by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. "A wall by any other name is still a wall." The American people have spoken, and they agree with President Trump. Tuesday's State of the Union Address represented a pivotal point in the Trump presidency. It came amidst a government shutdown that the Left is still hoping would be fatal to the President's chances at getting reelected. It also came after a delay promulgated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who insisted that 1) there would not be a dollar for the wall; and 2) there would be no negotiations while the government was shut down. Pelosi and her band of minions were confident that the President was losing. That he was in the wrong. That the American people were finally opening to her view that Trump was harmful to America and that his policies were insupportable. Then the most magnificent thing happened. President Trump delivered his speech. He was magnanimous, strong, and bold. He painted a positive picture of America and of the people that make up the country. Immediately, the Left described the speech as discombobulated, petty, divisive, and even "dog poop." But then an even more magnificent thing happened. The American people responded. A CNN poll found that 76% of those who watched the speech gave the President a favorable rating. A CBS poll also conducted after the speech arrived at an identical approval number. CBS's poll showed 72% approved with the President on immigration policy, and 59% said the speech was not just one that they approved, but they ranked it as "very positive." And more ominously to the Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the approval numbers showed 97% of Republicans approved of the speech compared to 30% of the Democrats. And even more distressing for Pelosi and the Democrat Party, 82% of Independents, the group that Democrats continue to insist decide the outcome of elections, sided with Trump. Undoubtedly, it is far too early to make any conclusions about the State of the Union Address's effects on President's chances of attaining reelection and of the Democrats' abilities to keep the House in 2020. Suffice it to say, that the results of polls conducted by organizations that consistently jibe to the left delineate an emphatic support for the President generally and for border security; a strong message to Speaker Pelosi that it is time for her to give up the ghost on her argument against barriers to our southern border and support appropriating money to build the wall. This may explain why Pelosi said on Wednesday that she would abide by whatever recommendations were made by House and Senate negotiators in the issue of immigration, thus potentially opening an exit strategy for her on building the wall. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
0 Comments
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. I must admit I've become disenchanted with the State of The Union Address. I guess it began with Obama's presidency. I found him so repulsive and dishonest that I couldn't stand to listen. Additionally, I was unmoved by the long litany of summary statements he was making, many of which were disingenuous, yet openly celebrated by his conspiring band of cronies. When President Trump took office, naturally, my enthusiasm over the State of the Union Address blossomed once again, but even still, I can't get over the fact that the Address has become a recitation of a long list of projects a particular President wishes to accomplish interlaced with precontrived talking points and moments of self-adulation. The State of the Union report is constitutionally prescribed, but not the Address. In my view, when the President takes to the podium to deliver his State of the Union Address, he is speaking more to the people than he is to Congress. Yes, members of Congress will cheer, or not, at certain line items, but in reality, it is the people of the United States to whom the President speaks. For once, I wish the President would acknowledge that. In my view, a State of the Union Address should be no more than 20 minutes in length, or perhaps 30 if the President inadvertently dwells on a point here and there. He should speak only about two or three issues gripping the nation at that time. He should share with us his views on the importance of these issues, how we got here, and what he wishes to do to address them. The discussion should be laced with observations regarding the strength of the nation, its people, and the unlimited potential of what can be accomplished if we all work together. That would be a great speech, and it is a shame that the speechwriters have strayed into a framework of having the President deliver a series of bullet items. Their approach retracts from the purpose of the speech and minimizes the opportunity to have the President truly shine. Still, there is some value to the State of the Union Address, not the least of which is observing the opposing party's reactions to the President bullet points. Last night was no exception. In particular, I was struck with what the Democrats did not stand for in last night's speech. Here is a list of bullet items that the Democrats did not stand for interspersed with some of my thoughts on the various statements they made by remaining seated. 1. Wages are rising. Specifically, they are growing for blue-collar workers. The Democrats did not stand. I was confused here. Does that mean that they don't like blue-collar workers, or is it the improvement in their wages that Democrats oppose? 2. Five million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. The Democrats did not stand. Again. Confused. Five million people are no longer getting food stamps. That means that they are doing better. They are providing for themselves, probably because they have jobs now. Is that not a good thing? Apparently not, or at least not worth standing for. 3. The US economy is growing twice as fast today as when I took office. The Democrats did not stand. Do the Democrats not like that the economy is growing, or is it the implicit shaming of Obama they resent? 4. Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century. The Democrats did not stand. That's a good thing, right? According to the Democrats, maybe it's not. 5. Asian, African American, and Hispanic unemployment rate at lowest level ever recorded. The Democrats did not stand. Neither did Speaker Pelosi. I thought the Democrats were all about the racial divide and correcting the injustices being purposefully perpetrated against minorities in this country. Shouldn't we therefore be celebrating an improvement in the economic standing of members of minority groups? Nope, say the Democrats. 6. Americans with disabilities unemployment rate at an all-time low. The Democrats did not stand. Who doesn't cheer accomplishments by disabled Americans? Democrats. 