A Guide To Islamic Extremist Groups

Organization	Location	Mission	Links to other organizations
Al  Qaeda	Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Somalia, Indian subcontinent (recently announced)	According to the writings of Sayyid Qutb, a vanguard movement of righteous Muslims is needed to establish "true Islamic states", implement sharia, and rid the Muslim world of any non-Muslim influences	In February 2014, Al Qaeda announced that it was cutting all ties with Islamic State for its brutality.
Islamic State	Iraq and Syria	Sunni extremist group. As a self-proclaimed caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control.	Formed from the consolidation of Al Qaeda Iraq with other Sunni insurgent groups
Khorasan	Syria	Not clear.  It seems to comprise a dozen Afghanistan veterans who are all wanted by the U.S.	Cell backed by Jabhat al-Nusra; “affiliated” with Al Qaeda (according to our State Department)
Jabhat al-Nusra	Syria	Sunni movement that calls for overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad’s government.	Has declared allegiance to Al Qaeda; has fought with IS but at least one al-Nusra branch has pledged allegiance to IS.
Boko Haram	Nigeria	Sunni movement that seeks the establishment of an Islamic state in Nigeria. Kidnapped nearly 300 schoolgirls, most of whom are still missing.	Declared support for the IS caliphate.  The Obama administration does not consider Boko Haram to be affiliated with central al Qaeda leadership.

I created the table above for my own knowledge.  Since the United States has committed to military involvement in Syria and Iraq, I should at least know who we are fighting and what they stand for. So I compiled some information in papers released by the Congressional Research Service on the organizations that pose a threat to the United States. 

America's ambassador to the UN, Samantha power, argued that Iraq had asked our country to assist in defending itself from Islamic State; that the group was staging attacks from Syria; and that the government of Syria was either unable or unwilling to prevent this.  But rather than striking Islamic State, our first round of attacks were against the Khorasan group, which seems to be one cell of the Jabhat al-Nusra.  As I have discussed previously, the U.S. use-of-force declaration authorizes military force for the threat posed by Iraq.  Islamic State arguably fits that definition.  Although I have only a cursory understanding of the groups involved, Khorasan seems to be distinct from Islamic State.  So our strikes may not have been authorized under our own use-of-force declaration. 

Should all extremist Islamic groups be treated as one? Or should we pay more attention to the differences between groups in deciding who to strike?  

Little Sisters vs. Big Government

Last week, the government announced that it would continue to fight over contraceptive coverage with the Little Sisters of the Poor.  The Little Sisters filed suit to obtain injunctive relief from a federal mandate requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage for their female employees.  I say “federal mandate” because this requirement was not part of the text of the Affordable Care Act.  Rather, the ACA required  any “group health plan” to provide coverage for certain “preventive care” without “any cost sharing.” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a).  A federal agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration, defined “preventative care” to include FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, including abortifacient “emergency contraception” such as Plan B (the “morning-after” pill) and ella (the “week-after” pill).

The Little Sisters maintain that this mandate would require them to violate their religious beliefs, since they cannot appear to condone practices that they view as life-ending. So they asked the court in Denver to declare that applying the contraceptive mandate violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.  The government has offered them a couple of avenues of accommodation, rather than providing the contraceptive coverage themselves: the Little Sisters can notify their third-party insurance administrator, they can fill out a federal form notifying HHS that they are objecting on religious grounds, or they may write a letter to HHS. In January, the Supreme Court ruledthat during litigation on the merits, the Little Sisters need not use the government form or notify their third-party administrators directly: they could simply notify HHS.  But HHS has since promulgated interim rules that dictate exactly what must be in the Little Sisters’ letter to HHS: their name, the basis of their objection, what they object to, the insurance plan name and type, and the name and contact information for any of the third-party plan administrators.

The Little Sisters say that this “accommodation” changes nothing in their appeal—they are still forced to comply with the mandate in violation of their religious beliefs.  According to them, the government could have given them a religious exemption (as it does for churches, but not Catholic hospitals or schools).  The government could have exempted church insurance plans, like the one carried by the Little Sisters.  It could have simply provided contraceptives to women itself, through Title X, tax incentives, or allowing the Little Sisters’ female employees to purchase subsidized coverage on the government’s own healthcare exchanges. Rather than do any of this, though, the government requires a letter identifying the third-party administrators, which the government will use to “offer those entities incentives to take action contrary to the terms of the plan and religious beliefs of the Little Sisters.” The government responds that the Little Sisters don’t need to notify their plan administrators of their objections; after they send the letter to the HHS, the government will do all of the notification for them. The government is also fighting against any injunctions during litigation, since it is imperative that female employees of the Little Sisters receive contraceptive coverage without delay.

First, fighting against the injunction seems disingenuous to me.  While so many parts of the Affordable Care Act have been delayed in their implementation, why is contraceptive coverage for the employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor such an urgent need? 

Second, I was familiar with this fight earlier, but I did not know that the contraceptive mandate was not in the statutory text.  This speaks to the vast administrative power that was delegated by the Affordable Care Act.  We should be especially wary of this, since the people promulgating these regulations were not elected.

