Dave Heineman, the governor of our fine state of Nebraska, has taken a public stance against a bill (LB 1110) currently before the legislature that would provide prenatal care to poor and undocumented immigrant women.According to this article, the bill would reestablish a 20 year-old program that provided prenatal care to all low-income mothers through Medicaid, which was stopped last year when the federal government had notified the state that it could no longer use Medicaid funds to provide care to women in the country illegally.The new program would fund the care through federal SCHIP funding, which is apparently allowed.
Heineman is quoted as saying, that “after a careful and thoughtful review of the various aspects of this issue” he is “opposed to illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer-funded benefits."
Supporters of the bill believe the governor to be trying to score political points in an election year.If this is true I am confused by his logic of valuing an expectant mother’s immigration status over her status as a human being, and as the mother of a future U.S citizen. He also seems to be betting on an anti-immigrant base of support to override the dismay of other groups who have endorsed him in the past, such as Pro-Life voters, who are angered at his disregard for the health of unborn children and mothers.The Catholic Bishops of Nebraska wrote a letter to Heineman last week that said, “denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity.”
A committee measure passed the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that would recognize the 1915 killings of Armenians in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The uproar that has risen from the executive branch, State Department and members of Congress is surprising considering the human rights atrocities that were committed at the end of the Ottoman Empire. This article shows how a moral and political fork in the road can make politicans hesitate on certain human rights issues. The United States would like to morally recognize this genocide in the past, however, current relations with Turkey are too important to do that. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States needs to hold onto ever avaliable ally in the Middle East. The declaration of genocide could also hurt Turkish relations with Armenia, however cold they might be. In the end, the real question is: Do you think the United States, as one of the most powerful and christian nations in the world, should take a moral stand and recognize the genocide?
Yesterday, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an interesting human rights case. Bashe Abdi Yousuf and a collection of former Somalians have sued Mohamed Ali Samantar, a former minister of defense in a region of Somalia, due to torture inflicted by the Somalian government under Maj. Gen. Mohamed Said Barre. Samantar, who now lives in Virginia, may be open to the lawsuit due to the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which allows torture victims to bring suit against perpetrators of torture. However, Samantar has countered a defense under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which "bars suits against foreign states and their 'agencies or instrumentalities.' "
Much of the debate between attorneys and justices centered on how broad the immunity protection was, yet the most interesting part of the article came from Yousuf as he recounted the atrocities of the former regime:
"I was tortured—waterboarded [emphasis added] and put in electric shock."
This, of course, is interesting because it describes a practice that the United States utilized quite recently. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded 183 times while Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. Putting aside legal intricacies of whether Samantar is liable under the 1991 act, one must wonder how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule regarding waterboarding as torture. If the Court sided with the plaintiffs, it would effectively be saying that our own government engaged in activities that are against the civil law of this nation, in addition to any international criminal laws violated by our actions. I'm a legal novice, but I am sure there are laws prohibiting American government officials from being sued in this manner. Yet a verdict for the plaintiff (on the torture issue, not the issue of liability) would imply that the Supreme Court believes that the previous administration acted unlawfully.
From what I understand about this case, the justices of the Supreme Court will not actually address the issue of torture, but rather decide on the issue of whether Samantar can be sued before dismissing the case (if ruling in favor of Samantar) or sending it back to the proper court (if ruling in favor of Yousuf). However, it is interesting to think about how the justices would vote. Many of the conservative justices may be willing to side with the Bush Administration regarding the prerogative of the executive, but Justice Kennedy could be a hard sell. Kennedy has shown a past affinity for foreign law, and the international community has some sort of consensus against torture. One could easily imagine a Supreme Court decision declaring waterboarding to be torture, violating domestic and international law.
What do you think? Is waterboarding torture? If so, should Bush Administration officials be held responsible? In civil or criminal courts, or both?
Additionally, do you think perpetrators of torture from other countries should be held liable under U.S. law, if they currently reside in the U.S.? Or would the ICC be a better venue for these cases?
Defending and securing human rights is a difficult struggle, but one that many of us agree is worthwhile. We have seen arguments for these rights based on a variety of foundations, such as human sacredness (Perry, p. 11), action (Gewirth, p. 12) or dignity (Kohen, p. 9), yet all of these reasons support the end that “certain things ought not to be done to any human being and certain other things ought to be done for every human being” (Perry, p. 13). In contrast to this end, Joel Feinburg argues that the act of claiming a right gives human a certain dignity that cannot be accessed without a notion of rights. I contend that Feinberg is wrong in this notion, and, by drawing on Onuma Yasuaki, I show that rights are merely a means to an end, that of a certain type of well-being for mankind. Through this process, I hope to show that Feinberg’s Nowheresville is not nearly as bad as he contends.
Feinburg attempts to illustrate the necessity of rights for human dignity by constructing a fictional place which he entitles ‘Nowheresville’ (p. 143). In this state, there is no notion of rights, yet there are still many of the good things that rights provide for us. Men are sympathetic and benevolent, but only from compassionate motives. Additionally, duties exist in Nowheresville, though not because of any corresponding right of any particular individual (p. 143-144). Finally, Feinberg tacks on characteristics such as personal desert and a sovereign monopoly of rights in order to make Nowheresville even more functional and desirable (p. 145-148). Indeed, Nowheresville appears to be a wonderful utopia.
But appearances are deceiving, he warns. Because of the absence of rights, people have no notion of a legitimate claim to something (Feinberg, p. 148). Rights are meant to be ‘claimed, demanded, and affirmed,’ and without the ability to make these sorts of claims, man is without dignity (Feinberg, p. 151). To Feinberg, it is rights that allow men to be ‘properly proud, to have that minimal self-respect that is necessary to be worthy of the love and esteem of others’ (p. 151). This apparent utopia has been shown to be a farce, a place full of utility but lacking in self-worth.