7. More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country. The Democrats did not stand. Is people having jobs not a good thing? 8. Right to try. The Democrats did not stand. Okay. This one has to be bipartisan. The Right to Try law allows people with fatal conditions to try certain curative treatments despite not being approved by the FDA. It's the legalization of the Hail Mary Pass in pharmacology. Surely, everyone is in favor of cutting through the bureaucratic nonsense to save a life, right? Apparently not the Democrats. 9. Companies are coming back in historic numbers. The Democrats did not stand. I got nothing. 10. The US is the number one producer of oil and natural as in the world. The Democrats did not stand, although Manchin did. They can't stand this one! The President of the United States just exalted the destruction of the planet through the greater production of lethal green gases. Gases that will kill the earth! Never mind that those products keep our homes warm, help us cook our meals, or keep our biodegradable products cold so they won't rot. Nope. We can't have that! Shame on you, Mr. President. On the other hand, who cares? According to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the planet is ending in 12 years anyway. 11. The US is now a net exporter of energy. The Democrats did not stand. Horrors! Pelosi clapped!!! Otherwise see #10. 12. America is again winning each and every day. The Democrats did not stand. Of course. The Democrats will perpetually root for anyone against the Patriots, and they're still sore from their defeat in the Super Bowl at the hands of a Trump-loving quarterback against a team that, by its very name, celebrates patriotism. 13. The state of our union is strong. The Democrats did not stand, and Pelosi smugly shook her head. I understand that we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the direction we believe the country should be headed, but to deny that the state of the union is strong, particularly when the economy is buzzing, the unemployment rate is down, and (let's face it) people are risking life and limb merely to be a part of us is disingenuous to say the least. We should be celebrating the state of our union today, not dismissing it. And yes, always fighting for better. 14. Another 304,000 jobs were added in the latest job numbers, almost double the number expected. The Democrats did not stand. All I can say is that they didn't stand for this because a strong working force is a threat to the future of the Democratic Party. 15. And the granddaddy of them all, America will never be a socialist country!!!! The Democrats did not stand. A telling testament to the true intent of this crop of Democrats. They want to dismiss our foundational principles, destroy everything we've accomplished, and take us in the same direction as other nations with consistently calamitous results. On second thought, forget all I've written. It's okay Democrats. Just stay seated and brood while the rest of us continue to protect our freedoms and strive for greatness. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
New York Reproductive Health Act When the New York legislature says generally that a woman has a right to an abortion, exactly what right is it that they are protecting? It is important that the New York legislature and other pro-abortionists define specifically of what they are speaking because the implications of subtle variations in language may have significant ramifications.
First, the Reproductive Health Act states, "The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman's fundamental right to access, safe, legal abortion. . . " This language may not be as accurate as it appears as the words "abortion," "reproductive care," or even "contraception" appear nowhere in the New York Constitutionor in the United States Constitution. In fact in Roe v. Wade and its progeny cases, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to contain a "penumbra" of privacy that protects a woman's ability to undergo an abortion. It is this interpretation of the existence of a right to privacy, also not expressly mentioned in either constitution, that the courts then use to create a right to abortion access. But let us be clear, until and unless a right is expressly inscribed onto the constitution by amendment, the existence of such rights created by the Supreme Court are as ephemeral as the whims of the members sitting on the bench. A court-created right lives and dies by the opinions of the court, a fact that the legislature conveniently leaves out of its predicate. The legislature also ignores that a state may regulate the manner, place, and circumstance under which an abortion is performed. It is only "undue burdens on women seeking to access such right." that states may not enact. (emphasis added) As we have seen, rather than avoiding the placement of undue burdens, the New York legislature does its best to remove any burden. Moreover, notice the legislature's continued uncertainty in referring to the abortion "right." In S. 240 §1, the legislature says that the New York and United States constitutions protect a woman's "fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion. . . " According to this language, the protected right is the access to certain abortions. However, later in the same run-on sentence the legislature says that courts have emphasized that states "may not place undue burdens on this access to such right." Notice that the "right" being referred to here has to be the abortion itself because it would be nonsensical to say that that the states may not place undue burdens on access to accessing abortions. Ever so subtly, like the trickery from a master shell game player, the New York legislature changed the protected right from access to abortion to the abortion itself. So, what exactly is the constitutionally protected right according to the New York legislature? Is it the right to an abortion, or the right to access an abortion? The difference is fundamental. If one possesses a right to an abortion then it is up to government to make sure a woman can get an abortion free of charge. If it is the access to an abortion that is protected, then the state's responsibility in the matter is decidedly different. If you read the Supreme Court's language in cases like Roe, it is the right to pursue an abortion that is protected, not the abortion itself. In other words, the Court is not ordering the states to provide abortion on demand to women. It is, rather, telling states that they cannot place undue burdens upon a woman wishing to seek one. Moreover, it is not even the right to access an abortion that's protected in Roe,it is the right to keep the government from knowing whether she is having an abortion and interfering with the privacy of her decision to get it. Like most pro-abortionist leftists, the legislature here, probably purposefully, misrepresents the right that women have been ruled to have by the courts and might have unwittingly created a legal argument for all women in New York to demand that taxpayers arrange and pay for their abortions. Regardless, it is of great interest that missing from the discussion is the right of the unborn child to live. