A Thought from One Sonogram

I share a picture and story making rounds on Facebook. Interesting. It is from One Sonogram, a pro life organization.

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'

So the doctor said: 'Ok an...d what do you want me to do?'

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.'

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!'

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.'

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

If you agree, please SHARE.

Together we can help save precious lives!

Love says, 'I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person.' Abortion says, 'I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself.'

Duck is a Duck, and Human a Human

Let's switch the language a little then, and see if this, too, is illegal. Let's pass a law that states:

"As soon as the fetus develops the features of a human being, it shall considered a human being. These features being body parts (head, torso, arms and legs), a beating heart, and a developing brain."

How could such not be considered a human being? How could it be illegal -- unconstitutional -- to declare something that has the features of a human being to be a human being?

Yet, today's news tells of the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down a ballot initiative in Oklahoma that would have pronounced that life begins at conception. The Oklahoma Court said the initiative was "clearly unconstitutional" and "void on its face."

Pro-Choice supporters have characterized efforts to define an embryo as a human to be part of a war on women, and they say eggs should not be allowed to trump the rights of women.

I say, though, what is wrong with saying if it looks and has the features of a human, then it is a human? Let's write the legislation so it says little more than that a human is a human. If someone were to propose a law saying, "If it looks and acts like a duck, and has ducks for its parentage, it will be considered a duck," would that be unconstitutional?

A duck is a duck, and a human a human. How saying that becomes unconstitutional is beyond me.

The Oklahoma case will be appealed, and if declaring an embryo to be a human is to lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned, that could still happen.

But, should the effort fail, let's declare a human to be a human. It seems the courts would be hard pressed to call such a law illegal. It won't save all the unborn, and it won't end all abortions. But, the lifes of many might well be saved.

Why Don't We Elect Leaders Who Won't Take the Money?

"So you think you want to start a revolution? Well, you know." Something like that goes the old song from the Beatles.

Actually, I wouldn't mind starting one. Now, I'm not talking a gun-firing revolution, not a violent revolution,  just a revolution in the way we elect our leaders.

The candidates take contributions, sometimes from private citizens whose only interest is to elect the best person, but sometimes from those who are hoping the candidate might them them out a little once they are elected.

So, the candidate gets elected, the person comes calling, congratulating the newly-elected official, and then saying, "Hey. I've got this problem. . . ." Sometimes, its a worthy cause, like, say, education. Even if it is a worthy cause, though, that is no way to run a government. Legislation shouldn't come from a system of paybacks. It shouldn't favor the rich, and as long as we have the system we do, the man with the money has a better chance of getting a legislator to draft a bill for him than others do.

Oh, most of our bills have no such influence, I would guess. But, enough of them do. Enough to sour me on the system.

How long to we let this go? Do we just resign ourselves to this being the way it is? Of a truth, I tell you, we don't have to accept this. We are the voters. If we don't want to vote for those who accept contributions, we don't have to. If it means enough to us, we can vote for the person who says, "No, I'm not going to take that money." 

Imagine World with Most Cars as Moving Billboards

So, with school buses now rolling down the streets with advertisements on them, how about your car?

Hm, just a thought. You could sell rights to advertising on your car for, say, $100 a month -- make it $250 to doll it up real nice.

Now, some of us don't have fancy enough cars to attract advertisers. But, then again, perhaps this is a way to get a free paint job, and get paid for it. Can't beat that.

If such an idea were to come of age, it would be interesting to see how many car owners would sell ad space on their cars. Those with nice cars would probably say, "No, don't need that income and don't want you to mess up the nice paint job I already have." It might be it would be the poorer folk who end up selling ad space on their cars.

Or, perhaps the ad rates would increase for the Cadillacs and Mercedes, pulling in a few more customers. If enough sign up, our city streets would never be the same. Imagine a world in which most of the the cars were moving billboards.

Sugary Cereals Need Not Apply

Sugary cereals need not apply.

The sides of school buses in the Jordan School District are now for hire. The first advertisements were unveiled this week, with four buses having ads.

