{"id":20,"date":"2015-06-29T18:45:54","date_gmt":"2015-06-29T18:45:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/?p=20"},"modified":"2021-03-05T14:25:46","modified_gmt":"2021-03-05T18:25:46","slug":"a-president-for-life-and-peace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/index.php\/2015\/06\/29\/a-president-for-life-and-peace\/","title":{"rendered":"A President for Life and Peace?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Administrator’s Note: This is a guest commentary by Mary Meehan, a writer and speaker who was present at CL’s founding conference and has remained a friend of ours ever since. This was originally published at her site on The President We Need<\/a>. It is reproduced here with her permission.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/center><\/p>\n

Defend Life and Peace<\/h2>\n

We need a president who will be brave and consistent in defending our\u00a0lives. All of our lives<\/em>: Born and unborn. Young, old, and in-between.\u00a0Healthy, sick, and disabled. The free and those under arrest or in prison. The\u00a0men and women of our military. Citizens of other nations who suffer deeply when\u00a0we wage war.<\/p>\n

The Need for Consistency and Honor<\/h3>\n

With the exception of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), our recent\u00a0presidential candidates and presidents have not been consistent in defending\u00a0human life. Indeed, some have been far more involved in taking<\/em> lives than\u00a0in defending them. Most have been hawkish on foreign policy, supporting our recent\u00a0wars or even calling for more<\/em> war. Many have been hawkish on abortion, too,\u00a0rejecting even small efforts to restrict it. Most have supported the death penalty.<\/p>\n

Both at the presidential level and below it, some politicians claim that\u00a0they are “personally opposed” to abortion or doubtful about the death penalty, yet still\u00a0vote to support those practices. Some claim that they “hate war,” yet vote consistently to\u00a0support it.<\/p>\n

Politicians–and the rest of us–should not try to have it both ways. Especially on matters\u00a0of life and death, our personal and our political positions should be the same. We should live\u00a0out in our lives the many-splendored words of “honor” and “integrity.” We should\u00a0speak out for those whose lives are endangered–especially those who cannot defend themselves.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/center><\/p>\n

Why the President Must Defend Life<\/h3>\n

Our Declaration of Independence says that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are unalienable rights. It makes sense that life is\u00a0first on the list, because taking someone’s life destroys all of their\u00a0rights.<\/em> Congress long ago recognized the Declaration as part of the\u00a0“organic law” of the United States. The Declaration is the first document\u00a0in the U.S. Code<\/em>, the official collection of federal laws.<\/p>\n

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide\u00a0that no person may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due\u00a0process of law.” And the Constitution assigns the power to declare war to\u00a0Congress–not to the president. It says that treaties we make with other\u00a0nations are part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” This is a key point,\u00a0because treaties such as the Geneva Conventions require protection of both\u00a0civilians and military prisoners in wartime.<\/p>\n

All of this means that the president, who swears an oath to “preserve,\u00a0protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” has major obligations\u00a0to protect human life. Sometimes the president can defend life and the\u00a0Constitution by challenging the government’s judicial branch. One example is\u00a0urging the Supreme Court to overturn a previous Court decision when the president\u00a0is convinced the decision was wrong.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has interpreted “due process of law” with\u00a0increasing strictness in death-penalty cases, thus giving some protection to\u00a0death-row prisoners. Yet in Roe v. Wade,<\/em> it stripped unborn human beings\u00a0of the right to life–essentially by suggesting they are non-persons, or else partly\u00a0persons and partly non-persons.<\/p>\n

Roe<\/em> is based on many errors of both fact and legal interpretation. It has\u00a0major mistakes about both English common law and American law. Roe\u00a0<\/em>should be at the top of the list for review and overturn.<\/p>\n

\"I<\/center><\/p>\n

No More Regime Change
\nand No More Torture<\/h3>\n

The president can protect life in our foreign policy by:<\/p>\n

\u2713 Rejecting any effort to overthrow the government of\u00a0another country, or intervene in its civil war, unless we are openly at war with that\u00a0country–in a war declared by Congress, not by the President<\/p>\n

Many Americans don’t realize that our problems with Iran date back to 1953, when a coup\u00a0organized by our Central Intelligence Agency overthrew an Iranian prime minister. The U.S.\u00a0then supported the repressive regime of the Shah of Iran for many years. Another example: The\u00a0CIA’s 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and its plots to assassinate Fidel Castro poisoned our relations\u00a0with Cuba for over 50 years.<\/p>\n

