The Politics of Protest

Across the nation, protests continued over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigration. Protesters with nothing to fear and nothing to lose from the new law took to the streets from Maine to California. The law makes it illegal to be in Arizona illegally. Being in the country illegally is already a violation of federal law.

Many are angered by the problematic nature of enforcing the law which they say will unfairly target Hispanics. Arizona has already made changes to the law to ease those concerns. Authorities will be restricted from using race or ethnicity as a basis for checking immigration status. Furthermore, checking immigration status will be in line with normal police procedure, the checking of a person's status can only be subsequent to police questioning. It cannot be the basis for it. Nevertheless, opponents of the law are not mollified. They have little faith in the police to adhere to the guidelines. They claim that the new law will lead to racial profiling. Groups across the nation have called for a boycott of all things Arizona. Some in Congress are calling on Major League Baseball to move its All Star Game from Arizona where it is scheduled to be played in 2011. According to former state senator Alfredo Gonzales, the goal of the boycott is to "is to as quickly as possible bring a shocking stop to the economy of Arizona." This from a person who once swore to serve the state he now seeks to undermine.

Many are also upset in the audacity of Arizona to pass such a law. They are outraged that Arizona has acted to put a stop to illegal immigration. Arizona state Representative Ed Ableser scoffed at Arizona's attempt to curb illegal immigration claiming that Arizona's move has "raised the bar on the definition of crazy and ridiculous."

The new law is popular in Arizona. In fact, 47% of Hispanics in Arizona support the measure. Arizona is one of the states most affected by the burdens and costs of illegal immigration. Some estimate that at present there are 283,000 illegal immigrants residing in Arizona. Others put the number as high as 500,000. More arrive every day. Arizona has a population of only 6.6 million so the number is more keenly felt than it would be elswhere. The growing rate of illegal immigration reflects not immigration so much as migration. Despite the common argument that illegal immigration is a boon to the U.S., The Federation for Immigration Reform estimates that the the net loss to Arizona from illegal immigration is $1.3 billion a year. It represents a household burden of $700 per natural born resident, regardless of ethnicity. One hospital near the Mexican border reported that its Emergency Room costs for treating illegal immigrants rose from $40,000 to $350,000 over the last four years.

People nationwide who are not affected in the least by the new law are clamoring for its repeal. For them it is a matter of principal. They object to immigration laws in general and see them as unfair and biased towards Mexicans. The fact that Swedes, Russians, Brazilians, and Malaysians are also subject to the new law is entirely lost on them. For them, any person who is able to sneak into the country has a right to be here. Every one who already resides in the U.S. illegally has a right to be here as well. Any attempt to curb illegal immigration or enforce the law is an abridgment of that right.

The zealousness and spite of pro immigration groups was on display in many of the protests. Demonstrators waved Mexican flags and shouted insults and obscenities at those they suspected of harboring contrary views: always a sure fire method of attracting sympathy for the cause. The anger of the protesters reflects a disdain for democracy. They rarely tolerate views contrary to their own. When their goals are thwarted they quickly turn to throwing tantrums and abusing those who disagree with them. They have little respect or patience for the legislative process. They know what they want and they want it now. They cannot understand how there can be principled opposition to their point of view. They suspect all opposition to be based on prejudice, ignorance, and selfishness. If they can gather enough people and yell loud enough, they expect the opposition to yield. If the state house refuses their demands, they turn to the courts. Appealing to voters is usually a last resort.

It is becoming more and more common for people to refuse to accept a loss. The new law in Arizona was passed with the support of majority of the people in Arizona. If the opponents of the new law can gather enough voters to elect enough legislators to change the law, they can do so. It is the nature of politics that some people always lose. It is also the nature of politics that no loss is ever permanent: unless, of course, courts are relied upon for victory. Supporters of untrammeled immigration lost in Arizona and people are upset. They do not like to lose. No one does. But because they lost in the statehouse, they are free to make their case in the next election. In the mean time they are obliged to obey the law.

When passion is high, some people are quick resort to the politics of protest. They rely on coercion to achieve their goals. Such methods are a danger to democracy. They want to punish the people of Arizona for adopting a law they object to. They are willing to damage the economy of Arizona as revenge for it passing a law they oppose. They threaten to do the same to any state that seeks to limit illegal immigration. Activists and protesters are trying to force Arizona to repeal the law. They are threatening to do everything they can to harm Arizona and any other state that adopts similar laws. They have little interest in what the voters in Arizona or elsewhere want. This is democracy as they understand it.

Batman on the Job.

