Full Military Honors

The McConnell Supreme Court just issued a very fascinating ruling about fetuses. They upheld a portion of an Indiana law, signed into law by the most holy Pence,  that requires the proper burial or cremation of a fetus that has been aborted. Also, if the woman has a miscarriage.

Now, in Indiana about 99% of abortions are performed within the first 13 weeks. At that point the fetus is less than 4 inches long. The size of a nice string bean. Some of these fetuses will be much shorter, of course.  And the fetus weighs in at a rather hefty…well…less than 2 ounces. Less than half of a quarter pounder at McDonald’s.

According to my understanding of the Indiana law this pea pod, tiny bundle of cells is now going to be given full burial rights. For purposes of disposal, this little package will be required to be buried or cremated. It’s the LAW.

This raises some interesting issues.

How many burials or cremations will this entail? Well, the last year I could find stats showed that abortions are up in Indiana. Close to 8,000 each year. That means 8,000 new burials. That comes to about 154 burials per week. That is a lot of cemetery plots. Tiny plots, to be sure, but still…..

Who decides whether the fetus is buried or cremated? Does the law take into account the wishes of the fetus? Some fetuses may object (if they could talk) to being buried. They might prefer cremation. Others, of a more fundamentalist persuasion, might demand to be buried. Otherwise, how could they rise from the dead in glory in the “Last Days” when all of god’s children meet with him ?

Which brings us to another issue. Baptism. Can the fetus be baptized? If so, into which religion? You might say the religion of the mother. But, obviously the mother is a slut who just killed her own fetus. Certainly she is going to hell. Why should she be able to decide? Perhaps a committee of religious leaders in the community could decide? A lottery system? Eenie-meenie-minee -mo? Or, heaven forbid, what if the woman is a Jew??!!!

Miscarriages are another issue. I mean, a woman who aborts her fetus is obviously evil. But what about the woman who miscarries? Well, now, in addition to the sorrow and pain she feels, she will be required to decide how to dispose of her potential offspring. additional pain and suffering. As well she should. After all, she should not have miscarried in the first place.  “Sorry lady, but you should not have had that diet Coke. It’s your own fault”. Lesson learned.

Interestingly enough, the law allows for mass incineration of fetuses. The health clinic can scoop a bunch of them together and burn the little guys all at once. This hardly seems appropriate. Mass graves. Mass incinerations.  Hmmmmm. What does this remind you of? Consider. Some fetuses may have names (Yes, the woman is asked whether or not she wants to name the fetus) , Some will be Jews! Some will be Muslims. Some will be Catholics. Some will be unnamed. Others will be named Roy, or Donald, Jr. or Maria Germania Cynthia Honoraria Pence. All thrown together helter skelter into one mass cremation. Awful.

What about the fetuses of our military? What if the father, for example, was in the Army or Navy? What if the father was a general? In that case, I would suggest that the 3 inch bundle of cells requires a military burial with full military honors. I am shocked that somehow the highly intelligent  members of the Indiana legislature forgot to include this in the bill. An unfortunate oversight. (Or perhaps an Obama plot?)

Let us imagine. The drummers are drumming. An honor guard carries a tiny coffin draped in a tiny American flag (made in China). The bugles blow. A tiny hole is quickly dug in the cemetery. As the tiny coffin is lowered into the tiny hole the uniformed honor guard shoots into the air. A 21 condom salute.

Isn’t that the least we can do?

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/28/1860923/-The-Burdens-of-Indiana-s-Fetal-Remains-Law

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/state-mandated-mourning-for-aborted-fetuses/482688/

 

 

 

 

Treat Me Like A Dog

For the past two years I have been contacting my state legislators about the Medical Aid in Dying bill proposed for New York state. And for the past two years I have not been able to get an answer from either one on where they stand and why.

Being in a rural, conservative part of New York, they both appear opposed. But neither has been willing to state the precise reason for the objections.

Which makes sense. Because there are no non-religious objections. The New York bill is modeled after the Oregon bill and New Jersey bill, which just passed. The Oregon law has been in place for about 20 years and has had no complaints about abuse. These bills do not force anyone or any institution from participating in end of life assistance. They are careful to allow anyone with an objection not to be required to take part in any end of life actions. They protect everyone.

So any objections are primarily religious. And the bill takes those into consideration.

When I think about this issue 4 names come to mind. Bill, Margaret,Lucy and Zoey.

Bill was my father-in-law. He served in WW2 in the British air force before the US entered the war. Once the US entered he was transferred to the US military. After the war he came home and built a house. He started a business selling eggs door-to-door. Yes the Egg man. Goo goo ga-choob. And he was successful and raised a family. He liked the nice glass of wine and a pipe full of cheap tobacco.

It was probably the wine and pipe smoking that lead to his cancer. I think it was throat or esophagus. At any rate, he couldn’t eat . He refused to go to a hospital because he did not want to be kept alive artificially. He slowly starved to death, his wife feeding him morphine to ease the pain.

The last time I saw him he looked like an Auschwitz prisoner. All skin and bones. He was so light we were able to carry him. Like a living skeleton. A man who had fought in a war to free the world from Nazis ended up looking like a victim of the Nazis.

Margaret was my sister-in-law. She was only about 62 when she passed away. Like my father-in-law she also had some type of throat cancer. Since she lived in California I did not see her at the very end. But she also insisted on dying at home. She also starved to death.

