FIC Blog

Dr. Alevda King is coming back to Connecticut to speak at a dinner Mar. 1st that will honor pro-life Connecticut RNC member Pat Longo. Details are here. 

Gov. Malloy’s State of the State speech today was heavy on election year-friendly policies. No gratuitous shout-out to same-sex “marriage”, as in 2011. No reference to assisted suicide, even though Speaker Sharkey said it will get a hearing and it is flagged as one of three key issues for the 2014 session on The Courant’s front page today. Countless Connecticut commentators advise the CT GOP to actively join the other party’s attacks on life and marriage. But if that would be such good politics, why did the Governor leave it out of his election year SOTS speech?

UConn football coach Ernest Jones is in hot water for telling an interviewer, “We’re going to make sure [players] understand that Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle.”

As someone who once had a painfully awkward brush with aggressive atheism at work, we’re all too aware that this is a two-way street; there’s evangelization, and then there’s abuse of authority, and I wouldn’t want someone to feel coerced to embrace my faith under those circumstances.

That said, we can’t help being amused by UConn’s hurry to put the kibosh on Jesus talk – even putting aside obvious comparisons between football and religion. President Susan Herbst says,

employees can’t appear to endorse or advocate for a particular religion or spiritual philosophy as part of their work or in their interactions with students. This applies to work-related activity anywhere on or off campus, including on the football field.

If I were faculty, ambiguous language like “appear to endorse,” “spiritual philosophy,” and “interactions” would not make it easy to know where I stood with Herbst. What exactly is the appearance of endorsement? If I wear a cross or carry a Bible, do I appear to endorse Christianity? What constitutes a spiritual philosophy, and how many kinds of interactions or activity are we talking about, here? Personal, one-on-one conversations?

Would it be the worst thing to impress upon students – including, and perhaps especially those on sports teams – that there is ultimately a higher court and more perfect judge than the UConn Office of Community Standards? That even the most talented among us is not a god? At least two of the young women filing suit against the university say that they were raped by athletes. I’m not the biggest fan of the popular expression “What Would Jesus Do,” but I am confident enough to say that kicking the alleged victim off the hockey team, as she claims, is not a good answer. The other student told the press, “I didn’t feel comfortable telling anyone or reporting because of the overwhelming privilege of athletes on this campus.”

There is an almost-palpable contrast with what Herbst insists in her letter to the Courant regarding Coach Jones:

At public universities we value everyone in our community, and treat each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of who they are, what their background is or what their beliefs may be. Every student, including student-athletes, must know they are accepted and welcomed at UConn.

We would like to be fair and not make unqualified assumptions, but in light of the allegations it would seem that some student athletes may feel entirely too welcome. It also looks like Herbst’s campus culture of equal respect, desirable though it is, has a very long way to go. Maybe a little more (appropriate) Jesus talk wouldn’t hurt.

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and other key House Democrats have issued a memo to House Republicans purporting to offer tips on “how to better communicate with women on the issues important to them.” In reality, this memo revolves around abortion – though, of course, they substitute their own euphemisms whenever possible. Given that communicating with our state’s U.S. Congressional delegation on issues like religious freedom has proven, in my prior experience, to be about as easy as getting a Buckingham Palace guard to laugh, I would like to counter-offer some tips on how to talk to constituents who do not subscribe to the abortion-on-demand agenda. Actually, less talk and more listening would be nice.

Tip #1: Do not assume that, because we happen to be endowed with the attributes of the female sex, we are all in agreement about values and priorities. Echo chambers rot your mind; groupthink is creepy.

Tip #2: Don’t use us, as though we were human shields for your bad policies.

Tip #3: Know how utterly transparent it is when you pretend a partisan jab is somehow taking the high road.

Tip #4: Most pertinent of all, do not quote us out of context to try to make yourselves look better. You will get busted and end up looking more foolish…

…which is precisely what the House Democrats accomplished with their misleading spin job on law professor Helen Alvaré’s testimony asking Congress to take federal funding for abortion off the table for good. We at FIC are fans of Alvaré’s pro-life work on the Women Speak for Themselves project, and quite a few eyebrows were raised at the memo’s suggestion that this smart and articulate woman would have “admitted” anything close to agreement with our Congresswoman’s well-known, sanguine opposition to reasonable restrictions on abortion that, as it turns out, are popular among women. We reached out to Alvaré, who responded to the House Democrats’ claims:

While I’m delighted I have support from anyone – Republicans and Democrats alike — for “policies supporting women’s care work, or work/family balance, policies addressing paid leave or social security benefits,” and policies allowing “poor women especially to break the cycle of poverty and non marital childbearing,” I’m disappointed to see my words quoted outside their full context. They were delivered as part of Congressional testimony on the necessity of DEfunding abortion because of what abortion is, and because of how it hurts women. Some are using them to suggest that all pro-life legislative debates detract from a women’s policy agenda. What a misuse! Those words followed 1800 prior words demonstrating women’s objection to abortion funding, and the federal government’s continual acknowledging that access to abortion is not a women’s health concern.

