Supreme Court that a nine-month old baby is not a “person” under the Constitution, and that no State can make that baby a person “by making him a member of its own.” No, we have said that precious unborn humans are “a subordinate and inferior class of beings,” who can legally be ripped limb-from-limb at the behest of their mothers and “doctors.” We have decided they don’t count, and thus, we may do to them what we want. They are not enslaved. They are dead. And the race of African-Americans is at this moment perhaps in its greatest peril and danger of non-existence.

The hearts of men are not changed by the passages of time, nor by the machinations of any political doctrines. They are changed by repentance and submission to the One who came as an unborn child, and who gave His life so that we might truly live, forever. Lord, help us see. Soften our hearts, and take away our shame and dishonor through the washing power of your Son, our Lord Jesus. Amen.


Written by Michael Duenes

September 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm

What About in Cases of Rape or Incest?

with 6 comments

Michael Stokes Paulsen is University Chair and Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis, and co-director of its Pro-Life Advocacy Center (PLACE), and I only wish I had been turned on to him sooner. His is a winsome and compassionate voice in support of both mothers and their babies, and my hope is that I can contribute somehow in this space toward giving him a wider audience. (You can find many of his columns at In his recent piece – The Right to Life and the Irrelevancy of Rape – he gets to the the ultimate questions that should be asked “in cases of rape,” without downplaying the horror of rape in any way.

Paulsen begins by noting that the question: “What about rape?” is “[p]robably the best weapon in the rhetorical arsenal of those who call themselves ‘pro-choice’ on abortion.” It’s a rhetorically powerful question, says Paulsen, because it tends to put the pro-life proponent immediately on his or her heels, having to answer to the charge: “Would pro-lifers really torment a woman, already victimized by sexual violence or exploitation of the most horrible kind, by requiring her to carry a resulting pregnancy to term and give birth to the child?” Confronted with the question in this way, “most [pro-lifers] will give ground almost immediately, not wanting to appear unreasonable.”

Yet Paulsen argues persuasively that giving ground is exactly the wrong tact to take, and that the “rape question” can actually prove very fruitful in advancing the pro-life position. Paulsen holds that “defenders of the right to life should agree to answer the what-about-rape question, straightforwardly and without equivocation, but only if the questioner will first answer one (or two) questions himself.” (emphasis his). The first question the pro-lifer should be permitted to ask is this: “Suppose, following a rape, the victim became pregnant and had the baby. But then, a year or two later—or three or four years later—the mother comes to despise the child because the child’s very life and presence reminds her, horribly, daily, painfully, of the awful experience of the rape. Should we permit the woman to terminate the life of the two-year-old or four-year-old child?” To this question, Paulsen assumes the likely “pro-choice” answer would be “no—combined with a protest to the question, that it is unfair, or presents an entirely different situation from abortion.”

Paulsen’s second hypothetical question then follows naturally from the answer to the first: “Exactly why  [ought not] a four-year-old’s life, resulting from rape, . . . be terminated, if his or her life greatly distresses the mother, or, if the objection has been raised, exactly why [is]the situation of abortion . . . thought to be so decisively different?” Paulsen responds: “The pro-choice advocate’s answer, almost unavoidably, must be that a born child is different, because the child is now clearly an independent, living human being.” Yet it is precisely in giving this answer that the pro-choice proponent has shown that rape is not the central issue with respect to abortion, even for the pro-choicer. The central issue now is that the child has been born, and because he or she has been born and has become an independent, living child, then the fact that the child was conceived by rape cannot justify taking the child’s life. As Paulsen says, “[I]t is birth as opposed to pregnancy—not the fact of rape—that makes the difference?  How is this any different from the pro-choice advocate’s general argument for abortion rights? Rape might be an especially sympathetic case, and therefore rhetorically effective, but if the living human embryo or fetus really were an independent human life—like a born child—the fact that he or she was conceived as a result of rape or incest wouldn’t be a reason that we would credit for allowing the mother to kill the child, would it? If the answer is no, then it is not rape that makes the moral difference; it is the issue of the moral status of the living human embryo or fetus—isn’t that right?”

