KANSAS V. ROEDER (The Value of Human Life)

A Kansas jury spent little time determining the fate of Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion activist accused of first-degree murder in the fatal shooting of an abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.  The jury returned a conviction for first degree murder after deliberating for only a little over half an hour.

During his testimony Roeder provided the jury with the horrific chronology of how he had shot Tiller in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church as Sunday services began. Testifying as his only defense witness, he said he believed he had to kill Tiller to save lives.  He said he had no regrets.  Roeder faces life in prison when he is sentenced on March 9.

This tragedy has once again brought the abortion issue to the forefront.  As pro-choice and abortion opponents remain at odds, national debate continues as to whether and to what extent abortion should be legal and who should decide the legality of abortion.  However, the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, which prevents any state from impeding upon a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,” remains intact despite constant opposition and attempts at overhaul for the last 35 plus years.  Nonetheless, no matter what side of the issue you stand on, there should be one consensus, and that is that acts of brutality and outright disdain for the value of human life as evidenced in the Roeder case do not serve to further his position but simply under-cut the issue which remains at the core of this debate which is the value of human life.

THE STATE OF THE UNION

Last night President Obama addressed a capacity crowd on the House floor.  In typical State of the Union fashion, he was gallantly applauded by his party supporters when he stated Democratic agenda points while the Republican opposition remained quiet in staunch defiance.  The President hit upon a variety of topics from healthcare reform to unemployment and laid out his plans to alleviate many of the issues and problems that Americans face on a daily basis.  

One of the issues that the President addressed that stuck out in my mind was the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision which would allow for unlimited campaign spending by corporations.  The High Court’s decision last week was a major reversal of judicial precedent, lifting restrictions on what corporations can spend on advertisements for or against candidates within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.     During his address, as the Justices sat before him, the President was vocal in his disapproval of the High Court’s decision and in fact stated that the Justices, allowed for future campaigns to be “bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.” Congress, he added, should “pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Democrats in Congress were anything but slow to follow the President’s advice.  In fact, a number of members began drafting legislation early last week that would combat or a least soften the blow of the Supreme Court’s decision. 

As of now, the High Court has spoken.  Stay tuned to see what policy emerges.  But suffice it to say, because of the directness and specificity of the ruling, Democrats are left with very few options.  Some have even suggested that nothing less than a Constitutional amendment will be effective in keeping corporate money out.