Thursday, May 3, 2012

Opponent of Chinese One Child Policy dumped at the roadside by Obama administration

The Chinese dissident who has been punished by the Chinese government for his opposition to China's One Child Policy-- a population control scheme which includes forced sterilizations and abortions-- has gotten less than enthusiastic support from the Obama Administration. Chen Guangcheng has been released/turned over to Chinese authorities for "hospitalization".

Mr. Chen is a courageous man who has worked hard to oppose population control, which is an ongoing crime against humanity. The United Nations and the International Criminal Court have defined as genocide:

"... the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such... Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"

Mr. Chen's work in support of this basic human right-- the right to be free from government control of family size-- has gotten little sympathy from the Obama administration. Perhaps he could stir up passion from the left by abandoning his struggle against population control totalitarianism and instead demand that he receive free contraception.

Free condoms, rather than human dignity, seems to be what the left is willing to fight for. 


  1. Dr. Egnor,

    I was thinking of China when this whole Sandra Fluke/birth control mandate thing came up.

    I thought to myself, if our first amendment right of free exercise of religion doesn't protect us from the government coercing us to BUY birth control, does it protect us from the government coercing us to USE birth control?

    The reason I ask is because the fans of the contraceptive mandate seem unfazed by the first amendment argument. Remember the old bothersome anonymous lawyer? His argument was ludicrous but mostly consistent--that laws of general application need make no exceptions for religious objections. With that kind of mindset, the free exercise clause becomes basically meaningless. You have the right to practice your religion...unless it's illegal. And we just passed a law making the exercise of your religion illegal. That was easy!

    I sometimes want to ask these people exactly what the free exercise covers. To hear them tell it, it's so narrowly defined that it means just about nothing. Free exercise doesn't mean this, that, or anything at all.

    A law of general application could be passed requiring women, like me, to use birth control devices. Could it not? I'd scream bloody hell, but my one voice would mean nothing. And if the first amendment doesn't protect Catholic hospitals and universities, it wouldn't protect me either.


    1. Good points, TRISH.

      One may reasonably ask: why do the statists put so much emphasis on something like contraception? Of all of the things to demand a "right" to have-- milk, gas, bread, etc, why choose contraception?

      The answer, I think, is that statists understand that the Church is the only major impediment to the state's goal of control of citizen's lives.

      So they picked the one thing that would force the Church either to get out of healthcare and any activity that employs people, or to compromise its values in a fundamental way.

      This is about power, that the state knows that the Church is impediment to power.

    2. She clearly deserves a bonus tinfoil hat!

      Seriously, you, guys, crack me up. Less free than China? Oh, come on, give me a break!

    3. I'll give you a break all right.

      China is slightly less free than we are. Only slightly. If this contraceptive mandate stands, we have clearly lost the core of our freedoms. The rest is all for show.

      Oleg, do you pay attention to the barrage of stories about people being punished by the state for their faith? My goodness, these "secularists" are like the Taliban. No, they're worse than the Taliban.


    4. Only slightly? Lady, you hav no idea what it means to live in a communist country. None whatsoever.

      What freedoms will have you lost? You are not, and will not, be required to buy contraceptives. The proposal is to mandate insurers to offer coverage for contraception.

      You exaggerate things out of proportion. Calm down. Have a glass of water or something.

    5. TRISH,

      I must disagree that the lawyer's argument was consistent.

      Yes, he did say over and over again that the judges are right. I then asked him a very simple question about the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which extends suffrage to eighteen year olds unless otherwise barred by other circumstances.

      I asked him if eighteen could be interpreted to be twenty-one.

      If I recall, he said he would have to read the judge's decision! Ha! So, he left the door open to the possibility that judge might be wrong.

      I don't have to read the judge's decision. Eighteen doesn't equal twenty-one. If you're interpreting eighteen to mean twenty-one, your interpretation is wrong. It's wrong even if you happen to be wearing a black robe while doing your interpretation.


  2. We're becoming less free than China.

    I can see a one child policy coming here.


    1. My wife comes from Taiwan, where she is part of a Christian minority. She says that she feels more comfortable there than here. Discrimination is more prevalent here and the right to free exercise is essentially a joke.

      She says that Christians in China have it worse than in the US, but not much worse. The difference isn't that stark.

      I can't see any reason why we can't have a one child policy in the US. What part of our Constitution prohibits it? Well, I can name a few. But when the time comes to implement the policy, they'll say that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it plainly says, and a judge will concur and they will do it. You're right. If the first amendment doesn't protect us from the contraceptive mandate, then it protects us from nothing.

      Obama's science czar, John Holdren, wrote in his 1977 book that women should be forced to have abortions and that birth control should placed into food and water.

      VP Joe Biden has no problem with China's policy.

      "But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand – I’m not second-guessing – of one child per family. The result being that you're in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.”

      Yes, let's learn together. With China. Perhaps they have a thing or two to teach us.


  3. I don't care much for the ICC. I wouldn't, for example, put American soldiers under their jurisdiction.

    Nice definition of genocide though. "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"

    Any attempt to cut down on pregnancies is therefor genocide. If you go to an inner city school and fling condoms around, you're committing genocide.

    Kind of a dumb definition, but...when you consider the history of Planned Parenthood, it doesn't seem so far-fetched. It was Margeret Sanger's dream to eliminate groups she didn't like.


  4. "His argument was ludicrous but mostly consistent--that laws of general application need make no exceptions for religious objections."

    "Ludicrous" apparently now means "the law of the land". Since that what it is. Scalia and the rest of the Supreme Court didn't find it to be ludicrous. I suppose you are now better versed in the law than the justices of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary?

    1. Is this the same anonymous lawyer?

      Yes, it is ludicrous. Because it takes the clear language of the first amendment and reverses its meaning one hundred and eighty degrees. "Congress shall pass no law" becomes "Congress shall pass any law".

      Again, why do you assume that I will be impressed that Scalia ruled one way or another? I think I've said this to you a half dozen times, but I'll say it again because you're obviously not grasping it.

      People are right based on the merits of their arguments, not because of who they are. "I'm right because I'm a judge" is weak. If you've ever heard of papal infallibility, this is judicial infallibility. Now, I think that Scalia is generally right, but even when he is, it's not because he's Scalia. I don't have to agree with everything he says, or everything anyone says, or else be labeled a hypocrite.


    2. "Ludicrous" apparently now means "the law of the land".

      Are you trying to make the argument that because the law exists, it can't be ludicrous?