Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt| Vital Statistics: | Last | Change | Percent |
| S&P Futures | 1631.8 | 1.0 | 0.06% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2778.9 | 1.5 | 0.05% |
| Oil (WTI) | 94.59 | -0.6 | -0.61% |
| LIBOR | 0.274 | -0.001 | -0.36% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 83.34 | 0.065 | 0.08% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.91% | -0.01% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 104.9 | -0.2 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 103 | 0.1 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 196.6 | 0.4 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 3.62 |
Markets are flattish this morning on no real news. Appalloosa manager David Tepper said on CNBC that he is still bullish and the economy is getting better. Bonds finally catch a bid after a pretty brutal two week sell-off. MBS are up small.
The National Federation of Independent Business released their Small Business Optimism Survey this morning, which showed the index creeping up slightly to 92.1 from 90.7. Owners are still pessimistic about the economy, with a net negative 15% expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months. Hiring and raises are being done only grudgingly, and capital expenditures are only at maintenance levels. Yet the stock market is at record highs. So what gives? Part of it is that the big S&P 500 stocks have a lot of international exposure, which means they can offset US weakness elsewhere. Also, I think quantitative easing is playing a part.
The Obama Administration released their monthly Housing Scorecard which showed home equity increased again last month. HAMP trial modifications jumped, while HAMP permanent mods fell. HARP refis were flat for the month. It is still looking like Mel Watt as the new FHFA Chairman is no sure thing, either. Even if he doesn’t get nominated, HARP 3.0 might still happen, which would extend the eligibility dates for HARP refis to include late 2009 and 2010 vintages. That would undoubtedly kick off another refi wave.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Appalling:
“North Carolina May Ban Tesla Sales To Prevent “Unfair Competition”
By Will Oremus
Posted Monday, May 13, 2013, at 6:55 PM”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/13/north_carolina_tesla_ban_bill_would_prevent_unfair_competition_with_car.html
LikeLike
jnc:
Appalling
I can’t figure out how the law might even work. How could the NC legislature enforce a ban on selling the car on-line, especially if the physical location of the factory is out of state? I can see how it might outlaw ownership of the car, but I don’t see how it can outlaw on-line sales of the car.
LikeLike
The Tesla ban is rent-seeking by a trade group, in this case car dealers. The anti-green technology undertone is just a bonus.
Here in Merlin, all booze must be bought through a select group of wholesalers. They own the state legislature.
LikeLike
yello:
They own the state legislature.
Better the state legislature than the federal legislature.
LikeLike
Nothing a new regulation won’t fix.
Q for Mark, when was the IRS not politicized?
Now we know why all these D’s are worry free tax cheats.
LikeLike
Q for Mark, when was the IRS not politicized?
Generally speaking I don’t think the IRS has been politicized. LBJ and RMN were notorious for politicizing it, of course.
I suggested repealing a statute rather than providing a new reg. No tax exemption for civic organizations, period.
Someone once said hiring more revenuers is the most efficient deficit reduction mechanism around. YJ?
…Holder and the White House are recused from decision making there.
Well, that would be a less political bad story, but it would still be a bad story, to you and me, anyway.
LikeLike
EPA waives fee requests for friendly groups, denies conservative groups.
LikeLike
Mark:
No tax exemption for civic organizations, period.
I’d say no tax exemption for any organizations, period. Taxation should exist to raise funds, not to encourage/discourage certain kinds of activities.
LikeLike
Now we know why all these D’s are worry free tax cheats
That demands an explanation.
And not a (snicker) one.
LikeLike
Daschle, Geithner and others seem to not be overly concerned with lax tax adherence. I’d also include Rangle in there as well. It seems obvious that there is an understanding among certain people that they can half-ass it vis a vis taxes.
Mark, why would the IRS be able to turn politicization on and off? FDR was also notorious, as was Clinton
LikeLike
I think it would be interesting to see an analysis of party affiliation/voting patterns of government workers in general, and more specifically by department. My guess would be that government workers in general are heavily Democratic, and that would be reflected in the case of the IRS.
LikeLike
Good stuff from Reason: The Myth of the Scientific Liberal:
For two decades, progressives have castigated those questioning global warming as “deniers.”
But the Economist, once firmly in the alarmist camp, recently acknowledged that global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15 years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared.
This may be because existing models have overestimated the planet’s sensitivity. Or because the heat generated is sinking to the ocean bottom. Or because of something else completely.
How should a scientifically inclined liberal react to this trend? By inhaling deeply and backing off on economy-busting mitigation measures till science offers clearer answers.
And how have liberals reacted? By sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting la-la-la.
The New York Times editorialized this week that the European Union should redouble its efforts to salvage its floundering carbon trading system. This scheme forces companies that exceed their greenhouse gas emission quota to either reduce production or spend gobs to buy spare quotas from others.
The Washington Post’s Brad Plumer penned an essay noting that atmospheric carbon emissions are now approaching levels only seen in the Pliocene Era — without bothering to note that they aren’t producing the same warming this time. Most priceless, however, was Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science.
He spilled serious ink in Mother Jones defending the highly questionable “hockey stick” graph — the core evidence of global warmists — which allegedly showed a sudden warming spike in the last century after a millennium of steady temperatures.
LikeLike
But the Economist, once firmly in the alarmist camp, recently acknowledged that global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15 years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared.
