Why Conservative Bloggers are Wrong about the Morning After Decision

As I read through the blogosphere, I have come across a couple of pieces blasting US District Judge Korman for his recent decision ordering the "Morning After Pill" made available for all women, no matter the age.  I will be the first to admit this is a travesty, a minor should not be making such decisions free of the consent and wisdom of their parents.  Yet, that is not the measure of the opinion, from what I've read.  Here's the key part I think we need to look at:

I pause to add these brief words before I begin the discussion of the legal issues. This case has proven to be particularly controversial because it involves access to emergency contraception for adolescents who should not be engaging in conduct that necessitates the use of such drugs and because of the scientifically unsupported speculation that the drug could interfere with implantation of fertilized eggs. Nevertheless, the issue in this case involves the interpretation of a general statutory and regulatory scheme relating to the approval of drugs for over-the-counter sale. The standards are the same for aspirin and for contraceptives. While the FDA properly recognizes that cognitive and behavioral differences undermine “the ability of adolescents to make reasoned decisions about engaging in sexual intercourse,” the standard for determining whether contraceptives or any other drug should be available over-the-counter turns solely on the ability of the consumer to understand how to use the particular drug “safely and effectively.” Ex. A-4 to Pls.’ 2007 Mot. for Summ. J. at T-31097, Case No. 05-cv-366, Doc. No. 235-5. I decide this case based only on my understanding of the applicable standard.

 See, this piece strikes at the heart of what I see as being a constitutional and conservative judicial ruling.  The decision is not about morality, because that is not the role of the courts!  The decision is about whether a political bureaucrat, in this case Kathleen Sebelius, can override statutory standards for determining whether drugs should be allowed over the counter based upon their own beliefs.  That answer should clearly be no.

See, we've gotten so used to judges arbitrating right and wrong, even as conservatives, we forget that's not their role.  If you don't like the statuettes, then vote!  The legislature should be where these decisions are decided, not the court room.  The FDA should apply the law that congress gives them.  Heaven help us, we know that doesn't happen enough right now, but that doesn't mean this court is wrong.  Conservatives should laud this decision, as a judge refusing to allow himself and a bureaucrat to supersede the law.


Note:  I'm not a lawyer, there's sure to be legal stuff I don't understand, and I wonder if I misconstrue something.

The GOP Death Spiral and How to Avert It.

First post in a long while, but I'm just mad.  This whole GOP autopsy thing has got me irritated.  The GOP RINOs and Bush-ites have got it in their head that the reason they lost is that people hate them.  Okay, sure, I can sort of go with that.  But the solution is wrong.  WRONG WRONG WRONG!  Steven Crowder did a video about the Fiscal Cliff arguments, and asked a bunch of self identified democrats about specific policy points, and they all supported the Republican side!  Many of them then ran scared when told they agreed with Republicans!  Well, good job guys.  You looked the fools, AND PEOPLE AGREED WITH YOU!

Okay, enough with the capslock.

Look, here's the way I see it.  The Republicans keep playing the Democrats game.  The 2012 election should have been about two things:  Obama's Handling of the Economy, and how Obama failed to handle the economy by his own standard of measure.  Did the GOP do that?  Heck no!  Democrats screamed "War on women!!!" and the Republicans dropped the economy and started insisting that they really like women, then made some gaffes that then became played over and over again in the media.  (side note: Akin was stupid, but others did stupid too.  But democrats defend their own, while GOP threw him under the bus.)  They lost because the Republicans let Democrats set the rules.

Well forget that!  Here's the rules we need to play by (note: sample, not exhaustive).  Conservatism is about loving the poor, progressivism is about enslaving them.  See, free market capitalism moves lots of people out of poverty into self-supporting wealth and even some into high levels of wealth.  And you know what a lot of wealthy people do?  Well, I'll let you take a guess. I hope you get my point.  Now, what about progressives?  Well, high points of progressivism would be, say, the New Deal?  Great Society?  Jimmy Carter?  All three of those lead to growth in the poor.  Oh, they gave them some nice things, say money and food stamps, but you know what happened?  They stayed poor, and now were the slaves to the government.  So, conservatism makes less people poor, and then helps those who are still poor.  On the other hand, progressivism talks about helping the poor, but really just makes more and more people poor?  I hope the GOP takes notes on all this.

See, here's the deal.  Whenever a GOP politician or conservative pundit is accused of hating the poor, they need to fire back with "What are you, insane?  I want poor people get rich.  You want to make more people poor then force them to depend on the government.  You hate the poor, not me.  I hate poverty."  Quit fighting on their terms!

Here's another one, racism.  It's really pretty easy.  When accused of being racist, simply tell them, "I don't believe in race, I believe in cultures."  When they start wondering what you mean follow up with, "You say you're for Latinos (as an example).  Do you mean to say the ones that work in agriculture in the country, blue collar in the city, white collar or what?  Do you mean first generation from El Salvador or do you mean the lady who doesn't remember any other country?"  If they try to say all of them, bam, perfect.  "So you're saying all Latinos are the same?  What sort of racist are you?"  We don't need to play identity politics, we need to reveal the idiocy of it.  In my experience, the African-American kid and the Caucasian kid in North Kansas City have a lot more in common due to an overlapping culture than either them do with a kid in rural Alabama of either race.  But that's not what racial identity politics forces on us, so don't play that game!

See, we as conservatives believe in individual liberty, with the government acting as a modest restraint in providing order and rule of law.  We ally nicely with libertarians on a number of issues, we just get a little nervous as they sound borderline anarchic at times.  We believe that you, as a person, know more about what's better than you than a bureaucrat   But do they say that?  Heck no.  They argue over how they don't hate women because they don't want your boss to have to pay for birth control?  Why talk about it that way?  Why aren't they screaming, "Why do you want women to have to depend upon the whims of a bureaucrat, a faceless person they will never meet, to decide whether they can get birth control?  Why do you want to run her life?  At least all an employer can do is not pay her, or at worse make her find another job!  The government doesn't go away because you leave town."  What would that do to the dialogue?  Why isn't it that the discussion is about how the Democrats want a government agent to be part of your health care decisions?  That's what they are doing.

Please, if any politician is reading this, please take this fight to heart.  You need to stop being reactive, and start taking conservatism forward as a champion of the little people.  Hang the albatross of pro-big business, oligarchy of intellectuals, sacrificing the little man around the neck of liberals.