Pro-Life Fridays Radio Monologue - October 11, 2013
Aaand the Selective Shut Down continues. If you're like me, you're almost at the point of sick of hearing about it, except that something new happens everyday that is supposedly shutdown-related. Truth be told, the Shut Down is a little farce--I don't mean the Shut Down itself is a farce, but a lot of what is being done in the name of shutting down the government is a farce.
Example: you know the joke that was floating around about the government covering Mt. Rushmore with a giant sheet? Yes, we all knew it is a joke the moment we heard it--apparently, though, Snopes.com thought it was such a thing that they published one of their debunks on it. Ha! Well, it is almost literally true. Twitchy reports that police in the vicinity of Mt. Rushmore have put up cones on the road at points where Mt. Rushmore can be seen while driving. The cones are placed there so that people cannot pull over and look at the monument. Seriously! The government is shut down, so as much money as it takes to shut down what normally requires little to no money whatsoever to experience is being spent to keep people from even seeing what is visible to everyone. A mountain, for crying out loud.
But that's not all. Yesterday, a story came out all over the place that an international tourist group was detained by armed park rangers at Yellowstone National Park, who--who--let me just read the story.
Article: "Gestapo Tactics Meet Senior Citizens at Yellowstone"
Honestly, by the end of reading this story, I thought this was a hoax--that is how absurd this story sounds. "No recreating!"?!? Don't take photos of passing wildlife or go to the bathroom? And they have guns on them to make sure you do what they say? As absurd as it is, it is also very disconcerting.
But I've got one more. In the name of "Shut Down," a jogger was fined $100 for jogging at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Since when does "Shut Down" mean you can't go jogging in a public place? Oh, and one more, one more: private businesses that happen to be situated on federal property have been ordered inaccessible, and people living in their private homes that happen to be located on federal property have been kicked to the curb until further notice.
Folks, a government shutdown does not mean that federally public properties are to be made inaccessible...at the point of a gun. We are in a shutdown, which means federal employees aren't working their jobs (certain federal employees), and buildings are closed, offices are closed, NOT open air parks blockaded like a passage out of North Korea and people's lives and businesses taken down by armed personnel. That is not a shutdown. Meanwhile, the government is funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, opening the Washington Mall to a rally for illegal immigration, and purchasing mechanical bulls. What shutdown?
For the last few days, I've been searching for the right word to describe this 'so not a shut down' brouhaha. People have been saying that this is a temper tantrum from President Obama--yes, I think that's partly the case. People have said it is petty, spiteful...yes, I'll agree, but that still doesn't hit the nail on the head for me. And then I got it. Late at night, when all strokes of genius take place. What is the word? "Catty." I know you're underwhelmed, but bear with me please. This is the kind of thing many wives do (and all wives want to do) when they discover their husbands cheating on them. This is about punishment and emotional retribution. It is a catty reaction to not getting your way, and there is no shadow of doubt in my mind that how this "Shut Down" has been conducted was conceived in the mind of a woman. So as much as President Obama has to take the responsibility for screwing the American public like this, holding tourists hostage was not his idea -- at least not his alone.
On our doorstep--sex selective abortion is creeping into greater prominence in the Western world, and people are going to see the rubber meet the road. In Australia, a doctor by the name of Mark Hobart is coming under fire from the Medical Board of Victoria for refusing to refer a couple to an abortionist when they expressed that they wanted to abort their baby girl. According to the Australian Herald Sun News,
Under Victorian law, he was obliged to refer the patient to a doctor he knew would terminate the pregnancy.
But Dr Hobart doesn't know any doctor who would agree to abort a healthy baby for sex selection reasons.
"The general response from my colleagues is disbelief and revulsion," he said.
In any case, a referral is not necessary for an abortion. Hobart's patient independently procured the abortion a few days later. Neither she nor her husband made any complaint.
So the Medical Board is making an issue out of something that, legally, is not an issue. I don't know how any government can compel doctors to refer people to others who will do something completely unethical. I mean, what if, in the name of being oneself, a doctor...here, I have a real example--a man wanted a dentist to remove all his teeth for no medically necessary purpose. Now imagine if the law orders this doctor to refer this man to someone who would do that. That's not only unethical, it's ridiculous. The man can find some other dentist who would do it--you can find anyone to do anything under the right circumstances. I mean, he could even find someone to do a "back alley teeth extraction" for him, if you know what I mean.