Student Researcher:  Ashley Raynak, Indian River State College

Source:

David Swanson, Virginia Says No to Lawless Imprisonment, Global Research, February 29, 2012 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29546

Faculty Instructor:  Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., Indian River State College

Discussion

The NDAA has raised an ethical concern involving the outright denial of a U.S. citizen’s right to a trial in a court of law. According to the U.S. Constitution all citizens have a right to a trial. A citizen must also be charged with a crime for which there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. With this new law in place, the president is given power to subvert citizens’ rights invested in them by the Constitution. This raises concern over whether too much power is being given to the president.

In a democracy, where emphasis is on the equality of its citizens under law, citizens are not supposed to be imprisoned for the suspicion of terrorism without any substantial evidence supporting the claim. It is not just to imprison people without giving them a chance to defend themselves before an impartial judge or jury in a court of law.

There are a variety of ethical approaches to deliberate when facing the ethics of lawless imprisonment. One approach could be based on the utilitarian perspective of what is considered morally right. According to this ethical approach, a morally right action is one that maximizes an intrinsically good value for a society. In which case, “lawless imprisonment” is not a morally good action. With this new law, many U.S. citizens will predictably find the government untrustworthy since it is taking away a human right recognized by the U.S. Constitution. They will be concerned with the policy creep whereby the government can take control of its people instead of the people making its collective will known through government; leading to the U.S. becoming more of a dictatorship and less of a democracy.

Another view concerning such lawless imprisonment can come from Kantian ethics, the ethical view espoused by the German thinker, Immanuel Kant. According to Kant, a morally right action arises out of a duty rather than out of one’s own need or desire. A morally right action must also be universalized, meaning that if it is right to treat someone else a certain way, it must also be right to treat the person performing the act in the same way. So according to this theory lawless imprisonment is also a morally wrong action. It cannot be considered a right action since throwing someone in jail for suspicion of a crime comes from the desire of the government to control its people, not from any duty that can be universalized. The government does not even need to have evidence to support its allegations of terrorism. This cannot be universalized since the president would find it wrong if he were himself imprisoned without any reasoning other than the government thinking he may be involved in terrorism.

The president is supposed to be voted in by the nation’s people to represent them as a country. With this new law the president is given authority to go against its citizens to imprison them without a defensible rationale. The U.S. citizens should be able to trust fully in their president and the government as a whole; but when the U.S. citizens’ rights are being taken away, such trust is seriously underminedSimilar Posts:

• Congress Considers Endless War, Worldwide
• Aiding The Wrongly Convicted
• US Department of Justice Threatens Julian Assange
• H.R. 347 Would Make Many Forms of Nonviolent Protest Illegal

Source: Laguna Beach Patch, April 11, 2012

Article title: Fish Off Laguna Beach May Have Ingested Radioactive Kelp After Fukushima, Study Finds

Editor: Rich Kane

URL: http://lagunabeach.patch.com/articles/fish-off-laguna-beach-may-have-ingested-radioactive-kelp-after-fukushima-study-finds

Faculty Evaluator: Dr. David Crocker,

Student Researcher: David Dippe: Sonoma state UniversitySimilar Posts:

• Overfishing the Mediterranean
• Radioactive Weapons with Long-Term Health Risks Dropped Into Libya
• The Contamination of Iraq with Depleted Uranium Causes Health Concerns
• California Cement Plant Has One of Nation’s Highest Mercury Emission Levels

Student Researchers: Joshua Hackett, Indian River State College

Belim Humira, Indian River State College

Sources:

“Todays Hidden Slave Trade” Michelle Goldberg, The Daily Beast, June 2011

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/28/world-s-hidden-slave-trade-includes-forced-labor-in-u-s-military-contracting.html

“Rich new York woman accused of keeping slave in mansion closet,” Stephen C. Webster, Raw Story Media, March 2, 2012

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/02/rich-new-york-woman-accused-of-keeping-immigrant-slave-in-mansion-closet/

Faculty Instructor: Elliot Cohen, Ph.D., Indian River State College

Discussion

            Slavery exists today; that is a fact that we all must face. The problem is that when people think of modern day slavery they typically think of sex slavery, but in reality people should also think of labor slavery as the even more prevalent culprit. This issue of slavery arises as a result of utilitarian logic. On this way of thinking, we as a society should try to produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness that is possible. But because of this desire to produce overall happiness, we end up treating some people as a mere means to the happiness of the masses, instead of treating everyone as ends in themselves, that is, as centers of intrinsic worth and dignity. This sort of thinking promotes slavery because the idea of people being treated as a mere means degrades them and turns them into objects instead of persons with inherent rights and dignity.

