A Right to Ignorance

On Tuesday, a federal court struck down much of Texas's new abortion sonogram law. The court concluded that it is unconstitutional to compel women to listen to information regarding abortion that isn't "medically relevant and that they (patients) don't wish to hear." The ruling was heralded as a victory for doctors and women. Under the ruling, doctors are no longer required to provide medical information deemed unnecessary to the termination of the pregnancy. Texas officials have made it known that they intend to appeal the ruling.

The ire directed towards the new abortion law is based on the objection that the law unfairly compels physicians to collect information regarding a medical procedure, namely by performing a sonogram, and places too great an onus on women contemplating getting that procedure by requiring them to listen to it. It is asserted that women have the right to request and receive an abortion with as little information about the procedure as necessary. Essentially, they simply need to know where the clinic is and what time it opens.

The debate over the abortion law is an anomaly. No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment with as little information collected or provided as possible. Indeed, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering it. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Most often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. She knows she she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. She does not need an x-ray to tell her she are pregnant. What she might not know, and what she may not want to know, are the details. She simply wants to be rid of the problem with a little muss or fuss as possible.

Abortion has always been a psychologically difficult medical procedure to contemplate. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that occur after an abortion is received. Many women suffer from depression and remorse in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with details will only make a difficult decision even more difficult. There is concern that many women will forgo obtaining an abortion if they are required to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to confront the details of what she is seeking. She might conclude that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she anticipated. She might even have second thoughts about getting an abortion if she learns all of what it involves.

Why any of that should disturb abortion rights advocates escapes me. If the law is allowed to stand abortion will be no less safe or legal. It might become more rare. Hasn't that been the stated goal of abortion advocates from the beginning? Or have they really meant that abortion should be safe, legal, and easy?

If information is the enemy of abortion, what does that say about its allies?

Good News and Bad News

There was good news and bad news in Washington today. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that over the next ten years annual budget deficits will shrink by $3.3 trillion. The bad news is that, despite the savings, the annual budget deficits are predicted to total roughly $3.5 trillion over the next decade. The debt now stands at $14.6 trillion. Even if the deficit shrinks according to CBO predictions, it is expected that the debt will increase by $8.5 trillion over those same ten years. Deficits aren't really a problem. Borrowing money is painless. It is paying off debt that hurts.

Many in Washington, particularly those in the White House, are no doubt pleased by the news. It is proof that they are effectively addressing the situation. Their steps to reduce the deficit are working, or at least are predicted to work (you never know if you will need another bail out or stimulus package). Of course, the news is only good news if you ignore the larger situation and simply consider less of a deficit a good thing. It is predicted, I would say it is certain, that massive federal spending will continue unabated. Cuts will be made and savings will be found but they will in no way be sufficient to stop the financial bleeding. The debt will continue to go up. As the debt goes up the costs of carrying that debt will go up. Interest on the debt cost the U.S. $202 billion last year. Even in Washington that is a lot of money.

If the CBO predictions are borne out we are still looking at yearly deficits of nearly $350 billion over the next decade. That is not good news. The debt is the real problem, not deficits. Deficits can be easily, if painfully, taken care of. The government is perfectly capable of passing a balanced budget. They are simply unwilling to. The reason they are unwilling to is that it would amount to collective political suicide. That is why the debt will continue to go up.

There is a third way to address deficits apart from raising taxes or cutting spending. That is to hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. That option is nearly as bad to elected officials as the first two. While not quite as bad as cutting spending or raising taxes, it would mean saying no to interest groups and voters.

The debt is an economic issue, but it above all else a political issue. It is the politics of spending that drive the problem. Politicians like to spend. Arguably, they need to spend if they want to be reelected. They are compelled to support spending desired by their constituents. It is the very nature of their job. They are also driven by ego. They want libraries with their name on it. The want the gratitude of their constituents. They want the grandeur of being responsible bridges, harbors, and highways. They want history to know who they were and what they have done. The rely on the largess of government to achieve those ends. Getting Johnny a recommendation to West Point or a smoothing over a constituent's social security problem is no longer enough. Projects are needed. Money must be distributed.

Any solution to the debt crisis will involve members of Congress telling their constituents how much more they will have to pay, what they cannot have, and worse, what they will lose. That is the real problem behind addressing the debt. The vanity and ego of politicians only contributes to it.

So, the good news out of Washington is that deficits are likely to decrease. The bad news is that they are not going to disappear. Even if the economy rebounds, unless there is a dramatic increase in revenue or a historical cut in spending, the debt is going to continue going up: just more slowly than anticipated. I suppose less of a bad thing can be a good thing if you look at it just the right way.

Love is Blind

Governor Rick Perry is hot on the campaign trail. Speaking to enthusiastic crowds, Perry is fine tuning his message and honing it to a sharp edge. Recently, Perry gave a speech in which he said the American people are in search not of a candidate who loves America, but "is in love with America." We can infer from that speech that Perry is in love with America. Anyone not completely caught up in Perry's rhetoric should be disturbed. I know I am.