Hear, hear! As our pro-life neighbors in New York also point out, nine out of ten planks of the “Women’s Equality Act” are being held hostage to Gov. Cuomo’s baffling insistence on expanding abortion in a state that could hardly need it any less.

If House Democrats really want to quit wasting time, a good way to start would be by reinstating the Mexico City Policy (prohibits federal funding of groups that promote abortion overseas) and permanently codifying the Hyde Amendment (greatly restricts domestic funding of abortion). We have not forgotten that the repeal of the former was one of President Obama’s first acts in office, and have little doubt that the latter would have been toast years ago were it up to many New England liberal Democrats. It is my fondest hope that one day our representatives will realize the harm they have done and become champions of both women and their babies, the defenders of the oppressed that they are truly meant to be. Congressfolk: I still believe you have it within you, and I am not ready to give up on you! In the meantime, expect us to keep our vigilance high and the pressure on.

That’s a big word, obeisance. But considering the synonyms are “respect, homage, worship, adoration, reverence, veneration, honor, submission, deference” we cannot imagine a word that better describes the stance of Connecticut’s top politicians to same-sex “marriage.”

It it almost comical. On the Left, loud and open support for same-sex “marriage” is now a must for anyone who wants to be thought enlightened by his peers.

But here in Connecticut–heart of New England progressivism! (or so we’re told, repeatedly)–same-sex “marriage” was defeated every year at the state legislature and only came about through the vote of a single judge on the State Supreme Court.

Oh, the humiliation! What’s a progressive Connecticut politician (or reporter) to do? Sure, you can pretend that it was the legislature that “enacted” same-sex “marriage”…and when that doesn’t work you can say, well ok, but they “signed off” on the court ruling…and when it’s pointed out that the codification bill actually wrote into law the strongest religious liberty exemptions against same-sex “marriage” in the country, you can mumble something about Connecticut being the first state to pass gay civil unions without a court order…but alas, even that wasn’t the breakthrough that our hapless Connecticut progressive makes it out to be.

So what is the progressive Connecticut politician to do? The answer is to try to associate yourself with same-sex “marriage” events elsewhere in the country that have nothing to do with you, so often and so shamelessly that even The Hartford Courant is embarrassed for you.

The latest installment in this story of Connecticut politicians’ continuing obsequiousness to the same-sex “marriage” agenda is–wait for it!–the news that “Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said Monday that the state will recognize same-sex marriages performed in Utah during the 17 days they were legal.”

During the 17 days that it was legal. But no matter. Anything to grab on to the glamor the same-sex “marriage” cause holds for the Left–a glamor that, outside of Connecticut’s own mainstream media, was largely denied to our state’s politicians.

I wish Talk of Connecticut still had its Dan Lovallo archives on its website, so I could link to his 2009 interview of me regarding President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Here is what I remember: I hedged. Given that there was nothing we could do to stop her, I suggested that Sotomayor might turn out to be the best of the worst. As a lower court judge, she had ruled in favor of pro-lifers on several occasions…and her nomination made NARAL nervous. I feel vindicated in that judgement as of last night, now that Justice Sotomayor has issued a temporary halt of the HHS Mandate for the Little Sisters of the Poor. I’m sure she’s still with the cultural Left, that a reverse-Souter is too much to hope for. But while this Administration is still in control, I’ll take our victories wherever I can find them. So: Hurray for us!

[See FIC’s history in fighting the HHS Mandate here.]

[The following was a speech given by Leslie Wolfgang at a Waterbury gathering on December 9, 2013.]

You may not know this, but the push for assisted suicide has come to Connecticut and out of concern for others, I believe we should stop it. There are arguments in favor of assisted suicide that appeal to our sense of independence or wanting choices, a fear of losing control or of dying. I’m going to discuss these and why on careful review, they fall short.

The supporters of assisted suicide begin by conjuring an image of modern man hooked to high-tech machines, receiving numerous treatments beyond their control or effectiveness. I do not dismiss their concerns, I have them myself. But nobody is advocating for unwanted treatment. Not me, people with disabilities, elderly advocates, not the doctors and nurse associations that oppose assisted suicide. The concerns are real, but the solution is to respect the wishes of patients with regard to drugs and machines, not use drugs and machines to kill patients.

A second reason we are told we need “aid in dying” laws is as a “treatment” for people with insufferable pain. Again, who wants to say “no” to people who have insufferable pain? But in Oregon, people who request assisted suicide are asked why. And their answers don’t support it as a cure for pain. The number 1 reason people request assisted suicide is fear of “losing autonomy”. The second reason is “inability to enjoy the activities of life” and the 3rd most requested reason is “loss of dignity”. Second from the bottom, number 6 was “inadequate pain control, or concern about it.”

