Mandatory Safe Sex III

Today our political supermen here in Texas, namely the House of Representatives, voted to prevent Governor Rick Perry from enacting his order for mandatory vaccination of 6th grade girls for the sexually transmitted HPV virus. See previous post.

This proposal goes nowhere unless the Senate concurs, which they may not, but in either case it doesn't matter. All Perry has to do is veto the bill and the legislature will be powerless to stop him. Theoretically they can overrule his veto, but unless the Senate moves quickly (good luck on that!) the session will expire and the legislature won't be back to consider an override for another two years. (We have a rather strange system here in Texas. Getting the legislature out of town as fast as possible usually serves us well, but it may backfire this time.)

Meanwhile, Merck's lobbying effort is bearing fruit in New Mexico and Virginia, which are close to passing similar requirements to inject all young girls with $400 doses of Gardisil.

In an earlier post I pointed out that unlike chicken pox and other such childhood diseases, there is zero risk of HPV being spread in the classroom unless the students are having sex there. I wonder if these kids were vaccinated?

Don't Ask, Do Tell

Marine General Peter Pace is in hot water for saying in a press interview this week that he believes homosexual acts are immoral. Predictably, the left-wing blogosphere and mainstream media went into convulsions of rage.

I guess General Pace missed that part of the Constitution. Here's the rule: everyone has an absolute right to insert their private parts into whatever place they can find, as long as the owner of that place consents. To dare question the wisdom - much less the morality - of any such acts is high treason and anyone who does so must be immediately destroyed.

What people are missing is that the general's statement came in the context of supporting the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that was declared by President Clinton in 1993. It was what he said next that got him in trouble:

"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."

Note that General Pace did not say homosexual people are immoral or in any way undesirable. No, he focused on the acts they may commit. There is no allegation that he has in any way done anything improper to gay people. All he has done is enforce the policy that a Democratic president ordered. This is what generals are supposed to do: execute the orders of the president. Their own opinions may differ.

Nevertheless, even some so-called conservatives are outraged that a Marine would have such an opinion:

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., one of Congress' most respected authorities on military matters and a former Navy secretary, said, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

Let's consider this statement. First of all, the Senator is misstating what the General said. As noted above, his comment was directed at homosexual acts, not the condition of homosexuality. Second, what is the Senator's basis for his belief? The view that homosexual acts are immoral comes from thousands of years of natural law and the scriptures of all major religions. It is shared by a large part of our society. If the Senator wishes to disagree, surely he has some reasoning more than his own personal opinion. Do we really want a society where all morality is in the mind of the beholder?

For example, in the same interview the general said adultery is also immoral. Does Senator Warner think adultery is immoral? If so, how can he consistently say that adultery is wrong by homosex isn't?

Do we see adulterers rising up to complain that they are being discriminated against? Do they have their own lobbying groups? No. Why not? Because most people who commit adultery still have, deep down, some sense of shame. They know their behavior is immoral.

General Pace has now "clarified" his statement. He did not apologize; he simply said he was wrong to state his personal opinion while performing official business. We'll see if this is enough to calm the furor. I'm guessing it will not. The gay lobby will not rest until it has his head on a platter, and with so many other problems I won't be surprised if the Bush Administration throws him to the wolves.

An Agonizing Choice

Here is a very distressing story from close to home. A 16-month-old baby at Children's Hospital in Austin is suffering from a rare conditions that doctors say is hopeless. He is currently kept alive only by a respirator. The mother wants treatment to continue. The hospital intends to turn off the respirator if no other hospital can be found to take the child.

This is a very difficult situation. The salient question is whether there is any hope of recovery. I've never heard of this particular disease, but it sounds like the physicians all agree it will be fatal eventually. Unlike this case, they have been able to examine the child extensively before reaching conclusions.

On the other hand, life itself is a fatal disease. We are all born with a death sentence hanging over our heads - a sentence that will be executed at a time and in a manner of God's choice, not our own. This is why when we have to choose, our default answer should always be in favor of life.

Yet when prolonged life involves intense pain and suffering, the continued use of extraordinary means like respirators at some point becomes worse than the alternative. I'm speculating here, but it sounds like the mother in this case is having difficulty accepting that there is no hope for her baby. The article says she is single so she may not have much family support.

A couple of other factors are also interesting. First, it appears that no other hospitals are willing to accept the child. I would think, even if the mother is destitute and on welfare, that if there were any signs of a possible recovery that some hospital, somewhere, would agree to help. The fact that this isn't happening suggests the doctors are correct.

Furthermore, Children's Hospital is part of the Seton Healthcare Network, a Catholic charity. Not all Catholic groups are consistently pro-life but in the past Seton has held firm with church teaching about life issues, even at enormous financial cost. I suspect they are trying to do so in this case as well.