I am a big fan of the Economist, and I quoted their article to a bunch of folks, including actual scientists. They quickly shot it down. The Economist got it wrong. The decade from
2001-’10 was the hottest ever. The La Nina years in the decade were the hottest La Nina years ever (until 2012). The hottest El Nino year was 2005.
LikeLike
I like Kevin Drum on weeks like this when the freak out begins and “scandalageddon” strikes. I think the IRS story has the most potential for damage but none of them feel like the end of the world as we know it to me. I think we have the Patriot Act to thank for the AP subpoenas.
Haha, I was just remembering being patted down at security in Denver because a shirt I was wearing set the xray machine off. The agent (a woman) apologized and asked if I wanted to go somewhere in private while she touched my breasts…….yikes. I said no thanks (I mean it was the backs of her hands afterall, ;)) and then she tested my hands for explosives as well. I’m a pretty scary individual I guess. We all gave some of our rights up years ago, why should reporters be any different?
Most tax cheats are independent contractors or the self-employed who find it easier to hide income. Government employees generally pay their taxes just like others with employer based income from which taxes are taken out each paycheck. The wealthy, with investments in addition to regular income, are also targeted as possible cheaters. We’ve been audited twice as sole proprietors, luckily I’ve managed to keep my husband out of jail so far by keeping excellent records and a legitimate paper/computer trail.
IRS targeting of tea party groups. This one is a genuine scandal, and it’s one that plays right into Republican hands. It’s also one that will resonate with the public. Politically, the question is whether the president can get out ahead of it. If he’s found to have had no hand in the original targeting, and is perceived as being sufficiently zealous in cracking down on it, it might not hurt him much. We’ll see.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/taxonomy-scandals
LikeLike
Ramesh Ponnuru on the Kermit Gosnell verdict…a subject about which ATiM has been remarkably quiet, BTW.
The theory that infants delivered that early have no rights — that protecting them would conflict with Roe v. Wade — is mistaken: The Supreme Court has never held any such thing. It may nonetheless be a widespread view. President Barack Obama, when he was a state senator, opposed legislation to protect such infants because he feared it would undermine Roe. The court has made clear, however, that as soon as a fetus makes it even partway out of the womb it becomes a baby that the law can protect.
This distinction makes no sense to many people, who wonder why the location of this young human being should make such a large difference in whether he will live or die. Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, expressed this bafflement in a 2003 case. We would have a law closer to our moral intuitions if we had serious restrictions on late-term abortion. But the court itself has prevented such restrictions by insisting that they include an unlimited exception for “health,” including emotional health.
Gosnell’s case ought to spur reform — in states, which ought to make sure their abortion clinics aren’t going even further than the law allows; in Congress, which ought to determine if the civil rights of infants are being adequately protected; and in the Supreme Court, which ought to revisit an abortion jurisprudence that is more extreme than is typically understood.
LikeLike
a subject about which ATiM has been remarkably quiet, BTW.
Do we have someone with a pro-Gosnell opinion or should we just flog a strawman?
LikeLike
yello:
Do we have someone with a pro-Gosnell opinion…
I’m not sure…I wouldn’t presume to guess what the pro-choice contingent here thinks about it, especially those that think partial birth abortion should “absolutely” be allowed. But, like Ponnuru, I do think that the Gosnell case ought to prompt a re-evaluation of the current state of abortion policy in the US.
LikeLike
Lulu, see this:
http://tinyurl.com/bun5sdh
LikeLike
a subject about which ATiM has been remarkably quiet
Ha, all I’ll say is I’m glad a guilty verdict came in. He may get the death penalty as well.
LikeLike
I see I have been corked.
LikeLike
OT: Sigh
Progress doesn’t equal 0.00 percent allowable.
LikeLike
Progress doesn’t equal 0.00 percent allowable.
NoVA is the subject matter expert here, but is there any evidence that the fatalities are from people above or below the current level? If people are still driving drunk, lowering the limit isn’t going to stop them.
LikeLike
Thousands of people are killed or injured every year by drivers who have not reached the legal standard for being drunk but who have a reduced ability to see, make decisions or operate a vehicle,
The premise deserves investigation. at least. If it is true, what the response to it should be deserves thought. And, finally, the geography of the incidents alleged should be noted. Show me this is a true premise but that the damage is done on city streets and I will tell you this is a local problem.
LikeLike
Mark/McWing:
Not sure whether or not this is behind the firewall, but the WSJ has an article today by James Bovard detailing the long and storied history of the politicization of the IRS, from FDR to Kennedy to Nixon to Clinton. In short, this is a routine occurrence that ought not surprise us at all. His conclusion:
LikeLike
a subject about which ATiM has been remarkably quiet, BTW.
You don’t really expect anyone to be defending him, do you?
LikeLike
Mich:
You don’t really expect anyone to be defending him, do you?
I’m not sure, but the logic behind some pro-choice arguments certainly work in his favor.
LikeLike
Most Transparent Administration Ever
LikeLike
@ScottC: “I’m not sure, but the logic behind some pro-choice arguments certainly work in his favor.”
I may not be familiar enough with the case, but he seems to have been (a) performing already illegal procedures, (b) been exploiting women, and (c) been in violation of all sorts of health codes and HIPAA requirements and on and on. One might as well argue that “free market” principles argue in his favor, as he was supplying a service and there were customers to buy . . . but, despite that, he was still breaking the law and exploiting his patients and dealing drugs and generally being an irresponsible human being. Even if you supported partial birth abortions, I don’t think you’d support the manner in which Gosnell was conducting his work.