Thus, Paulsen’s strategy puts the pro-life proponent back on sure footing, where he or she really has been all along, by getting down to the real issue about all abortion. He writes: “Rape is tragic, awful, horrible, gut-wrenching—an unspeakable crime of great emotional harm—but rape is essentially irrelevant to the morality of abortion. The issue is the human status, or lack thereof, of the unborn child—whether he or she has a right to live, or may instead be killed for reasons society deems sufficient good cause or simply leaves to the mother’s unrestricted choice.”

Paulsen also argues that the “rape question” on abortion can fruitfully lead into discussions surrounding the question: “Is it your view that whether or not abortion should be permitted should depend on the reasons for which the pregnant woman desires abortion?” The answers to this question may raise further important issues, such as sex-selective abortions, abortions in order to spite someone, or merely abortions in order to complete college studies.

We do well to ponder Paulsen’s further thoughts on these secondary issues raised by the “rape question,” but you’ll have to read his whole piece in order to do so. His article is important because it ultimately brings the discussion back to the only relevant question: What is the unborn? If the unborn is in fact a full human being, created in the image of God, with the same inherent worth and dignity of any adult human being, then surely we are not justified in taking that child’s life, no matter how he or she was conceived. Further, we are not doing the mother who was raped any favor’s by justifying her choice of abortion in such a case, because by terminating the pregnancy, we are compounding one horrific problem with another. If our goal is to bring emotional and spiritual freedom to mothers who have been so heinously violated, we ought to consider whether getting rid of the child will actually produce such freedom, or whether it will more likely produce a sense of guilt and bondage on top of the trauma of the rape.

For raising these issues, I commend Professor Paulsen, and hope you will commend and recommend him as well.


Written by Michael Duenes

September 24, 2012 at 5:57 pm

Christ in a Vat of Urine: Courageous Art, Cartoons Making Fun of Muhammad: The Viliest Thing Ever!

with one comment

I think it should be clear to any sentient being that grovelling and making obsequious apologetic statements before Muslim radicals has zero effect on how they feel and behave towards us. And it is really tiresome to keep hearing the trope that some bush-league anti-Muhammad video that was online for a month prior to 9/11 is somehow the main impetus for the current conflagration of violence against U.S. interests around the globe. It’s surely a convenient narrative. But you gotta love our cultural elites, particularly our current Democrat political leaders and their media water-carriers. These people simply cannot come up with enough condemnatory words to attack the recent video making fun of Muhammad. Our ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, called the video “a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.” (HT: Rich Lowry). Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, called the video “disgusting and reprehensible.” Indeed, the White House, read: President Obama, asked Google to remove the video from the internet, a request that Google generally rejected, except that they did remove it in Libya, Egypt, as well as India and Indonesia. Perhaps worst of all, according to a USA Today story, “[t]he chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called a Florida pastor today, asking him to withdraw his support of an anti-Islam online film.” The Pentagon making pushy phone calls to private citizens who have broken no law?

Perhaps the video is disgusting and reprehensible, and the pastor in Florida who is so highly anti-Muslim surely has disgraced the pastorate, and, in my view, dishonors the name of Christ; but I can’t help but wonder why these same people who are so virulently against any kind of criticism of Muhammad at all never seemed to have a problem with some “artist” taking a picture of Jesus on a crucifix submerged in a vat of urine, the so-called “Piss Christ.” Indeed, these same liberal elites rushed to the defense of the photo, proclaiming this is precisely the kind of courageous stuff that the First Amendment was designed to protect. The New York Times said of the “Piss Christ” and other anti-Christian art: “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.” No disgust or reprehension here, no matter how many Christians might be offended. The double standard has come to be standard operating procedure. So has Muslim violence, despite the obeisance of western liberals and their attempts not to “offend” Muslims at any cost.