If all the buses in the district attract advertisements, the district stands to make a quarter of a million dollars per year. So, add me to those who think the advertising a good idea -- if those who advertise are watched by school administrators, and the administrators are saying they will need to approve each advertisement.

So, from the day when advertisements were limited to yearbooks and sports stadiums, we now have this. I've heard say one Utah school took some heat for advertising sugary cereal in the lunchroom. Suppose I can see why. The fear is that students will view the advertisements as being endorsed by the school.

Hm, perhaps. Or are students savvy enough to realize an advertisement is an advertisement, that it is the company speaking, not the school. If we do have concern that it might be considered an endorsement from the school, then place disclaimers at the bottom of the ads, saying something like, "This advertisement does not constitute an endorsement of the product by the school."

Advertising on buses differs from advertising in the lunchroom, however, as it it the general public the ads target, not the students.


I'm tendatively

Consider Keeping Common Core Sans Federal Dollars

It appears Common Core, that education-improvement program so hated by some states rights people, does come with federal funding.

The program might have been designed by a groups from the states, but the press is reporting that it comes with federal dollars.

Are these new federal dollars, or were they already in place? I'm assuming they are new, and since Common Core has been in place about two years, I'm assuming the new funding came just ahead of all the angst over the deficit, for I do not suppose such additional spending would have been approved at a time we so concerned with trimming our belt.

So, let's go back to the federal government and demand that the new funding be removed, nationwide. This will prevent a few pennies from being added to the national deficit -- and every penny counts. The timing for such a request will be favorable, since the taste of too much federal spending is still in our nation's mouth.

And, without that funding, Common Core can remain, free of charges from states rights advocates that it is bringing us under federal control. While other funding will have to be found for Common Core, go that route.

You might suggest the hitch in this suggestion is that it might be Common Core cannot survive without the federal funding. Well, how much does it cost? How much would we, as  a state, have to come up with to keep it once the federal funding is eliminated? Can we come up with it, and if state government funds cannot cover it, why not collect contributions.

Should our educators be convinced Common Core is a plus, keep it, unless we can see it is not a good program. I, for one, though, do not suppose I have learned enough about the program to feel my judgement better than theirs.

Keep it. Keep it if it good. If the problem is the funding, not the program, get rid of the funding, not the program.

It's Time to Quit Ignoring Sixth Amendment

It would be hard to find a part of the Constitution less heeded than the Sixth Amendment.

We simply haven't figured a way to make it work.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," says the honored document. Yet, crimes routinely are prosecuted not speedily, but much later -- often years later.

Instead of abiding by the Constitution, we practice the principle, "The wheels of justice grind slowly."

So, let's do something to speed those wheels up.

While reading and listening to the news of the Cottonwood football coach accused of sexual relations with a youth, I thought how much a person, if innocent, surely wants the case quickly brought forth and settled. The person's reputation is at stake. He or she wants that reputation cleared, and cleared quickly.

Sometimes, only a speedy trial can provide that justice. In the Cottonwood case, though, charges were dropped, which is the equivalent of a quick and speedy trial.

I also thought of the Josh Powell case, and how he, too, claimed innocence and could have said, "I have a Sixth Amendment right here." In retrospect, we wonder but what there wasn't enough evidence to bring the case to court, but surely we also would want time to gather evidence for a conviction instead of taking the case to court prematurely.
Here's what we can do: Let the accused have the option of invoking the Sixth Amendment. When they invoke it -- asking for a speedy trial -- then we hold a discovery court. inviting every witness we know of, and bringing every evidence we have available, and everything is presented to the court.

It does seem there will be many cases where all the evidence should be available quickly. In the case of the Cottonwood coach, for example, ist seems much or all of the evidence would be from witnesses? Is is so hard to round up all the witnesses up in a day or two? It seems the evidence could be assembled quickly, with witnesses on both sides quickly identified.

So round them up and hold this court of inquiry, this discovery court.

The court then judges whether it is reasonable to expect that more evidence will come forth if waited for. If it appears the evidence is already available, the case is given a quick court date.

It is time we implement the Sixth Amendment. Here is a way, a mechanism, to bring practice to the principle of a speedy trial.