I do not discount people’s concerns about pain, but statistics from Oregon don’t support the necessity of changing our state laws to use suicide as a treatment for pain. In no state, are doctors prosecuted for giving morphine to relieve insufferable pain, even if that patient ends up dying because of it. What we need is more research into identifying untreated pain, education, and managing pain with new medications.

Another reason cited to legalize “aid in dying” in Connecticut is that if we just create enough administrative rules . . if we craft careful restrictions, we can control it. This is a fantasy. Contradicted by the experiences of The Netherlands, a region that has expanded their euthanasia program over 30 years to include growing circles of people.

Since passing their law, studies show that nearly 1/3 of the assisted deaths are now done without consent. 47% of the deaths are unreported and done by unauthorized hospital personnel. The people most affected by these abuses are the “bed blockers” – people in their 80s who are not responding to treatment. In the Netherlands, you can purchase a “Please don’t euthanize me” card and carry it in your wallet. A survey of senior citizens there reveals that 10% refuse to seek medical treatment because they are afraid being euthanized against their will.

The circles have extended to people who are suffering mentally or presumed to be suffering mentally. In April 2012, a depressed mother was euthanized although not physically ill. In December 2012, twin brothers who were born deaf, died by euthanasia even though they were not sick. A woman with anorexia who was sexually abused by her psychologist was legally euthanized. And last month a person who suffered from a botched gender-change operation was euthanized. And these are just the stories that get international attention . . there are many more.

Officials in Belgium also report that they are already euthanizing newborns with disabilities because of the distress caused to the parents, not the patient. They are poised to adopt a law which extends their euthanasia to competent children and people with alzheimers. Once assisted suicide becomes commonplace, the logic of excluding some groups, but not others, disappears.

Can’t happen in the US? Washington state, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in 2009 has had discussions to extend their law to non-terminal people.

A fourth argument in favor of assisted suicide is that there is no proof that abuse can happen. But earlier this year a woman was legally convicted, who stole more than $50K from a man who moved into her home, named her his trustee, and then died by physician-assisted suicide. With 13 trillion dollars in assets, 50 percent of the United States’s asset base, baby boomers represent a prime target for future fraud and elderly abuse.

Studies also show that assisted suicide increases suicide in general. Oregon’s suicide rate, after decreasing before they adopted assisted suicide, has increased to 41% above the national average.

I have a confession to make. I am a libertarian at heart and the argument that rational, well-informed adults, should be able to make their own decisions, about the end-of-life, appeals to me. But we are not an island unto ourselves. Laws have consequences, and asking the government to license doctors to administer death inducing drugs at a time when we’re reforming of our health system to save costs, should give us pause.

I want us to think about my friend, Cathy Ludlum. A long time resident of Connecticut and a person with severe disabilities, she says “I’m worried about health care rationing, I think it could mean the end of my life.”

In conclusion, the arguments in favor of assisted-suicide . . to counteract overtreatment, to treat insufferable pain, lack of abuse, and arguments for personal choice sound appealing at first . . but after careful review, the licensing of physicians to dispense deadly drugs . . to violate their oath “to first, do no harm” . . simply can’t justify eroding protections for people with disabilities, the elderly, and the most vulnerable among us.

Razors pain you,
Rivers are damp,
Acids stain you,
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren’t lawful,
Nooses give,
Gas smells awful.
You might as well live.
― Dorothy Parker, Enough Rope

FIC said all along that people have the right to live however they choose but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of society. So the news that Hartford and New Haven “were among the top cities for LGBT people to live and work” would not be news to us…were it not for some other news reported in the same day’s print edition of The Courant.

There is the strange case of Samuel See, “a Yale University professor found dead at a detention facility following his arrest in a domestic incident”:

New Haven police responded to a domestic dispute at See’s home the evening of Nov.23. Sunder Ganglani, 32, who identified himself as See’s husband, was at the home in violation of a protective order…

Police said See became enraged and yelled that he shouldn’t be arrested because he was in his own home. He fought with officers who tried handcuffing him, police said.

“I will kill you… I will destroy you,” See allegedly yelled at an officer as he was led to a police car.

And the Manchester woman accused of stabbing her ex-girlfriend in Hartford:

HARTFORD — A 21-year-old woman was arrested Wednesday on charges that she stabbed her former girlfriend during a fight on Bliss Street.

Pamela Landon, of Manchester, faces a single count each of first-degree assault, second-degree strangulation, criminal attempt to commit murder, first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree breach of peace.

Earlier this past week, The Courant also carried a small item on “a sharp increase in unprotected sex among gay American men, a development that makes it harder to fight the AIDS epidemic”.