LikeLike
Kevin:
One might as well argue that “free market” principles argue in his favor, as he was supplying a service and there were customers to buy…
That makes no sense to me.
From the NYT article on his conviction:
The case turned on whether the late-term pregnancies Dr. Gosnell terminated resulted in live births. His lawyer, Jack McMahon, argued that because Dr. Gosnell injected a drug in utero to stop the heart, the deliveries were stillbirths, and movements that witnesses testified to observing — a jerked arm, a cry, swimming motions — were mere spasms.
So the relevant legal issue is whether the procedure that killed the baby took place inside or outside the mother’s body. If inside, then Gosnell was engaging in a
perfectly legalact that many abortion-rights advocates actually support. If outside, he is a murderer who himself may face the death penalty. The problem this raises for the logic used to defend late-term abortion rights seems obvious to me, but the NYT makes it explicit:While abortion rights groups argued that Dr. Gosnell operated far outside the legalities and norms of women’s health care, abortion opponents seized on the case to raise questions about the ethics of late-term abortions. Put simply, they asked why a procedure done to a living baby outside the womb is murder, but destroying a fetus of similar gestation before delivery can be legal.
Suggesting that the logic behind permitting partial birth abortion might also apply to permitting him to do what he actually did is nothing even remotely like saying that free market principles might operate in his favor.
(As an aside, note the interesting semantics the NYT uses…”living baby” vs “fetus of similar gestation”.)
EDIT: I was wrong about one thing…aborting a baby post 24 weeks is illegal in Pennsylvania, but not in all states.
LikeLike
@jnc4p: “The Justice Department complied with the law by releasing 15 pages—but these were entirely censored. Every single word except the subject of the memo was shaded over in black.”
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Transparency sounds like a good idea, like absolute honesty, until you have to be the one doing it. Then your view automatically becomes more nuanced.
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity, against whom did Gosnell commit his crimes? Who were his victems?
LikeLike
A woman seeking an abortion died, as were several babies that were born alive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
LikeLike
Good for him. Hold the line Jerry.
LikeLike
Scott, I’m not sure if you’re being stupid or provocative.
Either one, you’re being insulting.
LikeLike
Mich:
Scott, I’m not sure if you’re being stupid or provocative
Possibly both, I suppose, although I don’t know what I’ve said that might qualify as stupid. Perhaps you could specify just what it is you had in mind.
I will admit that I simply do not understand how killing a 25 week old fetus can be perfectly acceptable as long as it resides inside, or even partially inside, a woman, but that killing the same fetus at precisely the same stage of development becomes outrageously unacceptable and worthy of criminal punishment if it resides outside the mother. If this is what you meant by me “being stupid”, I would appreciate being edified on what I am missing.
Either one, you’re being insulting
There is a common notion from economics that I think is applicable here. Also an old children’s fable.
LikeLike
jnc, most of the Californians I speak to are happy with Brown. I wouldn’t call it a quick turn around, and it would have been quicker if the state GOP would have allowed a vote in 2010 on the tax increase, but we’re crawling out of a pretty deep hole. I hope he holds the line as he promises.
I wish he would broker some sort of compromise between the environmentalists and oil/gas companies. We’d even experience a little boom. There are compromises out there and he’s the one who I think could find and sell the solution. Who knows who will follow him? We’re not known for our stellar Governors here……………………hahaha
LikeLike
2010 should read 2011
LikeLike
the logic behind permitting partial birth abortion might also apply to permitting him to do what he actually did
I see we decided to go the strawman route.
LikeLike
yello:
I see we decided to go the strawman route.
I’m not sure what you think is a strawman. I am making an observation, in which a formal argument is implied. I will make the formal argument more explicit for you.
If it is wrong to kill a baby X weeks after its conception once it has been removed from its mothers body, then it is equally wrong to kill a baby at the same stage of development even if it hasn’t been removed from its mother’s body.
Do you agree? If not, why not?
LikeLike
If it is wrong to kill a baby X weeks after its conception once it has been removed from its mothers body, then it is equally wrong to kill a baby at the same stage of development even if it hasn’t been removed from its mother’s body.
This is not logical.
In the first instance, only the life of the infant must be weighed. In the second, the life of the infant must be weighed against the life or physical health of the mother, as determined by her ability to carry.
The question of whether or not each infant is viable outside the womb is individualized and not necessarily related to “X weeks after conception”. The question of what heroic efforts are required to keep an infant viable is totally beyond this discussion. However, in the hypothetical, if we assume that the infants being compared would be viable after delivery, then we do not have to consider this.
If it is wrong to kill a baby viable without heroic intervention X weeks after its conception once it has been removed from its mothers body, then it is equally wrong to kill a baby that if delivered would be viable without heroic intervention outside the mother, at the same stage of development even if it hasn’t been removed from its mother’s body, provided the mother can carry the baby without material risk to her life or health. If material risk to Mama’s life or health is determined, and viability of the infant is determined, then the infant should be delivered immediately for the benefit of the mother and kept alive by non-heroic measures.
That would be my statement of morality, as I think abortion for convenience is wrong.
I would vote for the law to be more permissive than my morality, as I do not seek to impose my morality on others, just as I do not want Roman Catholic morality [implied in Scott’s hypothetical which does not weigh the mother’s life or health interest at all] imposed on me.
LikeLike
Mark:
This is not logical.