The CIA overthrew–or helped overthrow–leaders of Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic,\u00a0Guatemala, and South Vietnam. It made failed attempts to overthrow governments elsewhere.<\/p>\n

Presidents use the CIA when they don’t want to admit what they are doing. Although many Americans\u00a0are only dimly aware of U.S. overthrow efforts, citizens of target countries know about them and deeply\u00a0resent them.<\/p>\n

Presidents have seen coups as quick and relatively cheap ways to solve foreign-policy\u00a0problems. Actually, though, each new president inherits problems–sometimes huge ones–that trace back\u00a0to the supposedly quick-and-easy overthrows.<\/p>\n

After the end of the long Cold War with the Soviet Union, emboldened U.S. leaders turned more\u00a0toward open<\/em> efforts to overthrow rulers of other nations. They now use economic sanctions,\u00a0war, and bombing raids to achieve “regime change.” Meanwhile, the CIA is still quite active and now runs its\u00a0own bombing raids, using drone planes armed with Hellfire missiles.<\/p>\n

We Americans have always taken pride in our self-government. How, then, can we deny other nations\u00a0the right to their<\/em> own governments? What gives us the right to toss their leaders in or out of\u00a0power? Or to bomb their countries at will?<\/p>\n

\"Collateral<\/center><\/p>\n

\u2713 Emphasizing that, unless we are in a just and declared war with another nation, overthrows “will not happen on my watch.”<\/em> Besides keeping that promise, the president must press Congress\u00a0to write into law an explicit and permanent ban on them. The CIA must give up its war-making and focus only on its original mission: providing first-rate intelligence to government leaders. That is a major job all by itself, and a crucial one.<\/p>\n

Also needed is repeal of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That law gives presidents power to start wars–a power that the Constitution gives to Congress alone. We must end presidential wars.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Making it clear that the United States strongly opposes torture and\u00a0will not use it again<\/p>\n

The use of torture against terrorism suspects after 9\/11 was, as Sen. John McCain has said, a “stain on our national honor.” It was also a violation of our Constitution, federal law, and treaties we have ratified. The president has to make sure that all key personnel, both civilian and military, understand that any involvement with torture will result in criminal charges.<\/p>\n

The “Obey the Constitution”<\/a> page offers more ideas about preventing torture\u00a0and presidential wars.<\/p>\n

Use Diplomacy in a Constructive Way<\/h3>\n

Instead of starting more wars, the U.S. should focus on ways to prevent them.\u00a0The president can pursue this course by:<\/p>\n

\u2713 Offering the assistance of U.S. diplomats in\u00a0negotiating cease-fires and peace settlements in disputes where the U.S. is not\u00a0involved and thus can be an “honest broker”–and encouraging other nations to do\u00a0the same<\/p>\n

President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated an end to a war between\u00a0Russia and Japan, and President Jimmy Carter achieved a peace agreement\u00a0between Egypt and Israel. A president need not be the actual mediator, but\u00a0can have the Secretary of State assign first-rate U.S. diplomats to help\u00a0where they are wanted. The president should suggest that other heads of state\u00a0make their best diplomats available in the same way.<\/p>\n

The Chinese-Japanese dispute over ownership of islands in the East China Sea\u00a0is a case in point. Expert mediators might help the two nations reach a settlement\u00a0that both can live with–perhaps a split of the territory or one side’s\u00a0buying out the other. But if there is no settlement and the dispute festers, it might\u00a0lead to a war. That war could involve the United States, which has a mutual defense treaty\u00a0with Japan.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Working with other nations to negotiate an end to the nuclear\u00a0weapons that threaten every nation and every person on earth<\/p>\n

While there has been success in placing some limits on nuclear weapons,\u00a0a huge number still exist and are ready to be launched on command. All\u00a0nuclear nations should be able to reach agreement to phase them out by using\u00a0the “trust but verify” principle that has worked in U.S.-Russian nuclear\u00a0agreements. The United States should take the lead in making it work on a\u00a0worldwide scale<\/p>\n

Defusing the major danger spots in the world, as suggested\u00a0above, would greatly help efforts to get rid of the nukes. And getting rid\u00a0of them would be a huge step forward for all humanity.<\/p>\n

\"Changing<\/center><\/p>\n

Defend Unborn Children<\/h3>\n

In domestic policy, the president should protect human life by:<\/p>\n

\u2713 Strongly urging Supreme Court reversal of the 1973\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em> decision, which prevents states from protecting the unborn<\/p>\n

