In a shocking incident this morning in Kansas, abortion doctor George Tiller was shot dead inside his church. Tiller, who has been the focus of attention for over a decade by anti-abortion activits, has been the subject of debate recently over his involvement in late-term abortions. The FBI and local authorities are currently searching for the shooter.

Late-term abortion is controversial since the fetus has a high probability of being vital, that is, able to live outside of the womb. While there is no set point as to when “late-term” actually begins, many argue that it starts between the 16th and 20th week of gestation. There a numerous practices to complete this process, but they all involve the killing of the fetus inside the womb before extraction.

George Tiller was the medical director of the Women’s Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas. The clinic provided late-term abortions and been the subject of protests for years. In 1986, the clinic was bombed by an anti-abortion activist (though no one was every arrested). In 1991, Tiller and the clinic were the focus by the group Operation Rescue. The group performed peaceful sit-ins in front of the clinic, resulting in over 2,000 arrests during the “Summer of Mercy.”

Things turned violent in 1993 when activist Rachelle “Shelley” Shannon confronted Tiller and shot him. Using a semi-automatic pistol, she ended up shooting Tiller in both arms. A quick deliberation by the jury found her guilty of attempted murder, and she was sentenced to 11 years in prison. She still is in jail after pleading guilty to other crimes that occurred before the shooting incident.

Tiller himself was the subject of a court case recently. Earlier this year, he was charged with violating Kansas State law for obtaining a second “independent” consultation on cases involving late-term abortions. He was found to be not guilty in March.

No matter what your position on abortion is, murder is never the answer. While you might view it as a short-term victory, all it does is harden the opposition while turning public opinion against your cause. Also, in states like Kansas, there is the chance that you may receive the death penalty for your actions. While Kansas has not executed anyone in over thirty years, the penalty is still on the books.

Update:  Operation Rescue, the organization who targeted Tiller over the years with protests, has released the following statement on their website:

We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.

Related articles:
Deadline: The movie – “State by State: Kansas”
The Wichita Eagle – “Abortion provider George Tiller shot to death at church; police search for suspect”
The Atlantic – “O’Reilly’s Target Shot Dead In Church”
CNN – “Doctor who performed abortions shot to death”
Operation Rescue – “Statement regarding George Tiller’s death”
Yahoo News – “Source: Suspect in custody in abortion doc slaying”

In February, President Obama was chastising recipients of bailout funds for holding business meetings and retreats in exotic places. His comment was:

“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime.”

Ok, so you can’t go to Las Vegas on the taxpayers dime. However, you CAN go to New York to see a Broadway play. In a statement today, Obama said:

“I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished.”

But he must not have traveled to New York or paid for the tickets using taxpayer money, since Obama said last week “We are out of money now,” referring to the U.S. government running a $11 trillion deficit.

Yes, I’m poking a little fun at Obama’s comments, but this is just an example of how rhetoric can be used against you.

Hope you have a great weekend!

Related articles:
The Huffington Post – “Las Vegas Mayor: Obama Should Apologize To Us”
Politico – “Obama keeps Broadway pledge”
PoliGazette – “Obama: We’re Out of Money, So Reform Health Care”

Today, Sherrilyn Ifill (cousin of journalist Gwen Ifill) wrote a piece defending Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. With all the accusations of racism surrounding a few comments by Sotomayor, especially the line from a speech in 2001, Ifill sought out to be an advocate for the latest media darling. In challenging comments made by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, Ifill chose a handful of white men who have recently been in the news over claims of racism. One of those men is former Senator Trent Lott.

In 2002, Trent Lott was participating in a birthday celebration for Senator Strom Thurmond. During the birthday celebration, Lott said the following:

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

Thurmond, who was turning 100 years old, was a former Southern Democrat who ran for President in 1948. At the time, there were two Democratic Parties; the national party and the State’s Rights Democratic Party, also known as the Dixiecrats. The split in the party occurred when the national party started to embrace a larger government role in society and support in civil rights. This conflicted with the Democrats old position of State’s Rights and threatened Southern heritage, which included segregation.

Due to Thurmond’s background, Lott’s praise of his presidential run 54 years earlier was viewed as the Senate Majority Leader’s support for the segregation platform that the Dixiecrats supported. What was meant as praise for a dying man quickly was turned into modern day witch-hunt. After two weeks of explaining and defending his comment, Lott caved under pressure from the Republican Party and stepped down from his leadership position.