I, for one, do not want a president, or any politician for that matter, who is in love with America. I want a person who is responsible, thoughtful, pragmatic, and flexible enough to handle the challenges our nation faces, and will face in the future. I want a president who is motivated by principal, not passion. I want a president who will be able to reflect coolly on issues, calmly gather facts, and reach decisions through deliberation. I do not want a president motivated by desire and animated by emotion. I want a president who is faithful to the Constitution and understands his responsibilities under it, not a president in pursuit of the nation's adulation or a place in history. I want a president who will do what he thinks is right for the nation, not what he thinks will make the nation happy or garner its affection. I do not want a president with a vision. I want a president with a clear grasp of things and his feet planted firmly on the ground.

I want such a president whether I agree with what he does does or not. America should want that too. You cannot persuade emotion. You can not reason with it. You cannot negotiate with it. A president who acts on principal and out of duty is a man with whom one can discuss issues and reach agreement. A president who would act out of emotion or in pursuit of an ideal is a dangerous man who will follow his heart, even if it leads to ruin.

America more than ever needs a clear headed chief executive who is willing to risk the ire of a nation accustomed to being flattered and getting its own way. America needs a leader who will tell the public that it cannot, and should not, always get what it wants. America needs someone who will tell the people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. In short, America needs a president. It does not need a lover.

I live in Texas and have voted Republican in every presidential election since I came of age. Perry is starting to make even me nervous. Many will brush off Perry's statement as just a throw away line in a stump speech. They shouldn't. Perry is running to be President of the United States. He is trying to send a message. We should pay attention to what he says, even if he doesn't.

A Brave New World

Over the years scientists have been working diligently to unlock the secrets of human genes. They have already discovered thousands of genes related to physical biology and appearance. Recently, scientists discovered that there are over 1,000 genes affecting human intelligence alone. They do not have the puzzle solved. They do not even have all the pieces. What they do have is the awareness that human intelligence is at least in part the product of genetic make up. They also have the determination to solve that puzzle.

It has been learned that the relationship between genes and intelligence is a complicated one. The hundreds, if not thousands of genes that affect human intelligence work in a complex fashion that will take a great deal of time and effort to unravel. Nevertheless, the field has been advancing steadily over the years and optimism is high. Researchers are enthusiastic about the future. As scientific method improves and data accumulates more and more of human biology will become comprehensible to scientists. That comprehension will eventually lead to knowledge. Knowledge will inevitably lead to manipulation, and therein lies the problem.

While the field has been heralded, and rightly so, for the promise it holds in improving the lives of people suffering from genetic disorders, it also has a dark side. Genetic testing has the potential to evolve into a method for manipulating the appearance, aptitude, and abilities of human beings, if only through selection. If intelligence can be determined before birth, who will settle for a child of average intelligence, let alone low intelligence? I suspect few parents, certainly those who could afford genetic testing, would be satisfied with a child of modest height, a precarious genetic make up, or with a tilt towards obesity if they get the choice.

If my concerns seem overly dramatic, I would like to point out another recent development in the news. A new blood test has been developed that allows the sex of a child to be determined as early as seven weeks into gestation. That discovery was also heralded as great progress. According to the report in the Dallas Morning News the test will "lead to to more widespread use by parents concerned about gender-linked diseases and those who are merely curious, as well as people considering the more ethically controversial step of selecting the sex of their child." Such a test would be eagerly welcomed in places like China where parents have a keen interest in the gender of their child.

We are now able to determine the sex of developing child. We have already developed tests that can identify genetic and physical disorders and will soon be able to know much more. We are on the thresh hold of identifying physical and intellectual potential before birth. If we can get a handle on manipulating genes a whole new horizon will open up: it could someday be possible to design people.

If physiological characteristics can be discerned before birth, who would embrace a handicapped child or a child of low physical potential? What parents aspire to have average children? If intelligence can be determined before birth, who would choose to have a child of substandard intellect? Chances are no one would. But if the day comes where selection is possible, will we have a society, perhaps even a world, populated by smart and physically adept human beings? If that day comes, who will work in the factories? Who will harvest our crops? Who will pave our roads? We cannot have a society made up exclusively of Alphas. We will need Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons too. (Well, maybe not Epsilons. That is what immigration is for.) Fortunately, genetic screening will likely be expensive and beyond the reach of most people, genetic engineering even more so. That should ensure a steady supply of workers and provide a supporting cast.

If my concerns seem exaggerated I suggest one look to China where biological selection is already at work. For some time, the image of "1984" has haunted our society. Now we have "A Brave New World" to consider. The new discoveries in genetics will not allow us to design people, at least not yet, but it will give us an ability to genetically screen people before they are born. We may not be able to design the people we want any time soon but we will have taken a significant step towards being able to identify the people we don't want. When you think about it, that is almost the same thing.