So it sounds like this baby will die, and sadly that is probably the best thing. He will then be delivered from his pain in a way human medicine cannot achieve. The mother will grieve as Mary did at the foot of the Cross.

Yet Mary saw her Son alive again. So too will this mother see little Emilio again, freed from the machines and cords that bind him to this life. May God grant her peace until then.

UPDATE: Emilio gets a reprieve.

The Doctor Said "Oops"

Here is the situation. A woman becomes pregnant. Ultrasound scans revealed that the baby had a malformed esophagus, a very difficult abnormality but one that can sometimes be repaired after birth. The woman decided to have an abortion at 22 weeks.

The aborted baby's heart was still beating when it came out. In a remarkable turnaround, the physician instantly changed roles from executioner to healer and began trying to save the baby's life. Sadly, a brain hemorrhage caused by the aborted abortion makes this child's survival very unlikely.

Even more sadly, the now-delivered baby was found not to have the defect that led the mother to have an abortion in the first place. The ultrasound reading was interpreted incorrectly.

All this really happened in Florence, Italy last month. Let us pray the Lord takes this child into His arms, and that the mother somehow finds peace.

Ultrasound is a wonderful technology but far from foolproof. You know how it goes: you get the little picture of a bunch of blobs, and the doctor points to some dots and says "those are fingers." Because it is a doctor saying this, we believe it. That belief cost this child his life.

Prenatal testing is now being used eugenically to create "designer" babies of the desired gender and health condition. Those babies who are deemed less than desirable are simply destroyed. This is alarmingly common in the United States when amniocentesis indicates Down's Syndrome in the child.

Raising a child with a disability is a huge sacrifice. Yet many parents gladly do so, and there are even lists of people who are willing to adopt such children. There is no need to destroy them. They should be honored.

Even more disturbing: where does this logic end? If it makes sense to kill people with defects before they are born, why not do it after they are born? We could save all kinds of time and money for society by just rounding up all the people with Down's Syndrome and euthanizing them. Why don't we?

Someday, this will happen. Here in America, it will happen, and instead of being horrified we will accept it. Even now we are being slowly prepared with new definitions of "life." Guess what: eventually, the new definition will hit close to home. By then it will be too late.

Does this thought horrify you? Good. Start doing something about it.

Sisterly Love Saga

Last month I discussed the strange events in the Delta Zeta sorority at DePauw University. The mood there appears not to have improved.

The national office of Delta Zeta continues to deny any intent to purge its DePauw chapter of unattractive females, but they are having a hard time getting anyone to believe them. On March 1st they decided to decline further media contacts, perhaps because every story that appeared was negative.

Meanwhile the DePauw administration is fighting back against the DZ actions. Read about it here.

This whole fight is minor in comparison to the larger challenges we face, but I think it's interesting and amusing. It also reveals a few things about the political environment on college campuses, which is important because that is where the attitudes of young people are formed.

Ann Coulter Too Far?

By now you have probably heard about Ann Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in connection with Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. Anyone who watches cable news is accustomed to her political bomb-throwing. It is how she makes her living.

It hurts me to say this because I usually find Ms. Coulter very entertaining, but I think she went too far this time. It is quite possible to present the truth forcefully, and humorously, without using language that hurts people. Ann herself does it all the time. Why she chose to cross the line this time is a mystery.

The real question is whether statements like this help or hurt the cause of truth? While it is safe to assume that the audience at CPAC did not include very many Edwards supporters, the media was abundantly present and all the speakers knew their words would be national news. Now, did Ann Coulter's speech convince any Edwards supporters to reconsider? Did any young liberals say "you know, maybe she's right, this guy is kind of swishy. Let's take a look at Mitt Romney?" I don't think so.

Conversely, were any conservatives on the fence about whether they liked Edwards? Was it really necessary to convince the CPAC audience not to support him? No, not at all. Now there might have been value in exposing the vacuity of Edwards policy positions. That would have been better than the personal attack. But it's not what Ms. Coulter did.

So what do statements like this really accomplish? They serve mainly as entertainment. Ann Coulter gets paid well to make speeches like this, just as actors and athletes make big bucks with their own skills. That's fine for Ms. Coulter's bank account, but let's not kid ourselves about it being helpful to the cause. It's not.

The controversy also served to give Edwards a new fund-raising pitch. Whatever motivational value there may have been for conservatives in this will be offset by equal motivation on the other side. We all got a good laugh out of it. Otherwise, it's a wash.

Ms. Coulter drops bombs like this periodically and after some initial controversy always comes back as strong as ever. She will probably do so again this time. Someday she will go too far and not be able to recover. It may already be starting. That will be a shame because she can be a powerful, effective voice for conservative causes. I hope she will reconsider and return to the amusing and incisive style that originally brought her to fame.