Third, I tend to err on the side of religious freedom.  So what if it’s a one-page form?  Or a letter that names plan administrators?  If the government wants to force a religious group to violate their beliefs, it better be for a compelling interest and the law better be narrowly tailored.  As the Little Sisters point out, there are several different ways of serving the interest of providing contraceptive coverage to their employees that do not require them to provide it themselves. 

September 11th and the Islamic State

So Proudly We Hailed would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the terrorist attacks on our nation thirteen years ago and the brave men and women who gave their lives for our country in the years since.  Last night, President Obama honored our fallen by outlining his plan to fight the Islamic State.  He made a brave choice.  Although he campaigned on ending the war in the Middle East, abandoning Iraq’s fledgling democracy would be a mistake. Yes, people question whether he needs congressional approval for this sustained action. And people question whether we are truly assembling a broad international coalition.  But it would be irresponsible to let the Islamic State terrorists gain more territory. So thank you, President Obama, for showing strong leadership in the face of an extremist enemy. And thank you to the many men and women who have sacrificed so much for America over the last thirteen years.  

Letter to Congress

Welcome back from summer recess, Congress! I hope you're well-rested and reinvigorated. You have so much to do to improve our country! Here's what you should focus on:

1. Islamic State
President Obama is likely to ask you for funds to arm and train pro-Western Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State militants. This action would be narrower than a use-of-force vote, which we have discussed earlier. Islamic State is still threatening to quash democracy in Iraq.  It has beheaded two American journalists.  And it will continue its genocidal persecution of Yazidis and Christians.  The U.S. must continue to stabilize the region, for moral as well as national security reasons. 

2. Government Funding
Yes, I realize that this is an election year, so it's important for candidates to take memorable stands. But little, if anything, was accomplished by last year's shutdown. Pass the continuing resolution to keep the government running beyond the end of this month.  The same goes for the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Whether it is a job creator, free-market distorter, or both, the uncertainty of its short-term fate discourages transactions and destabilizes U.S. business interests abroad.

3. Immigration

President Obama told NBC recently that he will not pursue action on immigration until after the November elections. he admitted that politics shifted midsummer due to the influx of undocumented migrant children.  Shouldn't this influx mean something should be done?  That the status quo isn't working? President Obama's reluctance to take unilateral action creates an opportunity for Congress to create a bipartisan coalition and come up with thoughtful, durable legislation to address immigration.  As I have written earlier, I don't know what the solution is.  But shouldn't congresspeople want to start throwing ideas out for debate?

Now that we've identified priorities, here's what you shouldn't spend time on this week:

1. Militarization of local police forces in response to Ferguson

This is a matter of local concern. You work for the federal government. You have enough to deal with on a national and international level right now. I learned recently that the Department of Justice has the power to oversee local police practices, including patterns of stops, arrests, and use of force.  But creation of a "federal police czar," as some progressives are calling for, would simply mean greater federal intrusion into purely local matters.

2. Campaign finance constitutional amendment 

House Democrats are expected to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. This amendment would restrict political speech by allowing aggregate caps on political contributions.  As Ted Olson argues in today's WSJ, "Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office." Well said.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help.

The U.S. should lead the fight against Ebola

As I read about the various international crises currently going on—the rise of Islamic State, the Russian invasion of East Ukraine, the Syrian Civil War, Gazan ceasefires  that may or may not hold—it’s difficult to judge when and how the United States should get involved.  On which side should we intervene?  Are economic sanctions enough?  Do airstrikes in Iraq support the Assad regime in Syria?  This recent WSJ graphic highlights the strange alliances that the threat of the Islamic State has created.  Who should we be cautious of supporting now, should it come to haunt us in the future?

There is one current crisis, though, that involves a clear-cut enemy, a true bad guy: Ebola.  The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has already killed more than 1,400 people.  The virus is mutating quickly, and risks rise as the epidemic continues to spread.  According to Charles Chiu, an infectious-disease physician at UC-San Francisco, “The longer we allow the outbreak to continue, the greater the opportunity the virus has to mutate, and it’s possible that it will mutate into a form that would be an even greater threat than it is right now.”

The World Health Organization has estimated that $490 million will be required to control the outbreak for the next six to nine months.  This is based on the estimate that 20,000 people will be infected.  WHO’s member states (194 members of the United Nations) have the opportunity to foot the bill. The agency’s three-part plan to fight Ebola involves the following: “First, governments and first responders must ensure that all affected geographic areas have adequate surveillance and health care in the next three months so that standard strategies for containment and tracking the spread of the disease will work. Second, countries need to contain any outbreaks in new regions within eight weeks; and finally, countries must strengthen their capacity to detect and respond to cases.”

This is a situation where the United States can and should intervene. Just as in our results-based cash influx for providing AIDS relief, our help is much more than just a humanitarian mission.  President George W. Bush described PEPFAR as a way of strengthening U.S. national security interests.  So, too, would our response to the Ebola outbreak.  If we assist West African nations not only when they are threatened by other countries, but also when they are threatened by disease, we build up international goodwill.  It is simply the right thing to do.  

Suing the Government over the Common Core

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is suing the Obama administration in federal court for its implementation of the Common Core academic standards.  Jindal claims that creation of educational curricula and assessment policy is the exclusive province of state and local government, and the federal government’s usurpation of this function violates federal law.  He bases his suit on several federal educational statutes: the General Education Provisions Act of 1965; the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. According to Jindal, these statutes add up to the proposition that state and local governments get to control academic curriculum, and the federal government doesn’t get a say.

