Radio shows

By Steve Deace

Another Pro-Life Betrayal by Karl Rove?

The author of a new book charges that prominent Republican strategist Karl Rove advised the leader of breast cancer group Susan G. Komen for the Cure to restore funding to Planned Parenthood earlier this year. Karen Handel — the former Komen senior vice president who resigned during the episode — writes in her book, “Planned Bullyhood,” that Rove was among those advising the organization to reverse course.In the book, Handel recalls Susan G. Komen for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker telling her that “I’ve talked to a lot of people. And even Karl says we have to backtrack.” Handel, who said she didn’t know who “Karl” was at first, recalls Brinker clarifying that she was talking about Rove. Somewhere Todd Akin isn’t surprised.

Romneycare Worse than Obamacare?

That’s the provocative conclusion reached by this conservative blog, which is responding to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney telling NBC’s Meet the Press that he will keep in place many of Obamacare’s provisions if elected. The blog says, “The parts (of Obamacare) that Romney would keep would actually accelerate the bankruptcy of insurance companies and the take-over of medicine by the government.” And it lays out 7 specific losses of freedom if a President Romney would indeed leave much of Obamacare in place. 

This Probably Won’t Help the Ron Paul Movement

The Ron Paul or “liberty” movement is struggling to find its way, caught between the increasing tensions of Paul’s curious coalition of anarchists and Calvinists. Some of the best legislators in my state supported Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy in 2012, and were some of the best pro-life legislators my state has.

On the other hand, there are those who have embraced full-bore Ayn Rand’s theology (notice I didn’t say philosophy), which is not compatible with a Judeo-Christian value system. Rand herself was a God-hater, and detested Christianity. Just as the movement appears to be gaining steam, there is a tug of war between these factions for control with Paul himself prepared to step aside.

If you want to know what I mean by “anarchist” wing, look no further then this blog written by Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University in New Orleans. Block goes into detail about his experiences speaking to Republican Party audiences (including one where Michele Bachmann introduced him) about a belief he has called “evictionism.”

Block defines evictionism as follows:

It is the theory that a pregnant woman has the right to evict from her body the unwanted fetus, but not to murder it. In contrast, the pro life position claim she may not do either, and the pro choice perspective allows her to do both. In the first six months of gestation, this does not matter much for the fate of the infant; if evicted; i.e., taken out of the womb, he will die even if he is not put to death. But it is very important in the last trimester; were eviction, only, the law of the land it would mean life for these young human beings while abortion (eviction plus killing) spells death. And, as medical technology improves, more and more such lives will be saved. For example, perhaps in 10 years from now, doctors will be able to preserve the lives of all fetuses removed from the womb in the last four months of pregnancy, and then, maybe, by 2030, they will be able to save all those in the last five months of gestation. Eventually, if evictionism is adopted, all lives can be saved. Whereas, if we pro lifers (I consider evictionism to be pro life in the most profound sense) stick to the losing strategy of pro life, even when medical technology improves to that degree, perhaps in 100 years, we will still be stuck with the mass murder of infant children.

That’s right, Dr. Block actually describes the murderous philosophy he just articulated as “pro life.” But that’s not all, here’s another line from Block’s piece:

“…the only way, to ensure that we have a living, breathing, progressing philosophical perspective is not to attempt to prohibit, by yelling and screaming, any attempt to derive a different libertarian position on this vexing issue.”

In the past few years I’ve come to embrace many of Dr. Paul’s economic ideas, but I find this notion of a “living, breathing, progressing philosophical perspective” troubling because many of Dr. Paul’s most ardent supporters claimed he was the only candidate of principle, whose principles never changed over time. Dr. Block, writing at the pro-Paul propaganda website Lew Rockwell seems to contradict all of that.

Also notice that Dr. Block’s “pro-life” stance isn’t based on any sincere moral conviction as much as his libertarian theology is. He flat out says in the piece he’s trying to make his “pro-life” beliefs “consistent” with his libertarianism. That means his libertarianism is his theology. If your theology isn’t based on anything absolute, then you definitely have a “living, breathing progressing philosophy.”

Ayn Rand would be proud.

The so-called “liberty movement” is going to first have to decide for itself what it is before it grows in influence. Right now it has two dramatically different theologies attempting to operate under the same persona, and a house divided against itself cannot stand. When the cult of personality surrounding Dr. Paul erodes once he leaves center stage, it will be interesting to watch what emerges to take its place.

Many of Dr. Paul’s economic ideas are vital to preserving the republic, but they will never be embraced by the multitudes needed to make them happen  as long as “evictionism” and “a living, breathing, progressing philosophy” is included in the packaging.

This movement has to make a choice. Either take out your trash or enjoy nibbling around the anarchist margins, gleefully blogging yourselves to death.

You can “friend” Steve Deace on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.