That decision is so wrong in fact and in law that it’s a classic example\u00a0of a “result-oriented decision”–one in which judges decide the policy result\u00a0they want and then rummage around for anything they can think of to justify\u00a0it. Overturn of Roe<\/em> would free the states to protect the unborn, as most of\u00a0them did before Roe<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Urging Congress to end federal funding of abortion\u00a0and of research on prenatal testing that’s oriented toward eugenic abortion<\/p>\n

The president must use the veto power on these issues if needed. The funding\u00a0is a corruption of medicine, which is supposed to protect<\/em> human life and health.\u00a0Eugenic abortion (that is, ending the lives of unborn children because they have handicaps)\u00a0also undermines our efforts to end discrimination against people with disabilities. Taking\u00a0someone’s life is, after all, the most radical kind of discrimination.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Making the case to libertarians, feminists, liberals,\u00a0and non-religious people on why they should protect the unborn<\/p>\n

There is a compelling case to be made to these groups. Explaining it will greatly\u00a0enrich a debate that has grown stale and repetitive.<\/p>\n

Libertarian pro-lifers emphasize that parents, having brought their children into\u00a0existence, have a responsibility to protect them when they are too small and weak to\u00a0defend themselves. They stress that this responsibilty applies to men as well as women.\u00a0That’s a crucial point, because many abortions result from a man’s pressure or his\u00a0abandonment of mother and child. Sometimes abandonment is the worst, most devastating\u00a0form of coercion.<\/p>\n

Pro-life feminists say that women are strong enough to handle pregnancy and children. They\u00a0stress the pro-life views of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell,\u00a0Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul. With the leadership of Feminists for Life of America, they call\u00a0for changes in universities and workplaces to make them more mother-friendly and child-friendly.<\/p>\n

Pro-life liberals stress the liberal tradition of always standing up for the little guy\/little\u00a0gal and of protecting children against abuse. There is also a liberal\/left tradition of optimism about\u00a0life. This need not be naive optimism, but just confidence that tough problems can be overcome\u00a0when we have the will and the courage to overcome them.<\/p>\n

Non-believing pro-lifers use reason to conclude that human beings have both the right to be free\u00a0from assault and the obligation to do no harm to others. Because they don’t think that injustice done\u00a0today can be remedied in an afterlife, they have a special sense of urgency in protecting this\u00a0<\/em>life that is at stake right now<\/em>. As civil-libertarian Nat Hentoff has said, it is “a lot easier\u00a0for an atheist–at least, this atheist–to be against abortion because all I have is life, this life.\u00a0All I can believe in is life.”<\/p>\n

End the Federal Death Penalty<\/h3>\n

\"Execution<\/center>The president can advance this effort–and possibly win it–by:<\/p>\n

\u2713 Urging Congress to end the federal death penalty<\/p>\n

This would end, at the federal level, one type of government violence.\u00a0The most widely-accepted abolition argument is based on the many cases of\u00a0death-row prisoners who eventually were found innocent on the basis of DNA or other\u00a0evidence. The risk of executing innocent people is just too great, and there is no way\u00a0to correct a wrongful execution.<\/p>\n

Abolition also would respect the consciences of prison staff who believe they should not\u00a0take part in executions. And federal abolition would give a good example to the 31 states that\u00a0still have the death penalty.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Using the presidential power of clemency\u00a0to commute death sentences of federal prisoners to life in prison without parole<\/p>\n

This certainly does not mean a life of leisure. Except when security\u00a0problems interfere, able-bodied federal prisoners are required to work.\u00a0And when courts have imposed fines or have required restitution to prisoners’\u00a0victims, that money must be deducted from prisoners’ wages, which usually are\u00a0quite low in any case.<\/p>\n

Stress Positive Alternatives to
\nSuicide and Euthanasia<\/h3>\n

The president should emphasize the dangers of efforts to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.\u00a0Those dangers include the likelihood that some heirs will encourage deadly choices in order to protect their\u00a0inheritance or to end burdens of care. Some medical professionals and insurance companies might encourage–and\u00a0even pressure–patients toward suicide.<\/p>\n

The president’s main emphasis, though, should be on positive alternatives. For example:<\/p>\n

\u2713 Meeting with and encouraging staff who are working on the National\u00a0Strategy for Suicide Prevention (a program of the U.S. Surgeon General’s office)<\/p>\n

There is need for special stress on what friends and family members can do when they see signs\u00a0that someone is considering suicide (including assisted suicide). Professional help often is needed–but is\u00a0not enough by itself. Help from family and friends is also crucial.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Ensuring that Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements go only to\u00a0home-healthcare and hospice agencies that provide the services they promise<\/p>\n