Jindal says that the Race To The Top program and the Common Core impermissibly federalize education policy through economic incentives and duress.  Louisiana received over $17.4 million in education funding after it agreed to join a consortium of states and adopted the Common Core developed by those states.  Jindal argues that although the funding was greatly needed, “the loss of State and local authority over education curricula and assessment policy is unmeasurable (sic) and irreparable.”  He also says that the Tenth Amendment prohibits federalization of educational policy, and that the Spending Clause does not save it.

Will Jindal be successful in court?  Unlikely, in my opinion. The Spending Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government fairly broad discretion to condition receipt of federal funds on certain state actions.  A federal grant of funds need only be related to the particular national interest at issue.  Jindal says that educational curricula cannot be a national interest due to the statutes mentioned above.  But I’m sure the federal government will argue that having an educated workforce is in the national interest.  

Winning the lawsuit may not be Jindal’s motivation, though.  In fact, he might have won just by filing. A strong federalist stance would look pretty good on a Republican presidential candidate’s resume.  This lawsuit gives him the ability to campaign on a “keep the federal government out of our state affairs” platform later on.

This lawsuit says nothing about the outcomes of the Common Core curricula and assessments or whether students have benefitted.  Nor would I expect it to.  According to this line of argumentation, it doesn’t matter how good the outcome of a specific policy or program is.  If the federal government is not permitted to do something, it shouldn’t be done.  I’d love to hear from some teachers about their experiences with the Common Core, though. 

Ferguson: From an Unknown City, to a Household Name

I was initially hesitant to write this post.  Individuals in today’s society are quick to accuse, label, judge, and write-off those having a difference of opinion as ignorant, misinformed, or worse; indeed, if people were still able to engage in healthy discourse involving differing opinions, the necessity of this blog would likely be in doubt. Unfortunately, we, as a society, have moved far beyond the realm of healthy intellectual debate regarding sensitive topics.  So let us travel 100 miles south of my humble abode to Ferguson, Missouri.

It is hard to think of a more inflammatory subject right now than race.  In writing this post I can’t help but wonder if I choose to run for political office years from now, will a string of words be plucked from this article to brand me as a racist – a term I believe is used too loosely in today’s society. Race is a constant theme throughout news stories, often tainting the real facts and issues at hand.  This is not to say the racial divide in this country is a non-issue; however I believe race is exploited to demonize those with differing opinions.  In Ferguson, the narrative ranges from white individuals get away with murdering young black kids because the system wants it that way to black individuals should simply obey whatever orders an officer gives and they will not get hurt.

Let us start with the facts about what happened in Ferguson.  Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson. The autopsy showed that he was shot six times, twice in the head and four times in the right arm, all in the front of his body.  The final and likely fatal shot was to the top of his head which, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden the medical examiner who conducted an autopsy at the Brown family’s request, indicated that Michael’s head was bent forward when the bullet struck him. Eye witness reports range from Michael having his hands up, to being shot in the back, to charging the officer.  Michael’s community, primarily black, immediately rallied in support for the unarmed teen.  Darren’s community, primarily white, rallied in support for the officer. Lines were drawn and the racial divide was (and still is) palpable.

First off, the looting is inexcusable and, to my understanding, being perpetrated mostly by non-residents of Ferguson. Those who support Michael should be outraged at how the looters are exploiting his death for their own well-being.  This abhorrent behavior should be no part of “seeking justice for Michael.”

The media coverage is overwhelming.  It is an important story to cover, but the amount of speculation, non-verified statements, and opinion presented as fact makes it difficult to ascertain what exactly is occurring in Ferguson.  Are cops in military vehicles harassing peaceful protesters and reporters, or are local officers being pelted with rocks and molotov cocktails while protecting the local Ferguson business owners by arresting looters?  Depending on which news station is reporting, this story lands somewhere between a non-story inflamed by the liberal media and Rodney King.  My guess is it is somewhere in the middle. 

Aside from the extremes, however, both sides are asking for the same thing: justice.  What is justice in this case?  I have a feeling I would get a different response depending on which “line” in Ferguson I asked. One side wants Darren arrested and has little faith in a legal system which has a record of disproportionately charging, convicting, and sentencing young black men. The other side, wants the people of Ferguson to quit protesting, accept their story, and conclude that Darren was just doing his job. 

Our criminal justice system is one of procedure.  Justice is not achieved in a day.  A grand jury has been convened and, to me, the process of achieving justice is underway.  The Attorney General of the United States has been to the area and ensured that his office will investigate the shooting and possibly bring civil rights violations.  Having  Mr. Holder, a well documented advocate of civil rights, present should provide added comfort that justice is being pursued.  Yet, the protests continue and whether justice will be served (and accepted by those disappointed in the result whatever it may be) remains to be seen.