According to “Today’s Hidden Slave Trade” men, women, and children are victimized by slavery. This surprising fact shows that there are no moral bounds to the types of people enslaved. Anyone, even children, are treated as though they were objects to be used and manipulated, thus stripping them of their rights as humans and turning them into chattel, forcing them to work in fields farming and in factories producing products that are used worldwide.

The corporate exploiters turn people into slaves in order to make more profit. While making profit isn’t a bad thing (in fact that’s what businesses are in business for), these corporations are exploiting some people to generate their profit, which is unjust because the laborer becomes a mere appendage of the business for purposes of maximizing profit. One example given in the article, “Today’s Hidden Slave Trade,” was of “a Middle Eastern woman named Amita who was kept by a London family and required to work in their house from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily, then hired her out to clean office buildings all night.” In another case reported by Raw Story,  a rich New York woman allegedly kept an immigrant slave in a mansion closet for five years.

Unfortunately, today’s consumers, which includes all or most of us, unwittingly also support the slave labor trade. For example, as discussed in “Today’s Hidden Slave Trade,” “the likelihood that a smartphone was not touched by a slave is pretty low.” By utilizing a resource like a smartphone well meaning people support the slave trade because they buy the products that help to exploit these persons. As a result, this sort of slavery is encouraged because it becomes profitable.

However, people are more than objects. They are more than chattel. They have a right not to be enslaved. This grotesquely unethical practice that plagues humankind must be put to an end for we are all persons and should all, therefore, be treated accordingly.Similar Posts:

• Fair Trade Instead of Slavery for the Production of Chocolate and Coffee
• Cosmetic Companies Regulate Lawful Toxicity Level for Profit
• Prison Slavery in Today’s U.S.A
• Alabama Farmers Look To Replace Migrants With Prisoners

One of the reasons this is a bad idea is that the number of Afghan soldiers and police to be trained varies from 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police who are also called “soldiers”. That total increases the Afghan National Security Force to about four times the number of current coalition troops in the country.  It costs the U.S. $12 billion annually to train the afghan army and the estimated cost of keeping it beyond 2014 is $4 billion per year, of which the Afghanistan government says it can pay back no more than 12%.

Student Researcher: T.J. Merone, Indian River State College

Sources:

“Why Spending Billions on the Afghan National Army Could Seriously Backfire” Ann Jones, March 8, 2012. http://www.alternet.org/

“After a Decade, Afghan Forces Don’t Trust Americans’ Jon Stephenson and Ali Safi, March 9, 2012. http://www.military.com/news/article/after-a-decade-afghan-forces-dont-trust-americans.html
Instructor: Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. , Indian River State College

Discussion

            Spending billions of dollars training the Afghan Army, which for the most part is either the enemy in the war or just sits on the sidelines, is not only self-defeating; it is unethical. The Afghanistan government made it clear that it will not pay the American Government back more than12% of the billions of dollars it has already spent. It also said that it does not trust and are “tired of the American people being there.” The American government isn’t getting anything positive out of training the Afghan Army; if anything it poses a serious danger to its troops who are outnumbered by four times.

Six U.S. service members have been killed by their Afghan counterparts since the burnings by Americans of the Quaran. Two were at a joint U.S. Afghan base in the eastern province of Nangarhar, two at a high security Ministry of interior compound in Kabul and two at a joint base in the southern province of Kandahar.

The killings at the Ministry of Interior caused Marine General John R. Allen, the commander of the U.S. led International Security Assistance Force, to withdraw all of the force’s advisers from Afghan ministries until the security and safety of the troops could be improved. Whenever the advisers do come back, it’s expected to be under tighter security restrictions, which is limiting their interaction with the Afghans. Military and U.S. political leaders have said that the violence in Afghanistan won’t ruin the training mission. A coalition spokeswoman, Lt. Lauren Rago said, “It’s business as usual. Nothing has changed that”.  However, this appears to be contrary to fact.  American troops are dying and risking their lives to train nationals who hate them, and no one is getting anything back in return. This is both self-defeating and unethical.