Sure it is. You are simply introducing a new assumption that was not present in the original, namely the assumption that removal of a live baby from the woman would endanger her health/life in a way that removal of a dead baby would not. I am not sure that is a reasonable assumption, at least as a general proposition.
Whether a baby is alive or dead inside the mother, it still must be removed, and that removal carries with it some health risks to the woman. If the health risks are generally equivalent in either case (alive or dead), then the health risks to the mother do not impact the analysis, since they are the same either way. If the health risks are not equivalent, then it is true that the health risks to the mother must be weighed.
Also, on this:
…must be weighed against the life or physical health of the mother, as determined by her ability to carry.
Her ability to carry is irrelevant, since I am assuming that she will not be carrying in either event. The two instances we are comparing are 1) removing a live baby and then killing it and 2) killing a live baby and then removing it. In neither case is ability to carry the baby a relevant consideration.
The question of whether or not each infant is viable outside the womb is individualized and not necessarily related to “X weeks after conception”.
If that is true, then then the best way of knowing whether an individual infant is viable outside the womb is to remove it alive and see if it survives.
Roman Catholic morality [implied in Scott’s hypothetical which does not weigh the mother’s life or health interest at all]
Incorrect on both counts. My hypothetical most definitely does not imply a Roman Catholic morality, which requires that the mother carry the baby to term, nor does it disregard the mother’s life or health interests. As I point out above, it simply assumes that the mother’s life/health interests are not effected differently by the two circumstances under question.
LikeLike
This is not logical.
Sure it is.
No, it isn’t. You equated the termination of B on the one hand, and the alteration of the system, M+B, on the other. I didn’t add an assumption. You created a false equivalence. You assumed the M in your hypothetical equalled zero.
LikeLike
Mark:
You assumed the M in your hypothetical equalled zero.
Incorrect. I assumed that there was no change in the status of M in either circumstance. That is quite different to assuming M equalled zero, which of course I did not do.
As I already stated in my previous, the issue under question is whether there is a morally relevant difference between 1) removing a live baby and then killing it and 2) killing a live baby and then removing it. And, again as I already stated, I am assuming that the health risks to the mother of removing a dead baby are the same as removing a live baby. If that assumption is wrong, then, as I have already acknowledged, the two are not equivalent. But if they are the same, then I do not see from where the “false equivalence” arises.
LikeLike
Now that we have the math section over with, can we move on to the arguing over definitions part of the debate. What qualifies as ‘viable without heroic intervention’? We use a lot of heroic measures for babies women want to give birth to. Where is the line drawn for this hypothetical late-termer we are going to deliver just to see if it can live? Neo-natal ventilator? NICU clean room?
LikeLike
Her ability to carry is irrelevant, since I am assuming that she will not be carrying in either event. The two instances we are comparing are 1) removing a live baby and then killing it and 2) killing a live baby and then removing it. In neither case is ability to carry the baby a relevant consideration.
The final sentence is utterly incomprehensible. The late term abortion, to be moral, IMHO, must involve an infant that cannot survive outside the womb without heroic intervention. If the mother cannot carry but the infant meets this viability test than it should be delivered and kept alive. If a non-viable infant is delivered, it may be permitted to die rather than impose the burden of heroics.
Again, I would not try to impose my own moral standard were I a legislator. Again, we are talking about how my moral standard is not universal. Again we are bumping into your assessment that morality can be universal, and perhaps absolute.
—
To recap my views in that old debate – I think that values are probably universal but how those values are prioritized is cultural. I think morality relies on a prioritized value system. I think ethics are conduct codes that tend to enforce morality and the prioritization of the values of the group that adopted the code – whether it is the USMC, the RC Church, the TX Penal Code, or the rules of baseball. Thus we should not confuse our means of social control with morality.
A Church which values the life of the unborn and the newly born over the life of an adult will disregard M in the system B+M.
LikeLike
Mark:
The late term abortion, to be moral, IMHO, must involve both an infant that cannot survive outside the womb without heroic intervention and a mother whose life or health is at risk by carrying to term.
I disagree. I think a woman has a right to abort a baby that cannot live outside the womb even if her life/health is not at risk by carrying it to term. Likewise, a baby that can survive outside the womb cannot be rightfully aborted simply because carrying it to term would put the mother’s life/health in danger, because it doesn’t have to be carried to term. It can be removed, alive, and survive. By definition.
So, again, carrying it to term is a non-issue.
Basically I think a baby that can survive outside the womb has a right to do so, and I think a woman who wants to be detached from the baby inside of her (whether for health or other reasons) also has a right to be. And I think these two rights are reconcilable. Just not, obviously, through the use of abortion.
LikeLike
I think a woman has a right to abort a baby that cannot live outside the womb even if her life/health is not at risk by carrying it to term.
Agree – I was careless. I will now edit. You will notice pre-editing that I did agree with you further down in the comment when I wrote that the viable infant should be delivered early if the mother cannot carry to term.
LikeLike
Mark:
You will notice pre-editing that I did agree with you further down in the comment when I wrote that the viable infant should be delivered early if the mother cannot carry to term.
This being the case, then, it seems to me there is no reason to ever contemplate a late-term abortion. Deliver the baby early. If it can’t survive, so be it. The only thing an abortion qua abortion does is guarantee that the baby won’t survive.
In other words, it seems to me the sole purpose of abortion is to ensure the death of the baby, not protect the mother.
