We’ve begun a battle of enormous consequence to our entire nation here in the great state of Mississippi.  Abortion is on the November 8 ballot in Mississippi, in the form of an initiative to change the state constitution by defining “person” as any human from the moment of fertilization.  The amendment is based on statements made by the judges who voted in favor of abortion during the Roe v. Wade oral re-arguments.

Unlike some other states, it is very difficult to get a voter initiative on the ballot in Mississippi; this year, we have three initiatives that would amend our state constitution, a truly remarkable feat.  All three are key conservative issues in an overwhelmingly conservative state:  abortion, voter identification, and eminent domain abuse.Personally, I’m hoping for a triple play, and voting “YES!” on all three.  The issue that I am working on, however, is abortion.

When this battle is won in Mississippi, it doesn’t just set up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, it eviscerates that case and all of its unholy progeny.  It gives a method by which every state in the nation can extend the most basic civil rights to the most innocent and deserving members of the human race — our unborn children.

When is a person a “person”?

All humans deserve equal protection of the laws and the right to due process, but the law only extends these rights to every “person.”  Thanks to the outstanding work of Personhood Mississippi, we in Mississippi will have the chance to be the first state in the history of our union to define a “person” to include all unborn humans.  Initiative 26 will define the term person as follows:

SECTION 33.  Person defined.  As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state and protection under law, regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.  Calling abortion “murder” will no longer be merely a moral judgment, but an established legal determination.  In other words, abortion will be illegal.

(more…)

Carl Mitz is a third-generation horseman.  The Texan is widely known as one of the nation’s best horse dentists.  He’s treated the teeth of over 100,000 horses and has clients in over 30 states.

But Texas bureaucrats tried for years to shut him down.

In a classic case of economic protectionism, Carl and all other Texas equine dentists were told they had to spend up to $100,000 and four years at veterinary school, where they would learn next to nothing about caring for horses’ teeth, or else abandon their occupation.  To top it off, they were threatened with massive fines and even jail.

Instead of giving up his American Dream, Carl teamed up with other Texas horsemen and the Institute for Justice to fight for their right to earn an honest living.

And this week, they won.

On Tuesday, a Texas judge struck down the effort by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to put equine dentists like Carl—known as floaters—out of business and leave the state’s approximately one million horses without proper dental care.

(more…)

Civil rights.  Inalienable rights.  Human rights.  Animal rights.  Individual rights.  Group rights.  God-given rights.  Sacred rights.  Natural rights.  Positive rights.  Negative rights.  Children’s rights.  Parent’s rights.  Patient’s rights.  Property rights.  Personal rights.  Basics rights.  Fundamental rights.

Just what is a right?  Can some rights be more basics or fundamental than others?  Which is more important, a basic right or a fundamental right?  Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few?  Are rights absolute?  One could assert whole new kinds of rights and then argue about where they fit in among all the other rights.  How about essential rights, or core rights, or perhaps preeminent rights?

Definitions of the nature and origin of rights vary widely – from a gift from God, to one of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison’s tenets, all the way down to “a good thing” – but these disputes can be left to theologians and historians and scatterbrains.  Let constitutional scholars debate the fine points of original intent or understanding (of each delegate?  or the drafter of a particular clause?  or the Convention as a whole?  or Congress?  or the ratifying state conventions?).  What really matters is how rights function within our constitutional system.

A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, is saying that regardless of what other people want, he must have XYZ and society must give it to him.  To admit there is such a right is to accept that the opinion of the majority on his having XYZ is meaningless; it is to accept that your opinion on the issue is meaningless, too.  As anti-democratic limitations on the scope of majority rule, rights are like provisions of the Constitution.  Indeed, they are one and the same, because in a practical sense – the only sense that matters – a right is a government policy that must be so regardless of majority will.

(more…)

A powerful irony of unintended consequences of Arizona’s new immigration law is emerging, which is that the law will only harm innocent Arizonans. Perception can be more powerful than reality, and even if the millions of Americans who oppose the new law are wrong, they can bring harm as a result of a law intended to help Arizona.

On May 6, La Raza, the country’s largest civil rights group and 19 other labor and civil rights groups, including the Major League Baseball Players Association, announced a nationwide boycott of all economic activities related to Arizona. The state’s hotel and lodging association, for example, reports that 19 meetings have been cancelled, at an economic loss of $6 million. This is only the beginning. Protesters of the law may or may not be right, but the intensity of their anger will bring punitive action to the state.

We are learning after the fact the deleterious effects of S. B. 1070, reminding us a little of the health care law that Congress recently passed with few knowing what was in the bill or what it would do.

In attempting to clear up the matter of whether this new law violates the constitutional rights of the 4th and 14th Amendments, Kris Kobach, a law professor who helped draft the law, reports that police officers cannot willy nilly simply demand identification without probable cause from someone who “looks Hispanic.” He argues that there must be “lawful contact” and that “the most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

Now look at what Koback just confessed–”a traffic stop.” How many of Arizona’s 500,000 illegal immigrants are going to be caught primarily at traffic stops? A relatively minuscule number. Besides, Arizona doesn’t even need a new law for this because traffic violators must produce a driver’s license that proves legal residency.

(more…)

With the onset of the holiday season, Washington, D.C., is getting quieter by the day.  However, opponents of net neutrality—which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering implementing—are not taking a break from tough policy debate quite yet.  With the FCC expected to reach a decision on net neutrality early next year, one major foe of the policy spoke out against it again last week in harsh terms, suggesting that if net neutrality rules were implemented, they might fall afoul of the First Amendment’s intent and purpose.

Kyle McSlarrow, President of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said at a lunch held last Wednesday by the Media Institute that the implementation of net neutrality rules “would ultimately decrease the overall amount of speech on the Internet, thus harming, not helping, First Amendment interests.”  Furthermore, he argued, net neutrality proponents who claim the policy is needed to protect First Amendment rights have their facts “upside down.”  McSlarrow went on to add, “By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government.  Making these arguments is, ironically, almost proof that First Amendment rights are being implicated…let’s not forget that the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government.”

(more…)