If Darren had racism flowing through his blood and killed Michael with malice in his heart, I hope the legal system would prove this and he would be locked up forever.  If Darren used unnecessary force in killing Michael, not out of racial animus, but in a moment of heightened emotion, I would hope the legal system would prove this and he would be locked up accordingly.  If Darren killed Michael after a fight and in self-defense while being charged by Michael, I would hope the legal system would prove this and he would be released. Each of those results would be a just one, and I would feel that justice could be considered served if this matter ended in any one of the aforementioned ways.  The fact is, we have a legal system to determine these facts. I am not racist, nor am I choosing sides, in asking that we wait to see whether or not Darren is indicted and what facts come to light at trial.  If he is not indicted, the grand jury should not immediately be labeled racist. Likewise, if he is indicted, the grand jury should not be accused of caving to political and social pressure.  No media has all the facts.  I know nothing about Darren or Michael aside from what has been reported, and no one knows what Darren was feeling when he pulled the trigger except himself. Hopefully, all the rumors will be filtered out by a courtroom and we will gain a clear picture of what happened.  I hope that the legal system works as it should, and I refuse to condemn the process in this case before it even begins; however, I understand the mistrust some have about the legal process.

My honest hope is that this incident leads to healthy dialogue about race in this country.  It is one we need to have.  One where the term racist is not flippantly tossed around. One where an individual can address issues like the rate of children born out of wedlock and the disproportionate sentencing of crack and cocaine, without pointing fingers and instantly declaring that the other side is incapable of understanding.  We need to end the divide and begin working towards a solution.  I think it would have been good measure for the Attorney General to have met with both Darren’s family and Michael’s family, instead of just Michael’s.  I think it would have been a positive step for the local police in Ferguson and the local residents to stand together and ask for justice, whatever the result may be. Sadly, it appears our country is not ready to have this dialogue, and both “lines” in Ferguson are to blame. 

Book Review--Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think

I’d like to take a quick break from jihad, genocide, and military operations to discuss something a little happier—babies.  While I normally eschew parenting books, I recently read one by Bryan Caplan, an economist who is often retweeted by my favorite libertarian. Caplan’s premise in Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids is simple: Today’s Typical Parent puts an insane amount of unnecessary effort into raising children.   He amalgamates social science studies to reach the conclusion that this effort rarely pays off.  Twin and adoption research routinely shows that family environment--the "nurture" in "nature versus nurture"--has little effect on a child’s health, happiness, intelligence, success, character, or values.  So the time that parents spend fretting about their children’s homework or resumes will do little to change what college they get into.

Caplan’s advice: ditch the baby Einstein or the endless ballet, karate, and violin classes.  Instead, have a baby with someone that has the traits you prefer.  If you want a smart kid, marry a smart woman.  If you want a kid with a criminal record, go for the “bad boy” type.  My favorite quote: “The right spouse is like a genie who grants wishes you are powerless to achieve through your own efforts.”  So spend the time that you would have spent at one of those pointless success-building activities doing something that makes you happy. 

Once people realize that raising children is easier than they thought, then it is in their own self-interest to have more kids.  Caplan urges them to look past the lack of sleep they will get in the first few months or the angst their teens will throw at them.  Instead, they should think of themselves in their sixties.  More kids presumably means more visitors, and might mean more grandkids.

Caplan is so logical.  I especially liked his translation of psychological and sociological studies into concrete parenting advice.  Although I disagreed with some parts of his “Life-Giving Science” chapter—the bioethicist in me believes that there should be some limiting principles in reproductive technology besides those provided by simple market theory—on the whole, he makes a compelling argument.  If people become better at evaluating their own long-term self-interest, they will realize that bringing another child into the world is a pretty darn good deal.  I recommend this book to anyone who is currently parenting or would like to have kids in the future.  You can borrow my copy—but only after my husband reads it.  I have a feeling he’s going to push back on the sociological research that bolsters Caplan’s theory. 

Why does this book review belong on a blog about America's issues? Caplan expressly says that he is NOT advocating for government intervention in family planning.  But he also argues that having more kids would be good for the country.  New people mean new ideas. New ideas mean solutions to existing problems. So maybe the best way to fix the situation we are in now is to just find intelligent, driven spouses, have a mess of kids with them, and hope the next generation can sort things out. 

Congressional Authorization for Military Force in Iraq

As you likely know, last week President Obama authorized  military action in Iraq–“targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel” and humanitarian aid to the internally displaced Yazidis and Christians that are facing death at the hands of the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State.  According to President Obama, America should not intervene every time the world faces a crisis.  Yet we are justified in our current involvement because: American civilians, diplomats, and facilities in Erbil were at risk; innocent people were facing the “prospect of violence on a horrific scale”; the Iraqi government asked for our help; and we have “the unique capabilities to prevent a massacre.”  I agree with President Obama—we cannot turn a blind eye in this situation. This cannot become another Rwanda. 

Critics of the president’s actions worry about the open-ended timetable of American military involvement in Iraq. Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) stated, “It is justifiable to sue military strikes to protect U.S. personnel or to prevent potential genocidal attacks by [the Islamic State], but I do not believe the American people will support a longer-term military mission designed to tip the balance in Iraq’s civil sectarian war. At the very least, if the President is contemplating action that will take months, rather than days or weeks, to conclude, he needs authorization from Congress.”  But previous congressional authorization arguably covers the President’s current actions, and it draws no distinction based upon the length of the operation.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in 2002 allows for the President to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” P.L. 107-243. The statute does not provide for automatic termination of its use-of-force authorization. Presidents Bush and Obama both relied upon the broad authority granted them by this law until the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in December 2011. (For a detailed discussion of declarations of war and authorizations for the use of military force, see this paper from the Congressional Research Service.) At the time of the expiration of the United Nations mandate for force in Iraq in the beginning of 2009, members of Congress had argued that a new authorization of force was necessary to maintain a U.S. military presence in Iraq.  But the Obama administration did not seek a renewed authorization of force, and efforts to repeal P.L. 107-243 failed. So troops remained in Iraq under a U.S.-Iraq agreement until the end of 2011. 