LikeLike
This is where the most recent abortion discussion took shape:
(Scott:) If it is wrong to kill a baby X weeks after its conception once it has been removed from its mothers body, then it is equally wrong to kill a baby at the same stage of development even if it hasn’t been removed from its mother’s body.
Do you agree? If not, why not?
I made no previous comment.
LikeLike
Mark:
This is where the most recent abortion discussion took shape:
I’m not sure whether this is supposed to be a response to my last yesterday, and if it is, how it relates at all. But as I already pointed out, your charge came directly in response to my response to your assertion that “The strongest constitutional ground is that basic legal rights are granted to persons, and that persons are born, not merely conceived.” That assertion seemed to come not in response to, or as a result of, what you quote above (indeed if it did, it was entirely non-responsive), but rather in response to the article I had linked to about Roe and the way the abortion debates were shaped in its wake. The flow of the conversation is obvious if you read the whole thread. We had clearly moved from discussing the moral aspect of abortion…when ought abortion be allowed…to discussing the constitutional foundation of Roe itself. And since whether or not Roe is justified depends upon whether or not the constitution actually grants the rights asserted, it makes no sense at all to approach the question by assuming the right does exist, as you do.
But in any event, again as I already said yesterday, even if you want to expand the cause of your accusation to the wider discussion that had preceded it, it still makes no sense, because I had already explicitly allowed that I thought a woman had a right to be separated from the growing baby inside her. You had, in fact, previously accused me of assuming that the mother’s interests counted for zero, a notion that I thought I had disabused you of by ultimately making the above proclamation about the rights of the woman…a proclamation that you both acknowledged and actually agreed with. I even explained my thinking further, demonstrating exactly how I thought the rights of both the unborn baby and the mother (yes, Mark, the rights of the mother) could be reconciled.
But you just ignore all of what I actually said and argued, make this totally unfounded accusation about assuming women have no rights, and continue to act as though what you accuse me of was totally reasonable and justified. I find it utterly incomprehensible, although all-too-typical of the way pro-abortion advocates approach their opponents on this.
LikeLike
Who were his victems?
In the event you aren’t being disingenuous, here is the summary:
Thank you, yello.
LikeLike
Mich:
I am curious…do you really not see the inconsistency in objecting to what Gosnell did but at the same time supporting the legality of late-term abortions?
LikeLike
Mark, what I want to see is a breakdown of the 10,000 fatalities and how many involved people already over the existing legal limit. That information was conspicuously missing from the article.
LikeLike
Agreed (JNC).
LikeLike
Scott, the fact that you equate what Gosnell did to late term abortion means that you do not even see what the argument is.
LikeLike
Mich:
Scott, the fact that you equate what Gosnell did to late term abortion means that you do not even see what the argument is.
Again, I am interested in hearing what you think the morally relevant difference is between what Gosnell did and late term abortions.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark. I don’t suppose Obama will be impeached over it. It’s interesting as well that there were so many applications during the early days of Obama’s presidency. I have to agree with the rest of you though that tax exemption status needs to be “re-thunk”.
Pretty much agree with you re your criteria for late term abortion. Gosnell was operating outside the legal and moral umbrella of the state and not only did he fail in his efforts to serve women, the state failed in protecting both the women and the babies they carried.
LikeLike
More on the IRS from Bloomberg. No more tax exemptions, especially when they depend on subjective calls by bureaucrats.
http://tinyurl.com/a2natmv
LikeLike
More on the IRS from Ezra Klein:
It’s hard for the president to axe ordinary employees at the IRS at will. The agency is insulated from the executive branch — in part due to fears that a president will fire employees if they don’t discriminate against groups or individuals who’re fighting his agenda. In this case, that insulation is actually protecting employees who might have discriminated against conservative groups from being fired by the White House. Now there’s an unintended consequence for you.
LikeLike
@Michigoose: “Scott, the fact that you equate what Gosnell did to late term abortion means that you do not even see what the argument is.”
It is comparable, I think, in this way (trying to improve on my unsuccessful free market analogy).
Let’s say a guard in a prison, on death row, finds himself angry at a condemned man, pulls his gun, and shoots him. We already accept that it is legal that the man be executed by the state, and that his appeals are exhausted and his death is a fate accompli. Yet the guard pulls a Gosnell and does it illegally, outside of the bounds of the law and the accepted procedure, and has thus committed murder. Even though the end result is the same. Perhaps it’s identical: he has killed the man for the crimes the man has committed, the same crimes that have him condemned by the state. It’s still murder if the guard steps outside of the accepted framework for executing the condemned, and the guard becomes a murderer.
In both cases, late term abortion and what Gosnell did involves terminating pregnancies where the child might have otherwise lived, so in that way it is similar. The distinction drawn for Gosnell is more about how (and perhaps degree) rather than what.
@Scott: I confess my arguments are less than cogent (my “don’t blame the free market” comparison). One of the reasons I am hesitant to participate; my brain is fried most days. Been taking Crystal Reports training all week, on PowerSchool SMS which is a gigantic database with thousands of tables and trying to figure out how to extract the right data in unfamiliar software is mind-draining. Amongst other things. Hope this makes more sense. May not. If so, apologies.
LikeLike
Kevin:
If so, apologies.
No worries. My brain is fried even thinking about what you are doing.
LikeLike
@markinaustin: “No, it isn’t. You equated the termination of B on the one hand, and the alteration of the system, M+B, on the other. I didn’t add an assumption. You created a false equivalence. You assumed the M in your hypothetical equalled zero.”