Written by Michael Duenes

September 20, 2012 at 10:12 am

Posted in Duenes, Government, Islam

Is the Pro-Life Position Empty Because Pro-Lifers Don’t Care Enough About Women

leave a comment »

Suffice it to say that in our Constitutional Law class we ended our discussion of the primary abortion cases, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Gonzalez v. Carhart, without really getting to the crux of what the abortion debate is about. But what I found most illuminating was a rather tendentious, and I think, specious, “final thought” we were left with at the end of it all. Commended for our consideration was a particular argument by a professor at U. Penn (whose book was even plugged) which strongly implied that anti-abortion proponents don’t particularly favor laws, political advocacy, or public policy positions that favor women and help to reduce the number of abortions. If anti-abortionists were to be more legitimately anti-abortion and pro-woman, so the implication went, they would 1) support greater contraception promotion and distribution, 2) support sex education, 3) be more pro-adoption so as to make adoptions easier and take the stigma away from adoption, 4) support greater protection of female protection and autonomy, and  5) impose more duties on men. Let’s take these arguments in turn and address them briefly.

First, it is a highly dubious assertion that greater access to contraception will lead to fewer abortions. This was the argument that was being made during the contraceptive revolution in the sixties. All of these contracepting people will now be liberated to have sex, but without unwanted children along with it. I think we know how that has turned out. Contraceptives are easier to get than a candy bar at the local Walgreeens, and also cheaper, if you’re a student and impoverished, so that you can often get them for free. Yet as Janet Smith has pointed out, young Americans are about as good at being accountable to using birth control as they are at doing their homework each night. Further, the Supreme Court itself has said that, if we are going to have contraception, we MUST have abortion, should the contraceptives fail, which they often do. They should have added, we must have abortion should the contraceptives not be used at all, which they often are not. This is the problem. The contraceptive mentality, in my view, leads people to think that they are not at much risk of getting pregnant, whether they use their birth control regularly and properly or not. We tell people that they are liberated to have sex, and that they don’t have to be “punished” with children as a result, and you know what, they start believing it; even when they decide they need a new pair of sneaks instead of a pack of condoms.

Second, it is even more dubious to think that our current government-sponsored sex education programs – which try to scare the hell out of young people with grim venereal disease statistics, while telling them that all that prudish, puritanical stuff about “waiting until marriage” is naive and an infringement upon freedom, love, and self-expression – are somehow going to lead to responsible sexual behavior and chastity. Hah! Chastity. It’s a dirty word. You’d be laughed at less if you dropped an f-bomb in your U.S. History class than if you said, “I think we ought to bring back notions of chastity.” Sex education in its current form denies mature personhood, denies God’s purposes for sex and marriage, denies the spiritual reality of what sexual intercourse is, blunts any proper distinctions between men and women, and exalts radical, individual autonomy and short-term sexual “fulfillment” above such notions as virtue, self-control, chastity, and modesty. People who are told again and again that, as long as you are practicing “safe sex”, then fornication is fine, will not end up deciding, en masse, that terminating the pregnancy they did not want to have is a moral evil. Liberals have controlled the schools and the universities for some decades now. The fruit belongs to them, not the pro-lifers.

Third, I don’t have a lot to say on the adoption front, except to say that it does not seem to me that the real push for adoption as an alternative to abortion is coming from the secular, pro-choice, pro-sexual revolution, left-wing of our nation. Indeed, if the people of San Francisco are any indication, they’d like to run the adoption-as-alternative-to-abortion folks out of town. I do not know a single Christian, in my over twenty years of being a Christian, who is anti-adoption, and who in any way stigmatizes adoption. Granted, this is only anecdotal evidence, but I think I have my ear to the ground enough in evangelical Christian circles to know that we’re quite pro-adoption and pro-helping women who are desperate and in need of help. What’s patently obvious is that the folks at Planned Parenthood are not the vanguard for a renewed pro-adoption movement. If the implication is that certain people, say, Christians, should not stigmatize adoptions by certain kinds of people, say, homosexuals, then I say that one has smuggled in a different issue on top of the adoption issue. Being pro-adoption does not mean that every parenting configuration promotes the well-being of the child. One need not stand up for every form of adoption in order to be a consistently pro-life person.