She was an active, healthy woman of Dutch heritage. She was an airline stewardess who flew international flights. She raised two great kids . She did everything right. She took care of my brother. She starved to death.

I don’t know if Bill would have taken advantage of a Medical Aid in Dying law. He had no choice. I do know that Margaret would have done so. She expressed that she wished she was back in her native Netherlands where aid in dying was legal. She had no choice.

Which brings me to Lucy and Zoey. Our two dogs. we had them since they were puppies and as they got older and more infirm it became obvious that it was cruel to allow them to live in pain. It would be unconscionable to allow them to suffer. Inhumane.

First Zoey, then a few years later Lucy had to be “put down”. Our local kindhearted vet came to the home. I petted Zoey as Christine administered a shot to put Zoey to sleep. The, after she was unconscious, another shot to stop her heart. I felt the life drain out of her as she slowly became dead weight. A humane death.  A death with dignity. A death without pain or suffering.

All I ask of the state of New York is this:

When my time comes, please “treat me like a dog.”

https://compassionandchoices.org/

https://www.nysenate.gov/senators/thomas-f-omara

https://nyassembly.gov/mem/Philip-A-Palmesano/

What Were You Thinking?

In his testimony about the Mueller Report, Attorney General William Barr explained his reasons for thinking it is not possible to charge Mr Trump with a crime. The key reason being that the prosecutor would not be able to demonstrate “intent”. According to Mr Barr the only way to charge an individual with a crime is if you can prove an “intent” to commit a crime. Even if the person’s own words suggest intent, unless he is explicit that he wants to commit a crime, there can be no trial. Therefore, no indictment is even possible.

This news reached the prisons and defense lawyers around the nation and they responded with glee. Parties were held. Fireworks were set off on Riker’s Island. The fix was in.  No intent, no crime.

So, let’s imagine for a moment that Attorney General Barr, once he is ousted from his current role, becomes a trial judge. Defense attorneys are lining up to have their cases heard before the learned justice.

Case # 1. Johnny Dillinger

Prosecutor: Your honor, the state will show that Mr Dillinger planned and implemented a number of bank robberies. He used the “Lamm technique” of casing a bank, planning a getaway route and then robbing said bank. He was successful and was found with the money. Other members of his gang have admitted to helping him rob banks. The evidence is overwhelming.

Counsel for the Defense: Your honor, the defense admits that Mr Dillinger did plan and execute said robberies. However, it is up to the state to prove “intent”. There is no proof that Mr Dillinger even knew that taking money from a bank was a crime. I mean, he’s not a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of the law. Furthermore, the “intent” of his actions was not to commit a crime, only to obtain money. Money all of us need to live. He saw the bank and thought that the money in the bank would assist him in providing for his family. If robbing banks was not against the law, no crime would have been committed. My client never, in his wildest imagination , “intended” to commit a crime. He only wanted money. Just like everyone else. I move for immediate dismissal of all charges for lack of evidence of “intent”.

Judge Barr: Well argued . The court agrees that while Mr Dillinger may have committed these “crimes”, there is no way to determine whether he “intended” to commit crimes or just wanted money for his family. Case dismissed.

Case #2: Ted Bundy

Prosecutor: Your honor, the state will prove that Mr Ted Bundy committed at least 30 homicides between 1974 and 1978. Included are charges of multiple rapes, kidnapping and necrophilia. He is a serial killer who is the most brutal sociopath and should never again be released to society. . We have the forensic evidence . We will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Counsel for the Defense: Your honor, the defense admits that Mr Bundy did, in fact, take some of the actions noted by the state. We ask you to consider, however, the “intent” of Mr Bundy. Did he kidnap? Yes. Did he rape? Yes. Did he murder? Yes. But what is the real question? In our mind the ONLY question is this: Did Mr Bundy “intend” to break the law?

When Mr Bundy was kidnapping and raping and murdering was he “intending” to break the law? Or was he just intending to rape ? And kidnap? And murder? If rape and murder were not against the law would Mr Bundy even be subjected to this trial? Nowhere in the state’s case does it prove that Mr Bundy “intended ” to break any laws. Just the opposite. He wanted to follow the law, but his sociopathic desires would not allow him to. In his mind, he “intended ” to do whatever was legal. So, your honor, we are requesting an immediate dismissal of the charges based on the fact that no criminal “intent” was proved by the state.

Judge Barr: Excellent legal analysis. While it is clear that Mr Bundy murdered and raped over 30 individuals, the state did not provide any evidence that Mr Bundy intended to break the law. With this lack of intent I am disturbed that the prosecution has even brought the case against this honorable man. Complete exoneration. Case dismissed .

Case #3: LeRoy Jones

Prosecutor: You honor, Mr Jones was found with 2 bottles of baby formula in his possession , not paid for in the grocery store. This is a misdemeanor and we suggest 2 weeks in jail and a $100 fine.

Counsel for the Defense: We concur with the prosecution and plead guilty.

Judge Barr: Outrageous conduct. Stealing is a major crime. Not only did he take baby formula, he obviously intended to break the law. The days of coddling criminals are over. I sentence the criminal to 1 year in prison and a $1000 fine.  Let that be a lesson to all who would “intend” to break the law.