Because the Obama Administration relied upon P.L. 107-243 from 2009 through 2011, and the statute does not automatically terminate, it arguably still applies.  That means that if the president finds that Iraq poses a threat to the national security of the United States, Congress has authorized him to use whatever force he deems necessary and appropriate. The statute does not call for renewed authorization if the engagement lasts for months rather than days or weeks.  So Senator Murphy’s proclamation is misguided.  President Obama need not seek congressional approval as the current military campaign in Iraq progresses. (Of course, President Obama could seek approval anyway, for political reasons. But he's unlikely to do so, since his legacy includes ending the war in Iraq.) 

Freedom of Religion Across the Globe

Today's Wall Street Journal included this plea made on August 5th by Vian Dakhil to her fellow members of the Iraqi Parliament, on behalf of the Yazidi, a religious sect whose members are besieged on Mount Sinjar by the extremist group formerly known as the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham:

I beg you, Mr. Speaker, my people are being slaughtered, just like all the Iraqis were slaughtered: Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, Turkmens, and the Shabak people. Today, the Yazidis are being slaughtered.
Brothers, despite all the political disagreements, we want human solidarity. I speak in the name of humanity. Save us! Save us! For the past 48 hours, 30,000 families have been besieged on Mount Sinjar, without food or water. They are dying. Seventy children have died so far of thirst and suffocation. Fifty elderly people have died because of the deteriorating conditions. Our women are being taken captive and sold on the slave-market.
Mr. Speaker, we call upon the Iraqi parliament to intervene immediately to stop this massacre. . . .
We are being slaughtered, annihilated. An entire religion is being wiped off the face of the Earth. Brothers, I am calling out to you in the name of humanity! In the name of humanity, save us! Mr. Speaker, I want to . . .
Vian Dakhil breaks down crying.

We will post later on President Obama's decision to authorize air strikes in Iraq to aid the families on Mount Sinjar, as well as on the group formerly known as ISIS's persecution of Christians.  For now, though, Ms. Dakhil's heartrending plea highlights the importance of our First Amendment.  

Yazidism is an ancient monothiestic religion. Yazidis believe in one god, who created the world and entrusted it to the care of seven holy beings. One of these beings was Tawuse Melek, the "Peacock Angel", who refused to bow to Adam after God created man. According to Yazidi tradition, God then made Tawuse Melek the leader of all angels and his deputy on earth. Followers of other religious traditions, such as Muslims, maintain that Tawuse Melek fell out of favor with God after the Adam incident and eventually became Satan. They therefore view Yazidis as devil-worshippers. 

Now, in A.D. 2014, Sunni Muslims are attempting to kill 30,000 Yazidis on Mount Sinjar because of THESE differences in belief. This is why we must zealously guard the religious protections in the First Amendment.  When the government burdens religious exercise, it implicitly derogates those beliefs and the people that hold them.  Its actions imply that a religion is unworthy of protection.  Taken to extremes, it creates an environment where genocide is possible. A child's belief in a Peacock Angel's fate should not earn her a death sentence. 

Abortion in Alabama

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled that Alabama’s law requiring abortion-clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital is unconstitutional.  Although I admittedly only skimmed Judge Thompson’s 172-page opinion (cut me some slack, I’ve got a three-month-old at home), I want to share my reactions. 

First, many states enacted laws like the one at issue here in reaction to Kermit Gosnell's Philadelphia abortion-practice-of-horrors.  In 2013, Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder of three infants who had been born alive during botched late-term abortions.  He was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter of a woman who had sought his care in 2009.  State Health Department officials had not stepped foot in his clinic in the past sixteen years.  According to the report of the federal agents who raided the facility, “[s]emiconscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.”

To ensure that women seeking abortions weren’t placing their life at risk like they did at Gosnell’s clinic, states enacted Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. These laws regulated aspects of abortion clinics such as the size of the room or corridors (to allow for stretchers in the event of emergencies) and a doctor’s hospital admission privileges.  Most of these requirements apply the same standards to abortion clinics that ambulatory surgical facilities face.

Immediately, these laws were characterized as anti-abortion. This characterization baffled me.  When Wendy Davis donned her famous pink sneakers to filibuster Texas’s consideration of such a bill, she was hailed as a champion for women’s rights. But why? These laws were making it safer to undergo an abortion. They were ensuring that abortion providers were held to the same standard as other surgical facilities. They were providing for continuity of care if women experienced complications after an abortion.  How could it possibly be a victory for women’s rights to prevent or overturn these laws?

Judge Thompson reasoned that Alabama’s law would shut down three of five clinics in the state, thus placing an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Yet again, laws that promote the safety of women are struck down as conflicting with the all-important availability of abortion.  Abortion is legal.  But it is not an unregulated right.  Not every law regulating abortion is designed to prevent access to it.  Some just attempt to make it safer.  Just because a law is introduced by a Republican or someone with a pro-life record does not mean that it will harm women.  Lawmakers need to read these regulations and consider their actual effect on women before denouncing them.