Okay, my head’s already hurting. Speak English! 😉
LikeLike
I am interested in hearing what you think
Based on past experience, this is not a true statement.
LikeLike
@yellojkt: “What qualifies as ‘viable without heroic intervention’?”
It would have to be a group of measurable indicators that are generally considered to suggest viability by some set of medical standards, and can be measured in the womb. Perhaps tricky, even so.
The solution? Nanotech birth control administered at birth that requires easy and inexpensive (or free) deactivation in order to conceive. Until such time, there will be unintended pregnancies that end up in abortions. And usually about half the population is not going to be happy about that.
LikeLike
@Michigoose: “Based on past experience, this is not a true statement.”
I think this involves an assumption, most likely that false, that just because someone is likely to both disagree and say something vaguely or explicitly insulting about your argument that they aren’t actually interested in hearing what you think. 😉
I don’t think disagreement, or even outright hostility (not saying anyone is being hostile, just stretching my argument for emphasis) *necessarily* means that someone isn’t interested in what you think.
I find people can be very interested in contrary opinions, in order to deconstruct them and sharpen their own debating skills. Or to assure themselves that there is no compelling argument thus far that can cast doubt upon their own conclusions.
LikeLike
Interesting, a doctor who removes a live baby from the womb and the nurses in the NICU are lauded whether the baby survives or not.
A Dr. who removes a live baby of the same gestational age from the womb but does not do heroic measures is a murder, unless then State Senator Obama has his way.
A Dr. who kills a baby of the same gestational age in the womb, and then removes it is just doing their job.
LikeLike
I think the abortion debates generally revolve around a false choice…abort or carry the baby to term. There is a third option that no one ever considers. Remove the baby alive at whatever point the abortion would have been performed. We can then argue about what measures can/should be taken to keep it alive, but the choice between carrying to term or abortion is taken off the table.
LikeLike
Kevin:
You are putting a very charitable construction on things.
Anyone who sees no difference in late term abortion and what Gosnell did is not looking for a reasoned argument.
LikeLike
Michigoose: “You are putting a very charitable construction on things.”
I’ve been both charitable and uncharitable in life, and rarely regret the charity and frequently regret the lack thereof, so I prefer to be charitable. I think it usually ends up closer to the truth and further from my personal prejudices, though probably not always.
I personally think Scott often expresses himself with a vigor that might be prone to misinterpretation, or could at least be interpreted multiple ways. I pick the most charitable way, in hopes that people do the same with me! 😉
“Anyone who sees no difference in late term abortion and what Gosnell did is not looking for a reasoned argument.”
If you do not see the distinction, or don’t understand the distinction others are drawing, I think they may be at least looking for more information, if not a reasoned argument.
LikeLike
What I’m finding particularly interesting about this discussion is that most of you are actually pro-choice, up to a point at least. And I basically agree. I believe there are possibly extreme cases where late term abortion may be appropriate but the only reason to allow a baby to die in that case would be one of natural causes because of severe mental or physical challenges that would only prolong the suffering of the child. I don’t believe in abortion post viability otherwise. As Scott says, if the mother’s health is at risk, deliver the child if possible. If both can’t happen then the mother’s life is the superior one to me.
I think there is a lot of room to challenge abortion laws in many states but unfortunately the way it is being done, at the expense of women’s autonomy and relationship with their doctors and families, is the wrong way to go about it. The way women are being treated and talked about in many of these state legislatures is a disgrace IMO and will only add to our resolve to oppose even what appear to be common sense safeguards to the sanctity of life.
I also believe that the fewer opportunities there are for safe and legal early abortion access will condemn many women to the fate of doctors (and I use the term loosely) such as Gosnell.
LikeLike
lms:
I think there is a lot of room to challenge abortion laws in many states but unfortunately the way it is being done, at the expense of women’s autonomy and relationship with their doctors and families, is the wrong way to go about it.
Roe is to blame for this, I think.
I also believe that the fewer opportunities there are for safe and legal early abortion access will condemn many women to the fate of doctors (and I use the term loosely) such as Gosnell.
Safe, legal abortions are plentiful in Pennsylvania, yet Gosnell plied his trade for years. He didn’t thrive because safe and legal abortions were hard to find early in pregnancy.
LikeLike
“Remove the baby alive at whatever point the abortion would have been performed”
That would acknowledge that the fetus has intrinsic value.
LikeLike
Scott, I don’t think you can blame Roe for the rhetoric surrounding the abortion debate or the demands being made by Republicans in Congress and state legislatures. I believe it needs to be revisited but I don’t trust the pro-life movement or religious conservatives to do it. We’ve seen what they really want and it’s not the alternative to Roe that I want, or many of the young women or men that we know.
I’m not sure you are accurate re plentiful access to abortion in Pennsylvania, I read otherwise months ago. And the safeguards against his type of operation were not upheld so the state has some culpability as well imo.
LikeLike
lms:
I’m not sure you are accurate re plentiful access to abortion in Pennsylvania,
According to the latest stats from 2008, PA ranked 7th among all the states in terms of total number of legal abortions performed.
LikeLike
Scott, who pays for the delivered baby?
LikeLike
McWing:
Scott, who pays for the delivered baby?
I’m tempted to say Obamacare, of course, but its a serious question that deserves a serious response. It is certainly a fair question.