In a bold move, President Obama announced that he had named Batman as Special Envoy. Bat Man's first stop was Cuba where he will try to improve relations between Washington and its long time adversary. "We have decided to see what we can do about mending our relationship with Havana" said one administration official. There was no word on what would be discussed in the talks. Bat Man's next stop is the Middle East where it is hoped he will be able to make progress on many of the thorny issues the U.S. faces in the region. According to an unnamed source in Washington, "Bat Man can be very persuasive. People listen to Batman. People respect Batman. He is a valuable asset to the United States. Nobody pushes the Bat Man around."

Cuban leaders in the U.S. welcomed the move. "If Washington had sent anyone else, we never would have agreed to the talks. We know the Batman is honest and fair. He can be counted on to do the right thing."

Oops. They thought it was dead.

Recently, a fetus in Italy that had been removed from its host was discovered not to be a fetus at all, but a baby. It was a baby because it was alive. A priest was praying over the recently discarded tissue when, to his shock, he noticed it was alive. He quickly notified hospital staff who tended to the infant they had recently, and unsuccessfully, tried to kill. Not only did the infant survive the abortion attempt, it stayed alive for another 20 hours. Despite the efforts of hospital staff, and the resiliency of the newborn baby, the abortion was ultimately successful. The infant died.

The fetus had been aborted at 22 weeks. Italian law allows abortion up until 20 weeks. Fetal tissue can be removed past 22 weeks if it is deemed necessary to the health of its host. Italian authorities are looking into the matter. It is being investigated as possible manslaughter. If it is shown that the aborted fetus was not in fact a fetus, but a child, charges could be filed. According to authorities, if nothing else, "we are dealing with a very grave case of abandonment."

What is of note is how the fetus came to be a child. Nothing had changed about the fetus. It was physiologically the same as it was when it was in its mother's womb. Essentially, the only thing that had changed was its location. It is almost as if the fetus was magically transformed into a child once it had been shifted 18 inches or so from inside the mother to outside. Development and viability often have less to do with the distinction than where the fetal matter happens to be at the moment.

This is not the only case in which fetal tissue survives the attempt to remove it. There are other cases. It is an interesting phenomenon. When abortions go wrong, sometimes the result is a baby. Modifying abortion laws would easily take care of the matter. It would simply be a matter of extending the legal definition of what a fetus is to include recently removed fetal tissue, whether it is functioning or not. No need to be squeamish. It is not as if we are killing babies.

If authorities are unsuccessful in their attempts to bring charges against the hospital, they should at least charge the physician who attempted the abortion with malpractice. What kind of doctor cannot kill a baby?

Too Much Information

In Oklahoma on Tuesday, the state legislature voted to override the governor's veto of two abortion bills. Among other things, one of the new laws will require doctors to perform an ultrasound and require the patient be provided with a description of the fetus and the procedure that will be used to remove it. The governor evidently believes the measure provides too much information for the patient to have to listen to. The governor's action seems to be based on the assumption that the more information the patient has about an abortion, the more difficult will be the decision to get one. Abortion rights groups are already moving to challenge the law: a curious move.

The reason this is curious is that it is a general assumption that the more information a patient has concerning a medical procedure, the better that patient will be able to decide whether to undergo it. Typically, a patient about to undergo a medical procedure is given a detailed description of the procedure that will be used and what it is hoped will be result. If, for example, a tumor was to be removed or a knee repaired, the doctor would describe the nature of the procedure and explain how he was going to go about it. Where x-rays are useful in explaining the problem, they are shown to the patient. Very few patients would refuse to look at x-rays or decline information offered by a doctor as to what is going to be done to them and what is hoped to be achieved by it. Indeed, many doctors would be considered negligent if they failed to provide information and options to the patient. The patient might decline to listen to the doctor or refuse to look at x-rays, but the information is provided.

Yet in Oklahoma, the governor decided that providing information about the procedure of getting an abortion and what would be involved would be too much for a patient to have to listen to. Some seem to think that if women are informed in any detail regarding the procedure of abortion they might be disinclined to get one. Even if this is true, why this should upset pro choice advocates is a mystery. The Oklahoma law will do nothing to undermine the stated goals of abortion advocates to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will not be made any less legal or safe by the law. It might make it more rare. Unless abortion advocates believe that ignorance, willful or otherwise, is necessary if abortion is to survive, their opposition to the measure is unjustified. If the proponents of choice believe that information works to their disadvantage, they should reassess the merits of their beliefs. It is a rare case indeed when information is seen as an obstacle to be avoided.