I do want to note that Judge Thompson’s opinion opened with a chronicle of the violence abortion providers in Alabama have faced—bombings, arson, and threats against their spouses and children.  While it is important for views against abortion to be expressed on the sidewalk and in the legislature, resorting to violence is abhorrent.  Regardless of one’s view on abortion, terroristic threats are always wrong.  For more on this, keep an eye out for Krysten Connon’s forthcoming Oxford University Press book based on her research into the targeted harassment of abortion providers.   

Will you see an IRS agent at mass tomorrow?

I came across a startling headline this morning: IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Sermons And Homilies.  The article, which referred to Lois “Fifth Amendment” Lerner, was obviously partisan, so I tried to get a fuller picture from the other side: the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  The FFRF declared victory in the voluntary dismissal of its federal suit against the IRS.  Basically, the FFRF complained that the IRS refused to enforce § 501(c)(3)’s electioneering restrictions against churches and religious institutions.  Under the restrictions, if an organization attempts to influence legislation or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office, it loses its tax-exempt status.  After the IRS showed that it investigates the political actions of churches and will continue to do so, the FFRF agreed to dismiss the suit.

So is the first headline simply hyperbolic fear-mongering?  Yes and no.  The FFRF’s suit emphasized the “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” practices of certain churches.  The Alliance Defending Freedom described Pulpit Freedom Sunday as a “strategic litigation plan”—pastors would preach about the intersection of the political realm and scriptural Truth on a certain day, and presumably IRS would revoke their churches’ tax-exempt status, thus triggering a First Amendment lawsuit.  So the agreement reached by the FFRF and IRS means that the IRS will likely monitor the sermons on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which is the goal of Pulpit Freedom Sunday in the first place.  The more troubling implication for me is that the IRS will monitor sermons that aren't part of a strategic litigation plan.  And the possibility of IRS monitoring will have a chilling effect on preaching, which is at the heart of religious exercise.  So if you care about the First Amendment, keep an eye on this story.

My husband brought up an interesting point: the IRS is using our tax dollars to monitor sermons.  Even people who are not as keen on the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion as I am have to admit that paying government employees overtime to listen to pastors on Sundays might not be the best use of funds.

I’ll end this post with a hearty congratulations to Meg Sweeney, who is more passionate about the First Amendment than anyone else I know.  Yesterday, she got engaged to Brett Bean, another illustrious Notre Dame lawyer.  We at So Proudly We Hailed are thrilled for you both! 

Email Privacy

Brad Smith, general counsel and executive VP at Microsoft, wrote a piece in the WSJ yesterday about Microsoft’s evident attempt to preserve the privacy of its users’ emails.  His point, in brief is:

Microsoft believes you own emails stored in the cloud, and that they have the same privacy protection as paper letters sent by mail. This means, in our view, that the U.S. government can obtain emails only subject to the full legal protections of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. It means, in this case, that the U.S. government must have a warrant. But under well-established case law, a search warrant cannot reach beyond U.S. shores.

But emails can’t have the same privacy as paper letters.  Whereas email providers harvest the contents of emails for their own use (mostly in selling targeted advertising), letter carriers do not.  If I sent a letter about, hmm, the price of corn, by UPS to a friend, and the following day I received a telemarketing call from a company trying to sell me a cornfield in Illinois, I would have concerns that my privacy was violated.  I don’t, on the other hand, bat an eye when I see StubHub ads in my email trying to sell me tickets to Notre Dame football games.  (I occasionally email about Notre Dame football.)

I am in favor of protecting users’ privacy.  I’d prefer the government not to have access to the contents of my email.  But that privacy should start with the email providers.  Otherwise, arguments like these are disingenuous.

Update: U.S. Judge Rules Microsoft Must Produce Emails Held Abroad (http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-judge-rules-microsoft-must-produce-emails-held-abroad-1406826302?KEYWORDS=microsoft)

Suing the President

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to proceed with a lawsuit against President Obama.  The President has, in my opinion, overstepped his constitutional authority on more than one occasion, whether by failing to enforce laws or unilaterally rewriting laws.  And it is this habitual line-stepping on which House Republicans base the lawsuit.

Obama responded by calling the suit nothing more than a “political stunt.”  And the President is right.

House Republicans see the lawsuit as an acceptable middle path: it’s not as aggressive as impeachment (which may stir the Democrat base into action during the midterm elections) but it’s more aggressive than doing nothing (which may alienate the Republican base).  It’s a symbolic, political slap-fight.  So the House has capped off the "least productive" year in Congressional history—I say this tongue-in-cheek because, hey, maybe Congressional productivity shouldn’t be measured by how many pages Congress adds to the United States Code—by pursuing a lawsuit that will hardly be productive.  And so I fault the House, both for plodding down a course that will likely lead nowhere and for failing to take alternative actions if the House actually believes the President’s conduct is egregious enough to file such a suit.