Maybe He Means It

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been in the press quite a bit lately. Most recently he attended a prayer rally called "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis" at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Evangelicals were there in abundance. No doubt that is why Perry was there. In addition to the unease any appeal to prayer by a public figure generally causes, the presence of many religious groups on the margins of society distinguished the event out as one of particular concern. Evangelicals such as John Hagee, known for his declaration that Hurricane Katrina was an act of divine vengeance and that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" and groups like the International House of Prayer (not to be confused with the International House of Pancakes) whose leader, Mike Bikel, has called for a campaign of "spiritual warfare" against abortion and gay marriage were there. The list of speakers was long and troublesome one. Perry's presence at the conference raised eyebrows among many Republicans. Some are questioning why Perry, an early front runner for the Republican nomination, would seek to divert attention away from the economic crisis in Washington by attending a controversial prayer conference. All evidence indicates that the economy will be the major issue in the next presidential election.

Pundits, as well as many GOP political brokers, are shaking their heads. It is difficult to fathom why Perry would seek to carve out a place so far to the right and plant his flag so firmly on social issues when it is not necessary to do so.
With all the turmoil in the Middle East and the painstaking negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, is it helpful for Perry to quote Scripture and declare that God gave Israel to the Jews? With all the technical and scientific deficiencies plaguing our public schools, shouldn't he give the issue more thought than to argue that creationism should be taught along side evolution? With so many other issues facing the nation, why would Perry seek to make a stand on moral issues, particularly issues likely to be divisive in the extreme?

Perry's appeal to evangelicals is counterproductive given the economic challenges the nation is facing. Perry has a strong economic platform to run on and no challenger to the right of him. To invoke divine guidance and rail against abortion and same sex marriage threatens to polarize an electorate increasingly united in its unease at the current state of affairs. Moreover, it serves to detract from Obama's growing vulnerability by giving him the opportunity to pose as a bulwark of moderation and reason, if not sanity, in the face of religious mania. The farther to the right Perry runs the closer to the center Obama will appear.

I do not understand what Perry is seeking to gain in his fundamentalist fervency. He has little to gain from it and much to lose. His conservative credentials are already impressive. I, like many political observers, have been inclined to see Perry's actions as some sort of political maneuvering. But it might not be maneuvering at all. Perry might sincerely believe that we can petition the Lord to come to our aid in our time of need and that God will continue to bless the U.S. as a light unto the world only so long as we uphold our covenant with Him. If that is the case, I wish him luck and would suggest he get himself a good agent. I see a job as a commentator on the FOX network in his future.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

President Obama is asking vigorously for an increase in the debt limit that is threatening to bring the United States to a halt, and perhaps fiscal ruin. The House is proving resistant to his demands. The president is promising to make cuts in order to reduce future deficits. Republicans are reluctant to accept Obama's word. They want real cuts now as a condition for signing off on raising the debt limit. All the while, the clock is ticking. It will go off on August 2nd.

Raising the debt limit will not solve any problems. It will get us past the immediate crisis but it will just make the future budget problems all the more difficult. Moreover, whatever spending cuts are made to get the measure passed will almost certainly be contested, as will any concessions made, when the next budget is put forward. Even if the Republicans succeed magnificently in their plans to cut spending, a balanced budget will remain elusive. The deficit and, much worse, the debt will remain regardless of what is agreed upon in Washington and it is the debt that is the real problem. It is because of the debt that we had to pay $164 billion in interest last year. It is because of the debt that we are having this discussion today. As of June this year, the U.S. national debt totalled $14.46 trillion. Unless the U.S. does something about the debt, the spending problem in Washington will never go away. Every year the government will have to set aside over $150 billion off the top of whatever it takes in just to make payments. Even if the government gets back into the black, payments will have to be made and interest will have to be paid. That will make any black ink that might arise more difficult to maintain and less than it would have been otherwise.

Amid the discussion over raising the debt limit is the plight of those who rely on government spending for their well being. They are the ones most at risk. They are at one end of the budget debate. Financial ruin is at the other. You can be assured that the debt limit will be raised. Even the most doctrinaire republican will not bring the country to ruin or cast people into the street in order to protect a principal. The only question is what it will take to garner GOP support.

There is no way to address the debt unless we can rid ourselves of deficits. By raising the debt limit we only make deficits more likely and as a result make future more perilous. In seeking to avert present pain we are assuring future pain that likely will be much worse. By borrowing money we have no hope of paying off any time soon we are robbing the future. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are robbing our children in order to cover our expenses. As important as the deficit and meeting our current obligations are, the debt is the larger problem. Every dollar added to the debt is a dollar that will demand interest. Every dollar paid in interest will be one less dollar our children will have to spend as the debt is carried forward.