News reports indicate that some hospice agencies, especially for-profit ones, are not\u00a0<\/em>meeting their ethical and legal obligations. Those agencies should be penalized rather than paid! On\u00a0the positive side, there should be recognition and honor for the agencies that do their work well.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Encouraging the good work of the Eden Alternative\u00a0and other programs that change nursing homes into real<\/em> homes.<\/p>\n

The Eden homes, and others like them, have gardens and pets. They encourage residents\u00a0to engage in cooking, quilting, gardening and similar activities. Some have child-care\u00a0centers so the seniors can talk and play with children and read to them.<\/p>\n

\u2713 Having the Department of Health and Human Services research\u00a0ways that hospital intensive-care units can make the ICU experience less of an ordeal for\u00a0patients and their families.<\/p>\n

Is the constant beeping of machines really necessary? Could chimes be used instead?\u00a0Shouldn’t there be a place for gentle, soothing music in ICU? Is there so much focus on\u00a0record-keeping that caregivers don’t have enough time for actual care?<\/p>\n

\u2713 Ensuring that federal health and medical-research programs follow high ethical\u00a0standards in respecting life, yet do not promote unneeded tests or treatment<\/p>\n

Sometimes unneeded testing and treatment occur for the financial gain of health\u00a0professionals, and sometimes just because the technology is there. Patients should know\u00a0they have a right to reject tests and treatment they don’t want and that, when they are\u00a0dying, they will have good pain control and be able to die in peace.<\/p>\n

\"Respect<\/center>Legions of American voters–Democrats, Republicans, independents, and\u00a0libertarians–oppose one or more forms of violence. Some oppose all<\/em> of\u00a0them and see life-or-death questions as the most important of all issues. While this\u00a0position is most often identified with religious believers, in a sense it should\u00a0appeal even more to non-believers. After all, they think–or at least suspect–that\u00a0life on earth is the only one we have.<\/p>\n

A presidential candidate who champions the consistency ethic can put\u00a0together a powerful coalition. It should include both individual voters and\u00a0organized groups who oppose abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, suicide,\u00a0torture, and\/or war. What each group cannot accomplish on its own might\u00a0be done if all the groups back one candidate.<\/p>\n

It would be hard to find a better campaign slogan than a phrase we\u00a0celebrate on the Fourth of July: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”<\/p>\n

\"4th<\/center>Links for More Info:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Beth Baker, Old Age in a New Age: The Promise of Transformative Nursing Homes<\/em><\/a> (2007 review)<\/p>\n

Radley Balko, “Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty,”<\/a> Washington Post<\/em>, May 1, 2014<\/p>\n

Ira Byock, “Democrats Shouldn’t Endorse Suicide,”<\/a> politico.com, June 7, 2015<\/p>\n

Daily Caller News Foundation, “Innocent Man Wrongly Jailed for 39 Years Becomes Cleveland’s Newest Millionaire,”<\/a> March 20, 2015 (includes video)<\/p>\n

Death Penalty Information Center<\/a><\/p>\n

Kevin Fitzpatrick,
\n“Euthanasia: We Can Live Without It…”<\/a> CNN.com, Nov. 27, 2013<\/p>\n

Serrin M. Foster, “The Feminist Case Against Abortion,”<\/a> America<\/em>, Jan. 19-26, 2015<\/p>\n

Doris Gordon, “Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly”<\/a> International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy<\/em> (1999)<\/p>\n

Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq<\/em><\/a> (2006; see Amazon.com customer reviews)<\/p>\n

Mary Meehan, “In Harm’s Way: Childen, Born and Unborn, Trapped in Wartime,”<\/a> America<\/em>, Jan. 16, 2012<\/p>\n

Mary Meehan, “Why Liberals Should Defend the Unborn,”<\/a> Human Life Review<\/em>, Summer 2011<\/p>\n

Justin Raimondo, “We’ll Never Limit Government Unless We Ditch Foreign Interventionism,”<\/a> Antiwar.com, April 15, 2015<\/p>\n

Peter Whoriskey and Dan Keating, “Dying and Profits: The Evolution of Hospice,”<\/a> Washington Post<\/em>, Dec. 26, 2014<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[Administrator’s Note: This is a guest commentary by Mary Meehan, a writer and speaker who was present at CL’s founding conference and has remained a friend of ours ever since. This was originally published at her site on The President We Need. It is reproduced here with her permission.] Defend Life and Peace We need… <\/p>\n