Perhaps you saw it; Sept. 12, 2016. A slick 4-color full page spread in the Denver Post (and most likely other major dailies around the country) headlined, “Abortion in Good Faith.” The ad featured an attractive business woman, a self-proclaimed Catholic, arguing passionately that public funding for abortion is really a matter of social justice. This pitch was sponsored and paid for by by the aptly misnamed “Catholics for Choice” (CFC), a pro-abortion group which, in fact, wants only to deny conscientious Catholics any real choice in having their tax dollars diverted to pay for other people’s abortions.
Not only is CFC’s strategy nauseatingly deceptive in its sophistical inversion of the term “social justice” to mean its very opposite, Continue reading
The Supreme Court is in the habit these days of mandating “compulsory equality,” essentially the kind of equality enjoyed by hapless conscripts (as in the army owns you now). It seems today that when any social conflict arises, it is invariably liberty which must stand aside to make way for some judge’s concept of equality. One example should suffice: the recent ruling that universally affordable health care justifies what can only be described as the ultimately regressive sales tax, i.e. a tax levied on individuals for NOT purchasing a product (insurance). But if the price of equality is compelling those who do not wish to participate in a particular marketplace to do so under coercion, then freedom has been thrown under the bus; there is no apparent limit to state power over the individual. To be sure, Americans have been passionate about the idea of “equality” from the moment the ink first dried on the Declaration of Independence, but equality often proves to be a two-edged sword which, unrestrained, slashes indiscriminately against the competing claims of personal liberty. A conundrum thereby arises, how are we to achieve absolute equality among the peoples without infringing upon our cherished personal freedoms?