As things stand today, little or no mainstream media coverage has been given to this situation. If there were such coverage, the American people would probably be outraged and question the military, the government, and even the President.  The American people need to know that America is “wasting” money training the Afghanistan soldiers and police while putting American troops in serious danger.Similar Posts:

• There’s Virtually Zero Percent Chance of There Ever Being a Real Afghan Army—So What’s the Pentagon Talking About?
• How the US Funds the Taliban
• Private Contractors Migrating to Afghanistan
• Afghan Civilian Deaths at Record Level

Student Researcher:  Valerie Louis, Indian River State College

Sources:

Reiman, Jeffrey. “Liberal and Republican Arguments Against the Disenfranchisement of Felons.” Criminal Justice Ethics 24. 1 (2005): 3-18. Print.

Felonvoting. Procon.org. Pros and Cons. 2008. Web. 14 March 2012.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1319

Faculty Instructor:  Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. Indian River State College

DISCUSSION

As the  2012 general election fast approaches the issue still lingers from the past two  elections of  2004 and 2008 regarding the voting rights of convicted felons.  Is it morally, ethically, and universally correct to deny a person a second chance to execute their civic duties after committing and being convicted of a crime, once they have fulfilled their obligation to society?  It is an inconceivable misunderstanding that a mistake in a person’s past should characterize the rest of their life, particularly with regard to a core right to participate in a democratic process. In theory, as a nation we believe in rehabilitation, and encourage criminals to pursue a better path upon their release, yet it hardly seems fair or wise to place obstacles in their way, such as the idea that they ought not reflect on their society or participate as an equal in decisions about their future; it is a cruel and alienating policy with little if any public policy rationale. At the very least, it is far too extensive. After they have served their time, and perhaps after they have remained out of trouble for a period (such as five years), voting should be permissible. To preclude, for life, access to a core right, an activity that gives people a sense of belonging in a collective enterprise, due to mistakes for which time has been served, is a moral and practical travesty (often carrying undertones of racial discrimination, to boot).

Some would argue that a felon should not have the right to vote. Felons give up a lot of their rights when they break the law. Convicted felons have broken laws of society and are punished accordingly. One of the consequences of their unacceptable behavior, besides prison, should be that they lose the right to vote permanently.

An estimated 5.26 million people (as of 2004) with a felony conviction are barred from voting in elections – a condition known as disenfranchisement. Each state has its own laws on disenfranchisement. Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while in prison; nine other states permanently restrict certain felons from voting; and of those nine states Florida is one that restricts voting rights for life. Not only if you are a convicted felon, but if you are convicted of a misdemeanor as well you’re voting privileges are taken away for life.  The only way your voting rights might be restored in Florida is that you have to go through the clemency board and this process could take years.  Felons who have paid their debt to society by completing their prison sentence and or parole and probation, and have not committed a crime should be granted all their civil rights and privileges.

Allowing felons to vote under strict supervision even from prison would demonstrate a sense of belonging.  While incarcerated and even after release from prison ex-convicts do not have a sense of belonging to society.  Most of them are rejected and dejected by family, friends, and potential employers. “Of the 5.3 million Americans barred from voting due to a criminal conviction, most of which are non-violent in nature, thirty-nine percent have fully completed their sentences, including probation and parole, yet such individuals are still deprived of their right to vote. In several states, people with criminal records encounter a variety of other barriers to voting, including, most often, cumbersome restoration processes or lengthy waiting periods before rights restoration applications may even be submitted” (Procon.org).  Having the right to vote would display signs of rehabilitation and “…recognize their obligations as respect to the rights of others” (Reiman, p. 11).  “Studies have shown that the benefits of voting are numerous. Individuals who vote generally help to make their communities safer and more vibrant by giving to charity, volunteering, attending school board meetings, serving on juries and participating more actively in their communities. Research has also shown that individuals who vote are less likely to be rearrested” (ACLU).

The extent and impact of the disenfranchisement laws in the United States are beyond assessment, especially with regard to the continued deprivation of voting rights after incarceration.  The United States is the harshest among the democratic free world when it comes to felons and their right to vote. “Countries in the European Union, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Peru” (Reiman, p. 11), along with Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote from prison.  Universally, as a whole collective body there is no conformity among nations regarding citizens right to vote.

The general election will take place in November and several states have already changed their voting criteria making it harder for people with criminal records to vote.  Most would say it is racially motivated, since the majority of incarcerated men are African-American, but this affects all Americans not just African-Americans.  Morally and ethically, it is unjust to refuse a convicted felon their right to vote after they have served their obligation(s) to society.