To me, this view is wrong-headed. Rights are not asserted to claim dignity, but rather to promote a certain type of life. Onuma Yasuaki has addressed this as he claims that rights are but one means of achieving the ultimate end: the spiritual and material well-being of humanity (p. 1).Yasuaki does not expand on this well-being, but it surely focuses on safety and security of person without oppression from others. This well-being is difficult to obtain due to the malevolent nature of mankind. Proof of this evil is hardly necessary; one need simply to peruse the history books or to watch the evening news to observe the senseless violence and disregard for the Other that is endemic to human beings. No other animal has invented as many ways to be cruel as we have, and our potential remains unlimited.
Fortunately, Western Enlightenment thinkers discovered a rather useful way to promote the widespread well-being that is a universal yearning of mankind. The idea of human rights as an individual claim against others, especially one’s government, have accounted for giant leaps in well-being in recent centuries. Yasuaki claims these rights often use a distinctly individual language due to the political dysfunction from which they arose (p. 8). In fact, the idea of rights could not have arisen from any other place but one that was individualistic and legalistic (Yasuaki, p. 9). These rights have been expanded to other countries precisely because it is the most effective method we currently have to promote the general well-being (Yasuaki, p. 9). Assuredly, rights have their own problems to deal with, including the criticism by Mary Ann Glendon that individualistic rights talk can lead to less focus on corresponding duties, but there will always be trade-offs (Glendon, p. 14). The important thing is to recognize the utility that rights give us in achieving our ultimate goals, while also understanding that rights may not be the most effective way in the future.
In sum, Feinberg fails to convince me of what is so bad about Nowheresville. A state that functions wonderfully and justly without a need for distinct rights sounds more conducive to the spiritual and material well-being that we all seek and, as such, seems preferable to our current state of affairs. If we could somehow educate everyone to act benevolently and to obey moral duties, rights would become a forgotten relic of an unfortunate time. I am unconvinced about the potential for mankind to achieve this type of benevolence so, at this time, rights will have to do. Not because I need to claim them in order to respect myself, but because they are currently the most effective means to the most desirable end.
Questions:
1: Are rights necessary for dignity?
2: Would you live in Nowheresville? Is a benevolent world without rights preferable to an evil world with rights?
One thing's for sure: no one seems all that interested in finding out.
Some important points to consider:
Skinner has been on Death Row in Texas since 1993, awaiting execution for the murder of his girlfriend and her two sons. He has maintained his innocence since his arrest, and investigators from the Northwestern University Journalism School’s Medill Innocence Project have shot numerous holes in the prosecution’s case. But Texas officials refuse to conduct a simple DNA test that could point to the condemned man’s innocence or cement his guilt.
Why not test the DNA?
Well, you might find out something that would prevent the execution ... and what fun would that be?!
This morning a gay Ugandan activist Julius Kaggwa offered (via Huffington Post) his account of what it means to be LGBT in his country:
"In an attempt to determine the cause of my sexual variance, a dentist once asked me if there were witches in my family. In addition to my dentist's unwelcome inquiries, I've had my house set on fire, had several demands for invasive body searches as a prerequisite for job interviews and church membership, and lost a job due to slanderous media coverage about my sexuality."
Homosexuality is already punishable in Uganda with up to 14 years of prison, but if a new controversial bill becomes law, HIV-positive gay men could receive death penalty for a capital crime of "aggravated homosexuality." The bill, introduced last October, would also legalize jailing of those who are aware of homosexual activity, but don't report it. As more gay men start choosing to hide under the masks of heterosexuality and marry/date women while having sex with men, AIDS and HIV-prevention groups fear the bill would impede their efforts even more than the current oppression of gay Ugandans already does. To make matters worse, the U.S. and U.N. AIDS and HIV programs don't offer any buffer to special projects aimed at helping the gay community.
These complications are addressed in depth in this Time article, which also points out that the idea of this bill effectively originated with American evangelical missionaries, including the infamous California Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren. As it commonly does, the human rights issue is becoming intricately interlaced with religious overtones. Warren has since asserted that the right of free choice is God-given, but immediately distanced himself, his Church and effectively religion from the issue by proclaiming the problem political.
In her latest column in the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker spotlights how supportive the U.S. has appeared of Uganda's gay rights activists officially and in theory -- but how distanced and even destructive it has been de facto. As the U.S. LGBT community fights for its civil rights here, how could one bridge a gap between their efforts and those of gay rights activists in Uganda, who find themselves standing up for such a fundamental human right as the right to life? Is there one even? And if even the Ugandan president claims to not be able to influence the outcome of the vote on the bill, whose responsibility is it to protect human rights of gay Ugandans? Are human rights even at stake here--who can and can't decide what qualifies as a capital crime?
This article talks about recent human rights conversations between Iran and the United Nations. The article is an interesting example of the world popularity surrounding human rights. Representatives from Iran make the claim that the situation of human rights has been consistently used as a tool to apply pressure against them by some Western governments. While the UN states that human rights violations are indeed still happening in Iran, the Iranian representatives bring up an interesting point. Fighting for human rights has given Western government’s great legitimacy within their own nation, to enter other nations. In this specific situation, it is made clear by multiple professionals that Iran is indeed violating and needs to be stopped but the battle between nations to secure human rights seems ongoing and rather subjective. There is clear a disadvantage to any nation that outwardly violates human rights and the pressure put on them by other nations can me strong. Because human rights atrocities are currently popular global issues, Western governments can make human rights violation claims to their public and gain momentum to enter the nation that is violating the rights. Again, this concept is very subjective and may not be the case with Iran, but it is interesting that Iran argued this point.