First, the suit has significant legal hurdles.  The House seems to lack standing to bring the suit at all.  I have seen the argument made that the House has standing, in part, due to the nature of the aggrieved congressmen.  If, rather than bringing the lawsuit as a group of bitter congressmen, the group brings the lawsuit on behalf of the institution as a whole (i.e., by voting on a resolution like yesterday’s), it might then have standing.  But I have not (yet, anyway) read a compelling argument as to the nature of the House’s injury-in-fact.  Is House Republicans’ argument simply that a law Congress passed—specifically, the Affordable Care Act—hasn’t been executed properly?  On that logic, wouldn’t the House then be able to sue the President whenever a law has been improperly executed?  That’s an arrow that has been stuck in the House’s quiver for over 200 years.  I am not, however, as well-versed in standing jurisprudence as others on here, so I would be interested in hearing if my understanding is wrong.  

Second, as to the alternative measures, the House could, if it so chose, try to impeach the President.  And I think you could make a straight-faced argument that members of the House have an obligation to pursue impeachment if they believe the President’s conduct is impeachable.  Isn’t that what our system of checks and balances is all about?  And don’t members of the House have a duty to uphold the Constitution?  While impeachment may not be the most politically advantageous, and it may not lead to a conviction in the Senate, it is part of the House’s job to keep the President in check through its power to impeach.  The House owes a duty to its constituents to protect them from the aggrandizement of power in the executive.  Sure, the House has some discretion, akin to prosecutorial discretion.  But how much?  If the House believes that egregious Constitutional violations have occurred, perhaps it shirks its own duties by failing to impeach.  (The impeachment option, too, adds to the House’s legal obstacles: although the House’s having that alternative, in itself, does not preclude it from pursuing other remedies—such as a lawsuit—the availability of another remedy may be enough for a court to avoid deciding the issue.)

There may be some political cache in filing the lawsuit.  And, given my views that the President has, in fact, overstepped his bounds, I hope that I am wrong and the suit ultimately curbs his authority.  But it sure seems like a big waste of time.

The Bloody Business of Executions

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit granted a conditional stay of the execution of Joseph R. Wood III based upon his claimed First Amendment right to government information.  Wood faced execution for murdering his ex-girlfriend and her father in 1989.  He wanted to know the manufacturer of his lethal injection drugs; the qualifications of those who will administer the execution; and the documents relied upon by the state to adopt its newest execution protocol. Normally I love a good First Amendment discussion--and this case would certainly provide one, with its novel right-to-information argument--but that's not what caught my eye.  Rather, it was Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. Kozinski eloquently and compellingly stated what is wrong with capital punishment today: "If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf."

Many of the current challenges to death sentences focus on the method of lethal injection. The condemned prisoners argue that the drugs used to relax their muscles and stop their hearts will cause a painful death, and are thus cruel and unusual punishment. Kozinski concluded that "the enterprise is flawed."  These drugs were developed to help heal (or at least provide comfort to) sick people, not to kill people.  The state uses them to make executions seem peaceful, to mask the reality of death. Kozinski suggested bringing back the use of firing squads.  "If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all."

I agree with his reasoning.  Death by lethal injection seems too much like an ordinary medical procedure.  It allows citizens like me to ignore what the state is doing--killing someone on my behalf.  If the end of the line of a death-penalty case involves a squad of men with shotguns, then perhaps states will rethink the need for executions at all.  There are plenty of other reasons to abolish the death penalty: moral opposition (which can be a basis for legislation, but it's falling out of favor these days), judicial economy (so much time and effort goes into deciding death-penalty appeals), effectiveness (does the possibility of execution really deter criminals more so than life without parole?), and error (how many innocent people has the state executed?).

As for Mr. Wood, the Supreme Court lifted the stay, and he was executed on July 22. Attorneys for Wood tried to file an emergency request to halt the execution because Wood was still awake an hour after drugs were administered.  He snorted and gasped many times, and after two hours, he died.

Thoughts on Immigration

On the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, a uniformed man (presumably a Border Patrol agent) leans over the bank of the Rio Grande, extending a hand to a boy, no more than 15, holding a girl, no more than 6, as they climb out of the river. "New approach to spare child migrants a perilous trek," the headline proclaims. I instinctively liked this image of U.S. border policy.  Not one of fences and guns, but of awareness and compassion. We cannot begin to help the tens of thousands of Central American refugee children that have arrived at our Southern border without awareness of their history (and our own) and compassion for their futures (and our own).

My formative trip to the border took place in 2006, as I spent my spring break meeting people and exploring issues facing El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. (For my college roommate's perspective on how this trip and her subsequent experiences at the border shaped her view on immigration policy, read this article.) Even then, I learned that there are no clear-cut, easy answers when it comes to the people at the border. The reasons that people from countries like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador make the dangerous journey north are multifaceted.  Their countries are poor.  Violent gangs abound.  The global drug market--fueled by U.S. consumption--pours money into those gangs' coffers.  Governments and police forces are corrupt.  Hope is hard to find.

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick propose that the solution to "border disorder" rests on three pillars: returning these children to Central America, "aggressively remov[ing]" the incentives that cause them to come to our country, and creating a functional system for legal immigration.