Again, what concerns FIC is the negative effects same-sex “marriage” will have on society. Early evidence is already confirming our warnings, though the full effects will not be known for decades. In the meantime–and politically correct pleasantries about Hartford and New Haven notwithstanding–the daily newspapers regularly drop unintentional hints that all is not well in the same-sex “marriage” universe.

I read the Hartford Advocate mostly in the mid-90s, when I was a twenty-something UConn Law student living in West Hartford. It published some great work back then. There was “Connecticut Etiquette,” a piece that captured the time and place of my early adulthood better than anything I have ever read. And a hilarious April Fool’s Day parody of a Hartford Courant front page: The weather section skewered The Courant’s overuse of “blustery” to describe a windy day, the dispatch from The Courant’s Washington, DC correspondent painted the picture of a lonely soul (“Why won’t The Courant send me a bus ticket to Connecticut so I can see my family? When can I come home?”).

This author’s “salad days” occurred ten years later, at which point The Advocate papers were the enemy. Even so, they were a more sophisticated enemy than the mainstream media. Family Institute of Connecticut engaged the Hartford Courant columnist Susan Campbell because of the paper Susan was writing for. But we engaged the New Haven Advocate’s Carole Bass because Carole was smart, logical, and matching wits with her meant upping your game.

It is not the role of a Connecticut conservative, still less a social conservative, to lament the passing of The Advocate weeklies. But I do lament the death of forums for long pieces of local writing. The Simsbury Borders clerk who penned wickedly funny reflections on his Farmington Valley customers in The Courant’s (now-defunct) Sunday magazine, Vinnie Penn’s long goodbye to KC 101 in the Advocate…where would these essays be published today? Something has been lost.

The first time I heard some blogger quip about “Black Thursday,” I recoiled like a vampire from a cross.  You think that’s cute now, I thought,  just wait until it starts to stick.

About this time last year, I was struck with sadness by the juxtaposition between these two headlines on MSN Money’s Smart Spending blog:

I never really went for Black Friday, but I figured if people wanted to take their lives in their hands for cheap waffle irons, and it gave them a rush, it wasn’t my problem.  I feel strongly that the creep into Thanksgiving is different.

Thanksgiving may be just a day, but unfortunately it’s one of the only major, anti-materialistic holidays we have left.  Even the celebration of Christmas has metamorphosed into something that I think it’s fair to say neither Jesus nor the real Saint Nicholas would entirely recognize.  More than many other holidays, Thanksgiving has held out as a national expression of gratitude for the important things in life; the turkey is just a perk.  Personally, I think the Evil One just despises simple, humble gratitude.  Until recent years, it seems, certain boundaries weren’t widely crossed.  Then Walmart, or Target (I don’t remember which – it probably doesn’t matter) triggered a race to the bottom.

At this point I would like to make clear what this post is not about:

Some places sell life-sustaining things, like food and medication.  I’m not going to castigate Aunt Edna for forgetting the cranberry sauce in spite of her best efforts, or Stop & Shop for being there because they know somebody’s going to forget something in spite of the level of preparation.

Some people will always have to work on holidays, such as nurses and firefighters.  God bless them.

Some people need the cash flow so badly that they cannot turn down the opportunity to make overtime, and some people who sacrifice greatly during the rest of the year are using the discounts to try to give their kids some joy.  I get that.

This is about retail and the temptation to acquire cheap, unnecessary stuff on a day that has traditionally been set aside to give thanks for the blessings we have.  My ire is largely reserved for the companies who do this, not so much the patrons or employees.  They are tempting people, and when it comes to their employees, they wield an unfair amount and kind of pressure.  We have all seen, with abortion and same-sex “marriage,” the falsity of the idea that personal decisions don’t affect anyone else.  I expect that in coming years, in retail, there will be a top-down shame associated with not being willing to work on Thanksgiving Day.  It will not look like coercion, but no worker who really needs his job wants to be labeled “not a team player.”  The dubious notion that employees do this completely of their own free will allows the big box retailers and big-name department stores, at least temporarily, to avoid the fair criticism that it probably would not kill them to pay just enough to give their employees ONE day off with their families.  To some of us, that would be public relations gold.

If it wasn’t obvious, I plan on avoiding these and other retailers on Thanksgiving Day. The rest of the year, I have already begun not exactly a boycott, but a significant limiting of what I spend at places that are willing to try to make a buck by undermining this holiday. When I encounter a business that closes to give their employees this day off, I say thank you. I aim to persuade, not to put anyone on the defensive, so I’m asking for people to join me if they think I have even the slightest bit of a point. This is my plea: If you don’t need to shop, don’t; if you don’t need to work, don’t. Doubtless some of our readers are planning to already, but consider making even a small contribution of time or treasure to a charity. Help preserve Thanksgiving for everyone.

To all our members and their families, a happy, safe, and blessed Thanksgiving!