March 20, 2009

Liberal Wing Nuts and the Folks Who Love Them

The Umbilical Overlords

When you were a kid, did you ever hear your mom say something like, “Go get it yourself…I am not your slave…”? Well, that may not have been entirely true. According to Dawn Johnsen, a mother is in fact a slave to the helpless fetus in her womb. The fetus “…requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest”. Since the “state’s asserted interest” is presumably the well being (ie. survival) of the child, the pregnant mothers are also slaves to the State - their bodies “conscripted” and “…no more than fetal containers.”

Dawn Johnsen

You might be wondering, how exactly does this vicious slavery happen? By Johnsen’s reckoning, any laws which place restrictions on public funding of abortion would be enough to shackle a woman to the chains of motherhood. Without taxpayer funded abortion counseling, for instance, women would not receive “proper information about contraception…” and would therefore “(not)… be said to have a meaningful opportunity to avoid pregnancy.” These women having ignorance forced upon them, as well as all “losers in the contraceptive lottery”, would have a pregnancy which would be in effect a “forced pregnancy”. Such forced pregnancies violate the Thirteenth Amendment, which as we know, prohibits slavery.

Worse than punishment? Slavery?
Womb: Half empty of full?

Normally, such ridiculous Left-wing logic would not be any more than a curiosity to me but Dawn Johnsen happens to be Obama’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. So in addition to his recent nomination of tax cheats and scoundrels (Killefer, Geithner, Daschle) comes this Clinton Administration rerun. In fact, Dawn Johnsen was the acting Assistant Attorney General for the last two of the five years she spent in the OLC during the Clinton years. What was that campaign promise about “change we can believe in" and no more "politics as usual"?

In an office which is served best by moderation, Obama chose to nominate an extremist. Johnsen’s resume includes legal director of National Abortion Rights Action League ( NARAL) where she opposed any restrictions on abortion such as waiting periods or parental consent. (It is interesting to me that we have waiting periods for handguns and parental consent requirements for tattoos - but Johnsen doesn't believe unborn children deserve such consideration.)


It was during her tenure for the NARAL that she proposed her half-baked Thirteenth Amendment fetal slave-driver theory in a Supreme Court brief (Webster v. Reproductive Health Services). Naturally, the court could not take her argument seriously and Johnsen attempts to downplay it today. In fairness, the position was a footnote in the brief but it is consistent with her many public statements during her career, it is indicative of her true core character and is ludicrous none the less.
More recently, Johnsen spent a great deal of time during the Bush Administration criticizing most of his anti-terrorism policies and the expansion of presidential powers. It was, fortunately for her, these policies which have prevented a repeat of the 911 attacks – keeping the country safe for wackos like her to reach high offices. Should we face another domestic terrorist attack, I wonder if she would be as critical of Obama expanding his powers.

Daphne Eviatar

As of today, Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation will be heading to the Senate. The Judiciary Committee vote of 11-7 offered no surprises in that it fell along party lines. It is also not surprising that the media covers the hearings with their usual bias. Daphne Eviatar, of the Washington Independent, is a 'reporter' typical of the liberal dominated media machine. In Eviatar's recent article, questioning of Johnsen by concerned Judiciary Committee members becomes, “Johnsen has otherwise been getting beaten up for her past criticisms…” I suppose that asking a liberal to explain themselves is equal to a physical assault (how dare you question my intentions using my actual words!). That’s almost as nutty as…well… equating motherhood with slavery.

In another article, Daphne Eviatar quotes Johnsen lying to the Judiciary Committee about the 13th Amendment contention of her Webster v. Reproductive Health Services brief. She even admits that Johnsen’s response to a question regarding her argument was “pretty muddled”.Yet she defends the slavery argument by writing that Johnsen was, “just being a little creative,” and it was her job “…to fight legal restrictions on abortion rights.” Eviatar, with the moral flexibility common to liberals,then asserts that Johnsen’s past position and present mumblings don’t really matter anyways. If you say so, Daphne!

The one thing everyone agrees on is that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to be an office that functions with impartiality. “…The role of the OLC director is not to advocate for any particular position,” Eviatar writes of Johnsen’s beliefs, “but to present the executive branch with a fair and impartial reading of the law.” She is totally convinced that Dawn Johnsen will be capable of being “impartial”.This is why, incidentally, Eviatar thinks that Johnsen's theories or admitting to them doesn't really matter. We should trust her sincerity - this least about her promise of impartiality when she is eventually nominated for the OLC position. Hm...
But I have to wonder… if this was a nominee who had equally radical, but pro-life views, would Eviatar and the rest of the liberal media be so willing to take that kind of chance?


related articles:


Add to  Technorati Favorites

No comments: