social-policy : Duthie On...

In answer to a request from a Democrat in western Pennsylvania to "stop these abortions," Obama reportedly said:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"punished with a baby?" Could it be, perhaps, that part of the reason folks like Obama and his ilk find abortion acceptable is that they're able to say such a thing out loud? Babies are not punishment, nor are they fashion accessories, nor mere inconveniences to be swept away when someone "make[s] a mistake." If Obama thinks it's unfair to "punish" his daughters with a baby for making a mistake (I'm guessing the mistake in Obama's book is in not using protection, as opposed to, I don't know, choosing abstinence), why is it that he feels it's OK to punish the baby with death?

And what does it say for Obama's trust in his daughters (or lack thereof) that he does not believe that he can teach them to refrain from sex in their teens? That he's really concerned about them getting a sexually transmitted disease at age 16?

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any abstinence-only sex ed program anywhere that prevents parents from giving their children whatever information about sex they believe is appropriate. There's no state compulsion preventing you from "giv[ing] them information." Unlike other sex ed programs, which may or may not provide the option for parents to opt out their kids if they disapprove of the curriculum. Funny how the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, except when the choice in question conflicts with the indoctrination or program they want.

Lastly I can't help but be appalled at all of the commenters falling all over themselves congratulating Obama on his great answer to the question. So full of nuance. Sad.

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

The intrusion of the state into the family continues unabated:

As doctors struggle to eradicate polio worldwide, one of their biggest problems is persuading parents to vaccinate their children. In Belgium, authorities are resorting to an extreme measure: prison sentences.

Two sets of parents in Belgium were recently handed five month prison terms for failing to vaccinate their children against polio. Each parent was also fined 4,100 euros ($8,000).

And if you don't think it can happen in the U.S., read on:

In the U.S. state of Maryland, prosecutors and school officials in one county threatened truancy charges against parents who failed to vaccinate their children. The measure sharply reduced the number of unvaccinated children although nobody has been charged.

I'm not necessarily an opponent of vaccinations in general. It's pretty clear that some vaccines make sense, and have done much to improve public health. But I do not support the state making the decision for parents. Ultimate responsibility for the health and welfare of children falls to the parents, not to the state.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has passed a law that mandates that girls must be vaccinated against human papilloma virus (HPV), on the dubious grounds that the vaccine will prevent many cases of cervical cancer. There are several problems with this, the most important being that HPV is not spread through casual contact, so should not be considered a health risk for schoolchildren. Those who demand mandatory vaccination against HPV seem to assume that all children will become sexually active before reaching an age where they can decide for themselves if the vaccine makes sense. There's also the fact, highlighted in this presentation prepared by an official of the Virginia Department of Health, that Merck, the maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine, lobbied hard for the mandate.

Generally, I think that pharmaceutical companies are making products that have a positive impact on our health and longevity. But allowing the state the power to mandate the use of particular drugs or vaccines has the potential to distort the incentives these companies operate on, giving them an incentive to use the state to force their products on the public, rather than have those products compete in the market on the basis of their effectiveness. That's a recipe for disaster, and something we should all be concerned about.

Parents may be jailed over vaccinations - Yahoo! News

Is this what our future holds?

Robin Page compensated over 'race' arrest

A 64 year-old man was arrested for a "hate crime" for making a smart-ass remark at a country fair. It took 5 years and the use of the UK equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act for him to clear his name.

Bacon gift to Muslim officer costs Pc's job

A police officer, during a "secret santa" exchange, gave one of his fellow officers, who is a muslim, a pack of bacon and a bottle of wine as a joke. Granted, the joke was arguably in poor taste, but the recipient took it as intended, as a joke, and told superiors that he didn't have any interest in filing a complaint. Nonetheless, the officer was forced to resign. Not reprimanded. Not warned. Forced to resign. Over a gag, and one that the recipient didn't appear terribly bothered by.

Political Correctness is a form of mental illness, and it reigns supreme in the UK. Will it get that bad in the US? Only time will tell.

...at least one woman would now be dead, rather than her attacker:

Just remember that the next time someone tells you that restrictive gun laws save lives.