In order for an ex-convict to be a part of humanity, we as a society must embrace them so they feel like they belong to society and one of the ways of belonging is allowing them to participate in voting.Similar Posts:

• Mysterious Death of Mike Connell—Carl Rove’s Election Thief
• Florida Imprison Black Children for Life
• Ghana: Military won’t intimidate voters-Major Owusu
• Iowa Abortion Bill Seeks Murder Charges

Student Researchers:  Allen (Alex) Wynne, Indian River State College

Jasmine Jackson, Indian River State College

Faculty Instructor:  Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., Indian River State College

Source:

Pallab Ghosh ,“World’s first flu resistant GM chickens ‘created’,”  BBC News , January 13, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12181382

 Discussion

            If one considers the increased volume of food that would be produced and less sickness in livestock due to lack of the flu, one would think that the good outweighs the bad for all considered. The human population is growing so rapidly, the demand for food is increasing.  The poultry industry is always looking for a quicker way to bring the chicken to the market.  Less sick chickens mean more food at everyone’s table and lower chicken prices.  Last year more than 500,000 people got sick from influenza (the flu), so one might conclude that GM chicken produces the most favorable balance of good over evil.

However, by tampering with the genetic code of any living organism there can be health consequences either now or in the future. There are also food safety concerns including allergies, digestive disorders, and antibiotic resistance.  Infants and older people are at a greater risk for some of these issues and even younger healthy people with good digestive tracts could be at risk because food products containing antimicrobial proteins could alter the intestinal flora, fostering the evolution of microbial stains resistant to specific agents.  Multiple studies have confirmed the dangers of consuming GM ingredients, including a prominent study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences.  The researchers found that the organs that typically respond to chemical food poisoning were the first to encounter problems after GM foods were consumed.  It is also likely that some of these genetically altered animals will escape back to their natural habitats and start breeding, interfering with our ecosystem, forever changing the environment.

People should be made aware through packaging which products have been genetically modified so they can make the choice to purchase them or not.  There should also be tight rules governing GM products. This is such a new topic; there are very little rules in place. The FDA needs to have very clear, strict guidelines to govern this and be responsible to provide the public with all information regarding the testing and results of GM animals.

Companies that make these modified animals claim that they are saving animals from dying, but are actually looking for more cost effective ways to increase their bottom lines. The health of humans is less important to many corporations; this is a reason why the dangers of GM animals should be brought to people’s attention by the media. As of now it is unknown if the chicken at the dinner table is GM chicken.Similar Posts:

• Are Genetically Modified Chickens on the Dinner Table?
• Food and Drug Administration Comes Clean on Arsenic-laced Chickens
• Organ Disruption Linked to Genetically Modified Crops
• US Reaching Out to Countries Endorsing Genetically Modified Foods

Student Researcher: Sarah Shonty, Indian River State College

Source:

“No Jail Time for Birth Control,” AVAAZ.org, March 15, 2012 http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_prison_for_contraception/?fp

Faculty Instructor:  Elliot D. Cohen, Indian River State College

Discussion

The Honduran government is intensely debating whether or not to pass the extreme law of jailing women who take the morning-after pill. Not only will they put the women who take the pill in jail, the government will also incarcerate the doctors who prescribe it and anyone who sells it. If this law were passed it would prevent doctors and pharmacists from doing what they are trained to do, and it would prevent women from being extra careful and responsible when it comes to intercourse. There are many reasons why this law would be unethical if it is passed.

As stated in the synopsis, the question of where the line should be drawn was brought up, as was the question of who gets to decide where that line starts and stops. Some congressmen involved in the Honduran government are against the proposed law but many of them do not want to go against the religious belief that abortion is wrong, and the morning-after contraceptive is being viewed as equivalent to an abortion. The first issue with this is that the government should not be intertwining politics and religion. Although it is hard to separate personal beliefs from what is best for people as a whole, or what the people want, as a politician it is necessary to do that. The type of government that Honduras has stands to represent the people, and what they want. Meshing religion and the proposed law changes the whole atmosphere of the debate. It is no longer about what the people want, but what God would want people to do.

