Thoughts on The First Amendment

There are two problems with the recent outrage over kneeling sports figures: The first is ignorance, and the second is hypocrisy.

Ignorance, because I don’t know how anyone who understands The First Amendment to our Constitution could criticize any citizen for a peaceful protest. The very reason that amendment is there is for the protection of all thoughts and speech, regardless of our personal opinions.

 Abbie Hoffman said, “You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.”

Or, if you don’t trust Abby, how about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who described First Amendment rights as, “not (just) free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

My favorite example of defending the rights of our citizens to express thoughts that we hate occurred when the ACLU defended the rights of an American Nazi group to stage a rally in Skokie, IL in 1978. At that time, the population of Skokie was about 40% Jewish, including over 600 survivors of concentration camps. The ACLU won the case in the IL Supreme Court, and the ACLU lawyers, many of whom were Jewish, got to go to Thanksgiving Dinners with their families and explain to their Bubbes why their love of the Constitution trumps defending the rights of the scum of the earth to make a mockery of the holocaust. 

And now a word on hypocrisy, and what it means to Support Our Troops!

 How concerned are our flag-waving citizens about our young men and women who have managed to survive their tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, in many cases with inferior weaponry and vehicles, only to be asked to go back again. 

Do they feel an obligation to understand the reasons why 4491 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq as of July of 2016?  If asked, could they explain why we have been there for 16 years? 

And how many letters have they written to their congressmen about helping our vets who make up 10% of the national homeless population, or who compromise 20% of our national suicides?

Do our ultra-patriots care about any of that? Or has that bumper sticker got them covered?

Protection of the Unborn - Preaching Beyond the Choir

The fate of unborn children resulting from unplanned pregnancies in our country is of vital importance to both political parties. Our current laws which restrict a woman’s access to safe and legal abortions were enacted, we are told, for the protection of those unborn children.

If this is what you believe, it must then follow that when an unplanned pregnancy occurs, the responsibility for the child should be shared equally by both the mother and the father. Proponents of family values should be the first to agree.

 Anything short of that sends the message that men are entitled to unlimited, carefree sex, but a woman should bear the burden of an unplanned pregnancy for the rest of her life.

Rapid advancements in affordable, available, and easy to use genetic testing make this possible. Paternity can now be determined at 8 weeks with a sample of the mother’s blood, and a swipe on the inside of the father’s cheek, meaning that a woman need never again hear the dreaded yet common reaction, “How do I know it’s mine?” There are currently laws on the books which can force a reluctant father to take the test.

Once paternity has been established, decisions about the child should be made by both parents. In the event that neither parent wishes to or is capable of raising their baby, they may agree to place it up for adoption. The father would be obligated to pay for all medical expenses, including medications, testing, pre-natal exams and transportation to and from, hospital bills and all compensation for the mother’s loss of work due to the pregnancy.

The mother will carry the child for nine months and give birth.

If one or both parents wants to keep the child, this process should be handled in the same way as a child custody contract between divorced parents. The father should be legally obligated to share in the responsibilities and the future welfare of his child. Custody, expenses, visitation, and all other responsibilities should be shared as ability allows and as equally as possible.

A mother and her child need to be entitled to the same protections under the law regardless of whether she is married to the father or not.

We have it within our power to demonstrate actual compassion for the unborn children we supposedly care so much about. We can do this without raising taxes, and with the added benefit of cutting “entitlement programs.” 

Regardless of one’s religious or personal beliefs, we should all be able to agree on that. Indeed, we need to insist upon that.