The short answer is I don’t know, but given that both public and private resources are currently made available for any number of things that a large portion of society considers moral imperatives (eg feeding/housing the homeless, caring for family-less children), I would imagine that this, too, would be something that both voters and private individuals/organizations would be willing to direct resources to. If they didn’t, then the babies would die with society’s implicit approval, and we would be in pretty much the same situation we are now, with society implicitly approving of killing them outright.
BTW, if it is true that late-term abortions of viable babies are as rare as the pro-choice movement suggests, then I would guess that we really aren’t talking about a large expense in any event.
LikeLike
Why would anyone assume that a woman, her family or her doctor would opt for abortion if the child, or pregnancy threatening the woman’s life, is a viable baby. These are not women who do not want their children. They are women in the untenable position of possibly choosing between themselves and their child. I would venture to say that all of them would want both if it’s at all possible.
These are not representative of the type of procedure being performed by Gosnell. There are emergency situations where the fetus is sacrificed to save the life of the mother but if the child is viable I don’t think hospitals perform abortions but rather life saving measures for both.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. I have heard of Catholic hospitals turning women away or letting both die in these circumstances however.
LikeLike
lms:
Why would anyone assume that a woman, her family or her doctor would opt for abortion if the child, or pregnancy threatening the woman’s life, is a viable baby.
I don’t assume anything. But it seems that at least in the Gosnell case there were at least 3 women who did indeed opt for an abortion of a viable baby. Viable enough, in any event, to actually survive the abortion attempt.
These are not women who do not want their children.
I’m not sure which women in particular you are talking about, but I’m not in a position to speculate on what is motivating these women.
LikeLike
@Troll: “Scott, who pays for the delivered baby?”
Are there no orphanages? Are there no poor houses?
Sorry to be flip. I know I shouldn’t be.
Generally, adoption agencies. Charities or the tax payer.
@Scott: If the goal is to ensure the death of the baby, I wonder why that is the goal, and if those reasons can be addressed. To avoid any sense of responsibility for bringing a child into the world, and what might happen to it subsequently? Population control? A moral opposition to life, if that life cannot be guaranteed a relatively high minimal standard of living? Nihilism or a ideological viewpoint that dismisses life in and of itself as having intrinsic value?
Or could it be for some a fetishizing of process: the termination of the life of the fetus is irrelevant to the process, to the adherence to bureaucratic delineations. I think this explains why supporters of late-term abortions can rigorously support late-term abortions, but revile Gosnell as a charlatan and a quack. It’s not the late term abortions that are the problem, it’s how he did them.
Or fetishizing of politics: whether the baby lives or dies is not important in the context of the larger associated political issues of reproductive choice, women’s rights, rights to privacy, etc. Or a little bit of all of it. 😉
Just thinking, not saying it is or is not any or all of those things.
LikeLike
PA has gone from having 22 clinics to 13 in the last few years but the more relevant point is what drives poor women to clinics such as Gosnell’s and how was he able to operate under the radar of the state’s requirements?
Lots of states are enacting what some of us consider nonsense regulations to make it impossible for legitimate and legal clinics to continue to operate while ignoring clinics like Gosnell’s that serve the poorest of the poor. No easy answers. The more legitimate clinics we close and de-fund the less access there will be and the more long term and worse consequences we’ll begin to see, primarily for women who live in poverty and proportionately even higher for minorities.
The religious right, or whomever is the driving force for the pro-life movement, has a very short sighted and unrealistic approach to the abortion debate……………….imo.
And I think that’s about as far out on a limb as I’m willing to go in this debate. Back to work for me.
LikeLike
lms:
but the more relevant point is what drives poor women to clinics such as Gosnell’s
If I am not mistaken, most of them were referred by other abortion clinics or doctors who would not perform late-term abortions.
LikeLike
Scott, I guess I wasn’t clear what I was responding to, it was this.
Likewise, a baby that can survive outside the womb cannot be rightfully aborted simply because carrying it to term would put the mother’s life/health in danger, because it doesn’t have to be carried to term. It can be removed, alive, and survive.
I think this is the obvious choice for women who’s life/health is in danger.
LikeLike
lms:
I think this is the obvious choice for women who’s life/health is in danger.
I agree. But it was obviously not the choice of the hundreds of women who went to Gosnell for late-2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.
LikeLike
Scott
referred by other abortion clinics or doctors who would not perform late-term abortions
I wish it was as simple as that, we might be able to correct that kind of thinking.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/04/16/learning-right-lessons-philadelphia-abortion-clinic-disaster/
LikeLike
lulu,
Thanks for that link. Several portions leaped out at me, these in particular:
Many current new laws are aimed at making abortions more costly or inconvenient. While the famed transvaginal ultrasound is just one case, others include waiting periods, mandatory multiple visits, hospital grade facilities, admitting relationships with hospitals and other bureaucratic that are ostensibly for the health and the safety of the patients but are really geared to make them more reluctant to perform the procedure. Gosnell is clearly one of the unintended consequences of these policies.
LikeLike
yello:
Gosnell is clearly one of the unintended consequences of these policies.
Seems to me Gosnell is the poster boy the need for such policies even under an easy access regime. No fancy hospital grade facilities or tedious waiting periods at the good old Women’s Medical Society.
BTW, in case you missed it. I’m still interested.
LikeLike
Yello and Lms,
Are we sure price of abortions isn’t a strawman considering the fact that the abortions he was doing that he’s now notorious for were late term? And that he was getting referrals from other clinics and Dr.’s because he was the only one doing them? Finally, they were against the law.
Why were other Dr.’s and clinics referring to him for these abortions when they knew it was against the law?