Second, this law goes against human rights by putting women in jail for trying to prevent pregnancies. The morning-after pill does not abort a pregnancy after an egg has already been fertilized and attached to the uterus. What the pill actually does is thicken the wall of the uterus after an accident occurs, making it very hard for an egg to attach to the uterus. With this law implemented, a woman who is financially, emotionally, and physically unprepared for a child would not have any way of preventing a pregnancy, had an accident occurred. This new law would also prevent rape victims from being able to take action against an unwanted pregnancy caused by rape. This is unfair to the rape victim to have no option, and to have to be reminded daily of the tragedy she had to endure. The fact that the Honduran government is trying to pass this law that dictates how women get to handle their body is not right. Every woman should have control over what happens to her body. The debated law can be looked at as anti-feminist for not allowing women to make a choice about their own bodies, and for not protecting women from pregnancies that were forced upon them through rape. This law would not represent the type of government that Honduras has.

The debate in Honduras of whether or not to pass the law that will put women in jail for taking the emergency morning-after contraceptive is an important issue. The Honduran women should be able to prevent unwanted pregnancy without being incarcerated or punished for it. The government serves to represent what the people want, as well as protect the people. The proposed law against the morning-after pill is unethical and does not exemplify what the Honduran government symbolizes.Similar Posts:

• Honduran Supreme Court Upholds Most Sweeping Ban on Emergency Contraception Anywhere
• Pregnant and Nursing Women Experience Citizen Harassment
• Wrongful Life Bill Permits Doctors to Withhold Life-Saving Information from Pregnant Women
• Rape in the Ranks: The Enemy Within

According to the report, the Afghan government itself may be blocking much of the aide that is being offered to the IDP’s. Among these efforts to block aid to these IDPs are reports that non-governmental organizations have been stopped while trying to build water pumps or while trying to provide heating to the numerous camps that have been erected around metropolis centers such as Kabul and Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar, and Jalalabad. Apparently the government is nervous about these areas receiving too much aide because they could become magnets for other impoverished locals and, in turn, massive slums could develop.

In addition to the lack of government involvement in the plight of these IDPs and the blocking of almost any outside aid, these IDPs are being met with ostracism from their own countrymen, especially in the larger cities in Afghanistan, such as Kabul, Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar, and Jalalabad. According to the report IDPs are often accused of not properly managing land and exhausting the city’s already poor sanitation situation. There is also mention of land squabbles with the locals.

Student Researcher:  Jason Hunt, Indian River State College

Source:

“Displaced Afghans Left Out in Cold,” Aljazeera, May 1, 2012

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/02/20122282055656846.html

Faculty Instructor:  Elliot D. Cohen, Ph. D.  Indian River State College 

Discussion

            Since October 2001, the United States has been involved in a “war on terrorism” based mainly in Afghanistan. This is the primary reason that these 500,000 Afghanis, that were discussed in the article, have been displaced. Unfortunately, the Afghan government does not have the means to properly care for these displaced citizens. This issue has taken the backseat due to other Afghani government priorities. In addition, the government believes that giving aide to these people will only worsen matters by improving their living conditions, and giving them incentive to stay in the slums that they live in. This is a growing problem due to the fact that there are over 400 people being internally displaced within Afghanistan every day. Over time, I believe that this problem will be viewed as being caused by NATO with the United States as the focal point, which will lead to repercussions that the United States must ultimately face alone.

The biggest issue that the United States will have to face comes from a moral standpoint, and that is its obvious disregard for the livelihood of the Afghan people. Yes, the war was for the safety of the rest of the world, but why does it have to be at the sacrifice of the safety and well-being of the Afghan people? It seems that the lives of the Afghan people do not mean as much as the lives of the Americans, at least not to the United States anyways. The United States has treated the loss of Afghan lives as mere collateral damage in a war that is supposed to provide stability to the country. Instead this war has displaced a large portion of the population and killed another large portion, creating instability, remorse, and unrest.

This massive displacement of people is going to cause a negative outlook toward Americans. I believe that the United States will be vilified for their role in the war in Afghanistan, and this vilification will be the most prominent among the Afghan people. The question is, does the United States really think that after eleven years of the Afghan’s fellow countrymen being uprooted from their homes and lifestyles, that in the future, the people of Afghanistan will greet them with open arms? I think not. I believe that the present situation is breeding hatred and disdain in the minds and the hearts of the Afghan people. In the years to come, I think that the Afghan people will not be very compliant to our wishes, because of our past wrong doings.