Fourth, the pro-life, anti-abortion position is the truly pro-woman position. It never ceases to amaze me that we have allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked into the view – to put it mildly – that women are better off in a culture that objectifies them as sex objects (just turn on your TV), denigrates their unique feminine ability to bear and nurture children (see, children as “punishment”), and that tells them that they will only truly be liberated when they can fornicate as much as men because contraception and abortion keep the children out of the equation. You see, in our culture, it’s the female body that’s the problem. Her body must be shut down, she must take a pill, her fertility is what holds her back. There is no male birth-control pill. This is profoundly anti-woman, and worst of all, abortion turns a woman against one of her strongest natural and spiritual instincts, namely, to nurture the life within her, by telling her that her very freedom and vitality is at stake in destroying that life and viewing that life as a non-human, perhaps a blob of tissues. It is profoundly anti-woman to teach women that modesty is no feminine virtue, and that liberation means being able to wear what you want, when you want. As Wendy Shalit points out: the immodest women on “Sex and the City” were not happy. I wonder: Do you think there’s more sexual angst and depression amongst women in New York City and San Francisco where sexual liberation is in full-flower than there is among women in communities where marriage, sexual fidelity, chastity, and modesty are prized and practiced? (HT: Douglas Wilson). To ask the question is to answer it. Women are not helped by a culture that teaches them that the act of sexual intercourse is no different than playing tennis with someone (as Janet Smith again points out), that they need to get over their hang-ups about “commitment” and such, and that if a pregnancy gets in the way of their career ambitions, abortion is always a viable option. The wreckage is all around us. But we deny that, too, for the women must be strong enough to turn against their children, without also suffering any emotional or psychological damage from doing so.

Finally, to the argument that men need to have more duties imposed upon them: To this I give a hearty “Amen!” But it’s a bit thick for anyone to argue that men need to be more accountable to their duties while men are largely cast in our culture as buffoonish, clueless, boorish, and irrelevant at best, and unnecessary at worst. When then candidate Barack Obama suggested that African-American males ought to step up and take their fathering seriously, rather than just siring children, he was accused by Jessie Jackson of “talking down to blacks.” This is insane! African-Americans are on a path to genocide based on current abortion practices, but if any so-called “black leader” steps up and tells black fathers to fulfill their male duties, he is cast out as a leper. We’ve been doing all we can to cut men out of the loop. Now, based on the wonders of technology, we don’t need the man to be around. We just need his sperm. Further, our government’s welfare policies also make men irrelevant. Big Daddy government will take care of the woman’s needs, and will do so without asking too many questions and making too many demands. No, men will not step up to their duties in this kind of a societal milieu. Indeed, if you want to make men step up, bring back female modesty; the very thing the women of old understood was a primary engine for forcing men to learn honor, loyalty, and faithfulness if they wanted to win a proper woman’s hand. But all that is out the window now. So men head off to the man-cave for some more beers and video games.

Let me conclude by mentioning a pro-life organization that is doing precisely the kind of work that apparently pro-lifers aren’t doing enough of. They’re called “First Resort,” and they are a wonderful organization, with committed volunteers and medical personnel, who are laboring in the struggle to both protect and defend unborn human life and help desperate mothers as well. First Resort runs three licensed medical clinics in the Bay Area, where women can come and have free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, loving and compassionate counseling and support, adoption information, and referrals to other clinics if need be. In addition, one of the best things that First Resort does is to partner with churches and other organizations to throw baby showers for new moms who have decided to keep their babies. At these showers, mothers are provided with many material things they will need to care for their children, but more importantly, they are showered with love and care at a time when they may not have support elsewhere. Doubtless there are many more pro-life organizations that are doing much the same thing. First Resort is not lobbying the government for more anti-abortion measures. They are caring for mothers, putting their money where their mouths are, showing that being pro-life is not about pitting mother against child.


Written by Michael Duenes

September 18, 2012 at 4:22 pm