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." Mahatma Gandhi On January 22, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act into law. The purpose of the new statute is to update the rights of women in accessing abortions and (anti)reproductive services. The law also makes it legally impossible to charge someone with the murder of an unborn child. What Is A Human Life? One of the great falsities promoted by pro-abortionists is that an unborn child is not a human being. Well, if she's not a human being, then what is she? She's not a car. Or a boat. She is most assuredly alive, and she has all the genetic information that other humans have. So, if she's not human, what is she? Pro-abortionists argue that the baby is not a human life because it is not independent. But none of us are. We are, by nature, social animals, which make us inherently dependent on others. And truly, if we are to use dependence as a cut-off for human life, then why do we not allow for the termination of the lives of the disabled simply because they are unable to provide for themselves? These people are just as dependent as any unborn baby for their survival, yet the Left, at least for now, is not arguing for their active extermination. Pro-abortionists also argue that the preborn individual could not be considered human because she has not reached some preconceived point in her development. Well, if that's true, then what is that point? Does a baby magically and suddenly become a human being when it crosses the birth canal or exits the mother through the abdominal wall? Certainly, it is hard to fathom the difference between the humanity of a just-delivered baby and that same baby ten minutes earlier. Does the baby suddenly become human when her heart first beats, or when she feels pain, or when we can see her femora on ultrasound? The fact is that any definition of when a baby becomes a "human being" other than at the moment of conception fails under the weight of its own capriciousness. And so, we arrive at the only conclusion we can. A baby is an independently identifiable and uniquely genetically defined human being from the moment of her conception. The Vulgarity And Lack of Necessity Of Late Term Abortions. One of the two most significant changes New York's Health Reproductive Act is to allow for a legal abortion after the 24th week of gestation. The statute accomplishes this by stating that an abortion may be performed, at any time, "to protect the patient's life or health." Not only is this provision abjectly immoral as it allows for the senseless killing of a viable human being, it creates an escape clause for a mass murderer (the late-term abortionist) to kill It is virtually impossible to conjure a situation where an abortion is medically necessary after 24 weeks of gestation. The reason is supremely simple: since the baby is viable in such situations, the way to protect the mother's health after 24 weeks of gestation, if the rapid discontinuation of a pregnancy becomes necessary, is by delivering a viable baby, not by killing it. With this law, the legislature in its rancid corruption and gross disregard for the sanctity of life has essentially created a new statutory (not medical) provision where the mother may demand to kill the baby. That provision is that when the baby is more than 24 weeks gestational age, and the mother demands it be killed for her own health. It will be interesting to see how physicians respond to this request when they are fully aware that all they need to do to address the mother's life-threatening or health related issue is simply to deliver a viable baby. If You Are Greater Than 24 Weeks Pregnant Don't Find Yourself In New York. A second appalling provision in the Reproductive Health Act is the provision prohibiting the killing of an unborn baby that is greater than 24 weeks of age from being considered murder. Suppose a robber attacks a woman for her purse, and the assailant pulls out a knife, or even a gun, in order to perpetrate the crime. Suppose further that the mother is due to deliver later that day. As a matter of fact, she is on her way to the hospital to deliver her baby. The robber then shoots the mother, killing the baby. The mother survives. There is no murder. Say, instead that an enraged father does not want a late term baby to be born. The mother and he are in a heated fight. The father, in his rage, repeatedly punches the mother with the intent and effect of killing the baby. Or perhaps, the father grabs a kitchen knife and stabs the baby through the mother, and the baby is more than 24 weeks of gestational age. The baby, of course, dies. The mother survives. In New York, no murder will have taken place. Only an assault and battery upon the mother. No justice for the baby is ever served. The Repeal Of S.4164. Section 4164 of New York statutes required a physician be available to resuscitate a child who has survived an abortion. The Reproductive Health Act admits that although this baby is legally a person, it repugnantly removes any requirement to save the life of a living, gasping, breathing human being. A Stain Upon New York. Gandhi did say that the measure of a great society lies in how it treats its weakest members. Well, the weakest members in our society are the unborn who are at times so weak that they cannot survive outside of the mother and are so silent that it is impossible for them to voice their opinion or defend their most elemental interests. A review of the meaning of fundamental and inalienable rights does provide a mother the ability to pursue an abortion. But just like her right to punch another in the nose ends at the point where the other's nose begins, her right to actually undergo the abortion ends at the point where the baby's cells begin. By any measure, on January 22, 2019, by grossly disregarding the humanity of the unborn child and exculpating future killers of murder the New York legislature and its executive demonstrated themselves to be amongst the worst and most vile of institutions. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. |
Details
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.Dr. Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer who served as State Representative for South Sarasota County in Florida for four years. He is the author of Heathcare Reform: The Truth, The Federalist Pages, and The Case for Free Market Healthcare. Archives
April 2019
Categories |