This is not only a moral issue, but a monetary one as well. Since 2001, the United States has spent over 500 billion dollars on the war effort in Afghanistan. At the same time, the war-displaced Afghans have been living on less than a dollar a day. This means that since the war has started on October 2001, to the end of February 2012; 3,736 days have passed.  Given the fact that there are over 500,000 displaced Afghans, by my calculations, we have spent an estimate of approximately 268 dollars per displaced Afghan, per day. If we are operating under the guise that we are going into a country to create a stable government that can handle its own security affairs, then why is our country displacing Afghanistan’s most impoverished citizens, while at the same time spending over 268 times what they are living off of every day? This is an obvious misappropriation of funds. Think how much more good could be done if the United States stopped spending their money on more force, and instead used these funds to bolster the local government’s ability to actually control their own population and send them back to their homes. In doing so, the United States would not only see a return of gratitude for years to come, but they would also implement a more lasting stability.

After all is said and done, and the war is over, the United States will have a giant hole to dig itself out of as far as foreign policy is concerned, within the boundaries of the middle east. The United States has shown itself to be a bellicose nation, leaving innocent casualties in its wake. Its efforts, however, will not go unpunished. In the years to come I do believe that the United States will come under more scrutiny than ever before on an international stage due to its unjustified actions toward the innocent people of Afghanistan.Similar Posts:

• Reasons Spending Billions of Dollars Training the Afghan National Army Could Seriously Flop
• American Military Creating An Environmental Disaster In Afghan Countryside
• America’s Secret Afghan Prisons: Investigation Unearths New US Torture Site, Abuse Allegations in Afghanistan
• US Denies Afghani Women Activist Malai Joya Entry Visa

Student Researcher: Ashley Smith, Indian River State College
Sources:

Barto, Nancy. “SB 1359 – Civil Liability; Wrongful Life; Birth.” Center for Arizona Policy. Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Mar. 2012. http://blog.azpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/f12-13-WrongfulLife.pdf

Foster, Stephen D. “Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Doctors To Not Inform Women Of Prenatal Issues To Prevent Abortions.” Addicting Info. 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/07/arizona-senate-passes-bill-allowing-doctors-to-not-inform-women-of-prenatal-issues-to-prevent-abortions/>.

Faculty Instructor: Elliot Cohen, Ph.D, Indian River State College

Discussion

            Since the Republicans took over the GOP there has been bill after bill proposed in order to deter and limit a woman’s right to bodily integrity and both the ability of men and women to seek proper medical health care from organizations such as Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics. Thanks to the effort of Planned Parenthood a great deal of these bills have been brought into the public eye (and many even squashed in their tracks due to public outcry), but every so often a bill will pass under the radar of even these tough and diligent men and women. Recently a bill has been passed in Arizona that places pregnant women in severe jeopardy—it very well will cost the lives of many women and break apart a great deal of families. The bill in question is Senate Bill 1359 of Arizona. The bill effectively states that a pregnant woman no longer has the right to know if her pregnancy will endanger her well-being, and what is worse is that the physician who is overseeing her pregnancy and development cannot be sued even when withholding the information does indeed lead to the woman’s death. What moral implications does this have for not only women, but for all United States citizens?

A great many of bills have been proposed by the Republican GOP, many of them centering around a person’s right to sexual health—particularly that of a woman’s right to sexual health and independence. It is no secret that woman have been singled out in this regard, especially when it comes to the woman’s ability to abort a pregnancy she does not feel capable and/or willing to handle. On the 7^th of March a bill was passed in the state of Arizona that limit’s a woman’s ability to choose what to do with her body in such a deceptive and surprising way—they have made it legal for physicians to withhold life-saving information from the pregnant woman in the event she may elect to an abortion rather than proceed with the pregnancy. The bill’s drafter and spear header claims that this bill was drafted due to the “number of lawsuits…brought in recent years in which the patients sue their doctors and argue that they would have aborted their child if the doctor correctly diagnosed a birth defect…while in utero” (SB 1359, 1). The bill states point blank it is a “legislative policy of favoring childbirth over abortion” (SB 1359, 2), which invades a woman’s right to privacy and to choose what would be best for her, her child, and her family as well as giving leeway for doctors to force their views onto these families under the guise of “intrinsic value of human life” (SB 1359, 2). The bill does not say in black and white the that doctor has the ability to keep this information from the mother, but if the physician did so, the surviving family and/or mother have no claim to sue the physician for malpractice.  This has already occurred in cases where the physician decided not to inform the mother that her pregnancy was ectopic, that the child would have Downs Syndrome, and that she had a higher than average risk of bleeding out due to pregnancy-related anemia–solely because the physician weighed “saving the life of the unborn” over the woman’s right to bodily autonomy and integrity.