A year before all of this came about, Sonia Sotomayor was addressing the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal’s Symposium. In her 2001 speech, she said the following:

Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Her comment regarding a wise Latina woman (describing herself) “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” has been the focus of discussion due to its overt racial and gender implication. Ifill says the comment is “an excellent meditation” regarding how personal experiences might impact a judges ruling. If that is the case, what is the point of specifically contrasting Latina women with white men?

So when it comes to being “a racist,” who is worse: Sotomayor or Lott? Just from the impressions made by the sentence, you could say Sotomayor’s comment comes across as more racist. However, if you were a student of history and understood the background on Thurmond’s campaign, you could say Lott’s comment is worst. Reflecting only on the individual sentences selected (the practice that Ifill complains about in her article); there is not enough information to draw an accurate picture of the state of mind of the speaker. However, you the read have to decide if either person intended to make a racist comment and not let those who dominate the media markets make that decision for you.

Related articles:
CNN – “Judge Sotomayor is not a racist”
Berkeley Law – “Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s Speech at Berkeley Law in 2001″
The Washington Post – “Lott Remark on Thurmond Echoed 1980 Words”

Is empathy a dirty word? This sounds like a strange question for me to ask, but I only bring it up after reading the article “Borger: ‘Empathy’ not a dirty word.” This article, written by Gloria Borger posted on the CNN website, states that the concept of an empathetic judge “horrifies conservatives.” After doing some searching online today, I found a few references by conservatives saying empathy is “a code word for an activist judge,” but I don’t think that makes the word dirty, let alone horrifies anyone.

Using the article as a segway, I wanted to talk about the concept of empathy and the Supreme Court. Empathy is defined as:

“the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.”

Bill Clinton summed up empathy with a simple phrase: “I feel your pain.” He used this phrase to help potential voters to feel a personal connection with him during his campaign and the debates. The practice was successful, and helped him win the election. People want to know that their President can relate to the issues they might be facing in the hopes that he keep the publics best interest in mind as he leads the nation. However, what about an empathetic judge?

There is nothing wrong with a judge having an emotional reaction to the turmoil and pain a plaintiff or prosecutor might have during a case. Judges are human, and it would bother me more if he or she did not feel anything since it would give me an impression that the judge simply doesn’t care. I don’t think anyone, conservative or liberal, has a problem with this. The problem comes in when President Obama used the term “empathy” repeatedly when discussing the type of Justice he was looking for to replace Justice David Souter.

You often hear that justice is blind. On the Supreme Court, justice is also heartless. I don’t mean to say that the Justices on the Supreme Court “don’t care” but rather that their position and power calls for them to be emotionally impartial. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation, and its role is to judge cases before them on the Constitutionality of the arguments being presented. This means they need to look past any emotional argument made by either side and examine the case based upon the law. Sometimes, this means that the Court will make a decision that flies in the face of what we might view as being fair.

A good example of this is the case Kelo v. City of New London. In this case, the Court ruled that the City of New London’s argument was legally sound, giving them the right to rezone land owned by private property owners and make it available for commercial development. Many opponents to the expanded use of eminent domain by local governments argued that a government taking private land away and giving it to a business isn’t fair. In a 2005 article on this case, the Washington Post wrote:

“Kennedy’s vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer.”

A Justice expressing sympathy (or empathy) for someone in a case is fine, as long as it doesn’t impact the ruling, as Kennedy displayed above. If Obama is looking for someone to used empathy in their decision making process, he should leave that to the House of Representatives. That is their job as the spokesperson for the constituents he or she represents in the Federal government. Justices of the Supreme Court do not have that responsibility. Their only responsibility is to the Constitution and the current laws on the books.

Related articles:
The Washington Post – “Justices Affirm Property Seizures”
Slate – “Once More, Without Feeling”
Philadelphia Daily News – “It’s Sonia! Will the GOP have empathy?”
Newser – “Obama Loses ‘Empathy’ Line After GOP Sullies Phrase”
ABC News – “The Note, 5/27/2009: Empathetic Minds — Supreme Court battle rages — inside the GOP”
George Loper – “U.S. Supreme Court: Republican War on Empathy”