That's one of the few words that comes close to describing this: 

Brave New World Watch   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Guardian: 

Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government's fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were "at ease" with scientists creating the hybrid embryos.

Researchers want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs, in the hope they will be able to extract valuable embryonic stem cells from them. The cells form the basic building blocks of the body and are expected to pave the way for revolutionary therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and even spinal cord injuries.

The consultation papers were released ahead of the authority's final decision on the matter, which will mark the end of almost a year of intense lobbying by scientists and a fervent campaign by organisations opposed to research involving embryonic stem cells.

Using animal eggs will allow researchers to push ahead unhindered by the shortage of human eggs. Under existing laws, the embryos must be destroyed after 14 days when they are no bigger than a pinhead, and cannot be implanted into the womb.

Opponents of the research and some religious groups say the work blurs the distinction between humans and animals, and creates embryos that are destined to be destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them.

How anyone can not grasp that creating hybrid human/animal embryos is stepping over a very clear ethical and moral line is beyond me. That they report that a majority are at ease with such research suggests to me that the folks who were surveyed were not told clearly what's being done.

And the reporting that the embryos must be destroyed and cannot be implanted completely misses the point, which is that experimenting with the essence of human life, for no better purpose than extracting stem cells, particularly when there has been more demonstrated progress and promise from adult stem cells, is nothing less than a horror.

The Corner on National Review Online

There's an funny line that goes something to the effect of "Gravity: It's not just a good idea...it's the law." While there's nothing funny about the story below, it does illustrate the fact that unintended consequences are as hard to escape as gravity:

TWO decades ago, in an effort to curb domestic violence, states began passing “mandatory arrest” laws. Police officers responding to a call for help would no longer need to determine whether one person was truly violent or out of control; every time someone reported abuse, the police would simply be required to make an arrest.

It seemed like a good tactic — at least to people who work with victims of domestic violence. (Police officers tended to be less enthusiastic, because they prefer to make arrests at their own discretion.) Arrests would immediately stop the violence and might discourage abusers from further acts of abuse.

But 20 years later, it seems the mandatory arrest laws are having an unintended, deadly side effect. The number of murders committed by intimate partners is now significantly higher in states with mandatory arrest laws than it is in other states.

Maybe if lawmakers were actually occasionally affected by the legislation they enacted (apart from profiting from it, that is), they might pay more attention to the law of unintended consequences. Oftentimes, these kinds of consequences are predictable to anyone who understands the basics of how incentives work, and takes the time to consider what incentives are set up by a given legislative act.

I remain convinced that one of the reasons that the founders of this country attempted to make it hard for Congress to pass legislation, and easy for the President to veto their efforts, is because they well understood the harm possible when people who wish to be seen as "doing good" don't bother to find out whether the actual outcome is anything like what they promised.

The Protection Battered Spouses Don’t Need - New York Times via The Corner

I'm not quite sure what to make of this:

NEW YORK (AP) - Poor residents will be rewarded for good behavior - like $300 for doing well on school tests, $150 for holding a job and $200 for visiting the doctor - under an experimental anti-poverty program that city officials detailed Monday.

The rewards have been used in other countries, including Brazil and Mexico, and have drawn widespread praise for changing behavior among the poor. Mayor Michael Bloomberg traveled to Mexico this spring to study the healthy lifestyle payments, also known as conditional cash transfers.

In New York, the two-year pilot program with about 14,000 participants will use private funds Bloomberg has raised because he did not want to spend government money on something that is highly experimental. More than $43 million has been raised toward the $53 million goal, Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs said.

On the one hand, I have to congratulate perpetual busybody Nurse Bloomberg for not spending government funds on this experiment. And as a big believer in the power of incentives to shape behavior, I think experimenting with changing incentives is probably worth a try.

What I'm not so sure about is whether cash rewards are the appropriate way to change incentives. Part of the problem with persistent poverty has to do with existing government programs that provide cash-equivalent support, and often provide disincentives to work, marriage, and other behaviors that would tend to lead people out of poverty. Personally, I'd rather see us strive to remove the government-provided disincentives to responsible and productive behavior, rather than attempting to use cash rewards to offset their impact, as I think the former would be considerably more effective.

Source: My Way News - NYC Poor to Get Cash for Good Behavior