What evidence is there that financial considerations were the reason that these women were seeking (illegal) late term abortions?
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you think is a strawman.
The pro-choice person who equates partial birth abortion and infanticide as both being morally acceptable. By the way, the former is trademarked term of the National Right To Life coalition for what is technically called a dilation and extraction.
Seems to me Gosnell is the poster boy the need for such policies even under an easy access regime.
Why do you conservatives always think more laws are needed when the existing ones aren’t even being enforced?
LikeLike
Agree that abortion vs. full term are not the only choices, and that a viable [without heroics] baby is one that my morality would deliver.
Then we get into other issues. Like Tay-Sachs.
LikeLike
Mark:
Then we get into other issues. Like Tay-Sachs.
Of course. There are always wrinkles that can alter the analysis.
But to press the fundamental case a bit further, you have gone to great pains to point out that would not impose your morality on others, suggesting, I think, that while you personally oppose late term abortions on moral grounds, you would not impose that on others by supporting a law against late term abortions. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
But I assume you do support the law that put Gosnell away for what he did. So that raises 2 questions in my mind. First, isn’t your support for that law an example of imposing your morality on others? And second, why would you support such a law while refusing to support a law that essentially outlaws precisely the same thing from taking place in a different location (ie inside a woman’s body rather than outside)?
LikeLike
jnc:
Not sure if you have a WSJ subscription, but there is an op-ed today that might interest you. Unfortunately behind firewall, but: How To Let Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Fail.
It makes both the same point you made the other day, namely that an implied borrowing subsidy exists, and also the one I made, namely that who gets bailed out and when is ultimately a political decision. The way to let them fail, according to the op-ed, is to add a new chapter to the bankruptcy laws, Chapter 14, that would apply to all financial institutions with assets over $100mm.
This may be better than the resolution process under D/F, but to be honest I don’t think this really solves anything, because ultimately politicians will still, at their whim, be able to decide to bail someone out if they wanted to. The decision to bail someone out will always be a political decision.
LikeLike
yello:
The pro-choice person who equates partial birth abortion and infanticide as both being morally acceptable.
No one posited such a person. I said I don’t understand pro-choice people who do not equate partial birth abortion and infanticide (of a baby at the same stage of development). It seems to me the two are equal, and I have repeatedly asked in what way they are not. Both you and Mich seem extremely reluctant to answer that question, even as you act as though the answer is obvious. Mark has at least tried, although after several back and forths, it seems that ultimately he actually agrees with me.
Why do you conservatives always think more laws are needed when the existing ones aren’t even being enforced?
I’m not saying more laws are needed. Indeed I am more than willing to live in the more libertarian world of buyer beware with much less government regulation of markets for legal goods (including the market for abortion).
I was simply remarking on the bizarre notion that the way to price Gosnell out of the market was to eliminate for everyone the expense of the procedures that Gosnell didn’t follow. If it were true that it was only the absence of totally unnecessary procedures that allowed him to charge lower prices, then one wouldn’t have expected his quality of service to have suffered for their absence. Since it so obviously did suffer, it would seem that a lot of these procedures which he did not follow are indeed necessary for quality service, and reputable providers would follow them even without being forced to do so by the government, and therefore would have to charge higher prices anyway.
A quality and safe abortion is going to cost more than quick and dangerous cut-up job no matter what the regulations are surrounding the procedure. To attribute Gosnell’s lower cost strictly to useless regulation is absurd.
LikeLike
it would seem that a lot of these procedures which he did not follow are indeed necessary for quality service, and reputable providers would follow them even without being forced to do so by the government,
And here is my primary beef with blue sky libertarians. Even in the presence of minimal regulations, there will always be disreputable providers for any good or service whether it be safe abortions or non-poisonous food. The open market does a very poor job of protecting customers as its enforcement mechanisms tend to be largely ineffective and often purely theoretical.
LikeLike
yello:
The open market does a very poor job of protecting customers as its enforcement mechanisms tend to be largely ineffective and often purely theoretical.
A valiant attempt to change the subject. Kudos. I assume, then, that we have settled (in the negative) the question of whether or not it was just superfluous government regulation that gave Gosnell his pricing advantage.
LikeLike
What evidence is there that financial considerations were the reason that these women were seeking (illegal) late term abortions?
If you read the article, he was doing lots of procedures and undercut legitimate regulated clinics all up and down the gestation term. I suspect the cheaper procedures where cost was a factor were the mainstay of his operation. But you make a good point that as the sole provider of an illegal service he could charge whatever the market would bear. Perhaps he was leaving money on the table.
LikeLike
“. But you make a good point that as the sole provider of an illegal service he could charge whatever the market would bear. Perhaps he was leaving money on the table.”
You sure torched that strawman!
LikeLike
“This may be better than the resolution process under D/F, but to be honest I don’t think this really solves anything, because ultimately politicians will still, at their whim, be able to decide to bail someone out if they wanted to. The decision to bail someone out will always be a political decision.”
It’s a better solution. Any solution that allows the creditors and the institution itself the ability to make their case to a Federal judge (i.e. the quaint notion of due process) vs unilateral decision making by the executive branch and the Federal Reserve is preferred.
LikeLike
jnc:
Any solution that allows the creditors and the institution itself the ability to make their case to a Federal judge (i.e. the quaint notion of due process) vs unilateral decision making by the executive branch and the Federal Reserve is preferred.
Agreed.
LikeLike