It must be asked what sort of ethical implications this has for people’s lives. Should it be alright for a doctor to withhold information about the fetus even if the mother might die? Should it be okay for someone other than the woman to make the decision on what the woman can do with her own body, even if it means the death of a fetus that is utilizing her body? As Foster said in his article “hiding critical information is irresponsible, unconscionable, and risks lives,” and no one should be allowed to force their moral convictions on another person when the health  of that person is involved; especially not those who are in a position of power such as a doctor.Similar Posts:

• South Dakota Takes Extreme Measures to Be the Top Anti-Abortion State
• Iowa Abortion Bill Seeks Murder Charges
• Pregnant and Nursing Women Experience Citizen Harassment
• South Dakota’s New Anti-Abortion Law: Longest Wait in Nation

Student Researcher:  Brandon S. Daby
Source:

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet,” Zombietime.com  http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Faculty Evaluator:  Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

Discussion

            When the idea of eugenics is raised (the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe out human beings deemed “unfit,” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype) most people immediately think of the Nazi regime of WWII ; but the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master race didn’t originate with Hitler. Eugenics was born as a scientific interest in the Victorian age. In the late 19^th century, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if gifted people married only other gifted people, the result would be significantly superior offspring. Elements of the philosophy were part of US policy in the early 20^th century as States passed laws that forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, in as many as 30 States .The California eugenics program sterilized 20,000plus people (one-third of the reported US cases) from 1909-1964, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process.

Prior to WWII, California eugenicists began printing texts promoting forced sterilization, which were distributed to German scientists and medical professionals. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was reported to be modeled after the program utilized in California. It was also supported by funding from corporate charities, explicitly the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. The Rockefeller Foundation funded numerous German eugenics programs, including the one where Josef Mengele “The Angel of Death” trained before he went to Auschwitz. This funding and experimentation led to the sterilization of 450,000 individuals in a decade and eventually the deaths of over 10million victims of the Holocaust.

Recently, North Carolina reported 7,600 (and possibly more) people, between1929 to 1974, were sterilized without their consent because they were assessed by state social workers to be “feeble-minded,” having a “mental disease” or suffering from epilepsy. The government of NC is the only state that has recognized the acts that were committed against their citizens and is attempting to compensate for this by awarding $50,000 to each of the approximately 2000 surviving victims. Although there is no fiscal amount that could be used to measure the loss to these residents it is the solitary attempt in the US.

One could attempt to defend the actions and laws concerning eugenics that scientists and governments have made by arguing they were following an Act-utilitarian (theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that directly produces the most favorable balance of good over evil) approach, the perspective being the use of sterilization to “improve” the human race by preventing those who were deemed “unfit” to reproduce and raise children.  Eugenicists believed they could destroy undesirable qualities and create a more advanced society by eliminating weak or undesirable traits and controlling the population thus justifying the violations of personal rights and the murders committed by the Nazis.

In the case of eugenics the scientist and government leaders set a standard which they felt would ultimately better all mankind, but setting such standards is a dangerous path as history has proven. The elite group would increasingly feel they were becoming more elite and in turn set higher standards.

We have since moved into a new century with better understanding of mental illness, medical procedures, and the realization that educating the masses on birth control has eliminated the need for government population control policies; Or have we?  If John Paul Holdren, the current Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, has anything to say about it the answer is not so clear-cut.  Below are a few edited quotes from the text of ECOSCIENCE, which was co-authored by John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, and Anne Ehrlich:

• Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism (749).

• Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions (786).

• The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control (786-787).

• Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply are OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock (787-788).

• The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children (838).

• Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size (838).

• We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force (917).

• A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born (942-943).

• As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000 (944).

The above quotes are not taken out of context and can be verified in Holdren’s book or thru this link.

The text was written over 30yrs ago.  However, Holdern is in a position of immense influence and power and we have no way of knowing if his thinking has changed. Should we be concerned that his philosophies as presented 30 yrs ago still permeate his thinking and could be influencing his and the current administration’s policies?Similar Posts:

• No Justice for the Peruvian Victims of Forced Sterilization
• Reproductive Rights & Dignity Violated in Namibia
• US Funds China’s Police State
• Cuts In U.S. Welfare Programs Hit Hundreds Of Thousands Of Poor Families