 As to the first pillar, I do not see how we can return these children to Central America in a responsible manner. Will our government really expend the effort to reunite each child with his or her parents? Also, these children left their countries for a reason. Are we sending them back to an unconscionable fate? Their mothers made the heart-rending calculation that sending their babies on freight trains across thousands of miles--risking death, robbery, rape, and all sorts of other evils--provided more hope than staying at home. On the other hand, what can our government provide the children here? A childhood in a detention center? Intentionally lax supervision that allows them to eventually strike out on their own?

Next, removing the incentives that cause people to come to our country is not as simple as giving humanitarian aid to Central American countries. It would have to involve the drug market--reducing illegal consumption in the States to give less money and power to the gangs abroad. Clearly the war on drugs has not achieved this yet.  Perhaps education is the answer. Do people even know that their cocaine habit is funding femicides and gang wars in other countries?  Perhaps legalization is the answer. Take away the black market and the funding is cut off.

Finally, I agree with Bush and Bolick that a functioning path to legal immigration is key. The administration seems to be taking this step by allowing Hondurans to apply for refugee status from home. But this creates new questions--whose applications for immigration are granted? People who have relatives here? People who can pay their own way? People with college degrees who can encourage innovation and entrepreneurship? Young children? Single mothers? People who have no hope of success in their home countries? Will this be just another way to leave the defenseless behind?

I have no answers. That is hard to admit. I've been thinking and praying about these issues for the better part of a decade, and I cannot see a clear way forward. I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue.

Supreme Court Review

Earlier this week, I attended a Supreme Court Review at the National Constitution Center.  I enjoy the National Constitution Center's events; they bring in esteemed academics and litigators for thought-provoking seminars.  When I saw that Erwin Chemerinsky and Frederick Lawrence would discuss the most recent Supreme Court term, I had to go. This event was co-sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, and no speaker presented a conservative analysis of the cases.

While both Chemerinsky and Lawrence were impressive speakers who had a clear grasp of the holdings in this term's cases, several comments irked me.  On several occasions, both speakers noted that the "five-Catholic-male majority" was unreceptive to the rights of the minority.  As evidence of this hypothesis, they cited the outcomes in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and McCullen v. Coakley. According to the speakers, both of these cases involved female reproductive rights that were disregarded by the Supreme Court majority.

This line of thinking bothers me for several reasons.  First, I find it intellectually lazy to assume that a justice's religious affiliation and gender dictated his ruling in those two cases.  How has it become acceptable to denigrate a Supreme Court opinion simply because the majority involved Catholic men?  The Pope's recent exhortation, The Joy of the Gospel, decries the evils that can arise in capitalistic societies.  But the Catholic justices aren't criticized as being particularly anti-capitalist. It seems that this anti-Catholic criticism only applies to cases involving reproductive rights, however tangentially.

Second, the tangential relationship to reproductive rights is often blown out of proportion. The Hobby Lobby case involved the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a for-profit corporation's ability to operate according to the religious beliefs of its shareholders.  It did not involve a ban on contraception.  Women working for Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood could still obtain several forms of contraception under their employer-sponsored health plans, just not the abortifacients that their employers found to be morally objectionable. Those women could still exercise their reproductive rights by using one of the other contraceptive methods, paying for their method of choice, or working for a different employer who covered every conceivable contraceptive method.  So female reproductive rights were never really in jeopardy in this case.  What was in jeopardy was Hobby Lobby's ability to run a business in accordance with the religious conscience of the owners.  That is the right protected by RFRA.  And that is the case that the Supreme Court decided.  To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Likewise, in McCullen, female reproductive rights were not the main issue.  That case involved a Massachusetts law that criminalized standing on a public road or sidewalk within thirty-five feet of a reproductive health-care facility.  Here, the rights in jeopardy were not those of the women accessing the health-care facility.  Rather, they were the First Amendment rights of those people that want to counsel patrons of those facilities.  The Supreme Court analyzed this case under free-speech principles, not privacy-rights principles.  And correctly so.  Chemerinsky noted that the five-Catholic-male majority disregarded the "gauntlet of harassment" that women must walk through to get to these clinics.  But the First Amendment means that we cannot just silence people who bear messages that we do not necessarily want to hear.  I don't get to enjoin the ACLU and Planned Parenthood volunteers that (politely but firmly) stop me on the streets of Philadelphia.

It's time that liberal academics stopped criticizing rulings due to the gender and religion of the deciders.

UPDATE: For excellent commentary on Justice Ginsburg's comment that male justices "have a blind spot" when it comes to women, see Brian Murray's post on his blog, Modest Commentary.

Why The World Needs This Forum

In this age of hyperbolic cable-news punditry, and error-filled, fatalistic social-media analyses of Supreme Court decisions, a voice of reason is needed. Young conservatives are not Tea Party Republicans, bigots, gun fanatics, xenophobes, or women-haters. Young liberals are not Obama-lemmings, enemies of religion, or responsibility-shirking free-riders. Young libertarians are not indecisive hippies.  We need to dispel those harmful stereotypes.    If we disagree with a political party's platform, we should propose a new one.  If we see an inconsistency in an accepted analysis of a legal issue, we should point it out.  If we find common ground with people that hold different views on different issues, we should move forward to a solution.

We aim to provide a forum for young professionals to discuss the important issues facing contemporary America.  We will entertain the opinions of people who disagree with us.  Through this civil, open-minded discourse, we will refine our arguments and find constructive, viable solutions to our country's problems.