Sunday, March 26, 2023

Courts Piercing Attorney-Client Privilege Because of Crime-Fraud Exception Rarely Seen -- Except in Trump World

Attorneys know how extraordinary Mr. Trump’s legal situation is, aside from his being an ex-president.

The attorney-client privilege is pretty sacred to lawyers and courts. An attorney can’t share privileged information even if her client murdered dozens and molested numerous children. The law values that highly a defendant’s right to be confident in confidentiality.

A critical exception is that while the attorney is muzzled as to past crimes, if she conspires with the client about committing future crimes or participates in fraud, she can’t claim lawyer-client privilege. It makes sense: anyone accused of a crime, but presumed innocent, is entitled to a full and competent defense, but acquires no right to use the attorney to commit new crimes. A new crime requires the courts to assess client’s and lawyer’s relative criminal liability.

Piercing the privilege using the crime-fraud exception is so rare that prosecutors and criminal defense counsel never actually see it done in decades-long career.

Two different judges (one of whom an appellate court refused to overturn Wednesday) in two separate cases involving different crimes and different lawyers, recently ordered Trump’s lawyers to testify and provide their notes, based on that exception. Both judges stated clearly that they’d seen ample evidence of criminal activity.

Judge Beryl Hamilton ordered attorney Evan Corcoran to testify and produce his notes regarding Trump’s retention of classified documents. Corcoran had told the court and the government that Trump had returned all the classified documents he had. A government search then uncovered hundreds more. Lying to courts isn’t popular with judges. Who lied? A rumor that Trump misled Corcoran may or may not prove true. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear Trump’s appeal. Corcoran may soon be testifying against Trump to save Corcoran’s law practice and perhaps his freedom.

Not two months ago, Judge Eric Davis, hearing Dominion v Fox, stated he’d seen evidence of criminal conduct in Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. The alleged crimes include defrauding the government and conspiracy to interfere with a government proceeding. There, a different lawyer, having conspired with Trump to use dubious methods to overturn the election, will have to help us figure out how clearly Mr. Trump’s knew he was doing wrong.

Trump’s lovers’ quarrel with Ron DeSantis is a tasteless distraction. DeSantis hopes to profit politically from some fellow Republicans’ belated recognition of Trump’s self-absorption and chaotic management.

Both men are hostile to the things we hold dear, such as freedom of speech, democracy, and truth. DeSantis’s repeated efforts to muzzle the press, dictate what teachers can teach (and people talk about in schools), ban books, and seek revenge on Disney for disagreeing with him make democracy almost as endangered a species in Florida as in Russia, Israel, and Mexico. His recent Fox diatribe against Trump articulates how he’d run our government. He’d have fired Fauci. (Don’t want no doctors talking about medicine!) When DeSantis said that unlike Trump, “I’d hire . . .” I thought he’d say “qualified individuals good at their jobs.” Instead he promised to hire people who would shut up and get with his program. But governments’ huge fault is stifling discussion. We reach the best policy by reasoned discussion with a variety of individuals, not by being so close-minded and vengeful that the leader hears only what folks know he wants to hear.

Putin is painfully learning where that lands you.

                                        – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 26 March 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

[by the way: Tuesday at 6 pm in Santa Fe -- and on ZOOM -- i'll discuss my novel, The Moonlit Path.  Collected Works Bookstore and Coffeehouse. ]

 

 

Sunday, March 19, 2023

Committed to Sunshine Laws -- and Press Freedom

The annual Sunshine Week, celebrated around John Madison’s birthday, is a fine time to contemplate how press freedoms – and freedom of information generally – are faring.

The First Amendment is first for a reason. As New Mexico law confirms, because democracy depends on an informed electorate, we’re each “entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of governments and official acts.” Therefore “formation of public policy or conduct of business by vote” must be in open meetings, to which we’re all invited. We have the right to inspect our documents (created, received, and/or modified on our behalf by our public servants), with very limited exceptions that protect personal privacy or allow our servants to form strategies for litigation or negotiations without having to share those strategies with folks their negotiating with or arguing against in court.

The laws require public servants to do their best to provide us with full information. (Unless we know what they know, how can we fully and fairly assess their decisions?) As life and governments grow more complex, complete compliance with the law does too. Technologies like ZOOM, the Internet, and better video systems and microphones both facilitate compliance and create new tasks and obligations. Doing the minimum tasks specified (in laws written before many technological improvements, doesn’t cut it.

A few developments during the current legislative session slightly clouds the sunshine requirement.

First, they’re finally caving to the desire of administrators to keep confidential the names of applicants for key positions. Sorry, but I’ve seen too many bad hires, some of which could have been prevented. Investigating candidates’ backgrounds, I’ve found things local officials should have found but didn’t. An informed citizenry can actually help public officials hire the best candidate. That outweighs the fear that some promising candidates will hold back if their names are known, not wanting to offend current employers. Hiring behind closed doors also could return us to “old-boy networks” and ethnic or gender discrimination.

Second, schools blocked a move to identify school-board candidates’ campaign contributors publicly. We require that of presidential, municipal, and judicial candidates. In a non-partisan” school-board election, voters especially need that contributors list. Choosing between Democrat and Republican, most of us can make savvy guesses about who’s funding each and where they stand on many issues. Suppose two school-board candidates both promise they’ll maintain solid arts and theater programs, or to run the schools with heightened care regarding climate and environmental issues. They both sound great. I vote for Joe, not knowing he’s backed by Exxon and by local citizens clamoring to cut “frills.” So what’s the excuse for keeping contributors’ names secret? To keep the thing non-partisan? When some boardmembers need security assistance to leave safely after a meeting where citizens complained of “Critical Race Theory,” you’re gonna prattle about maintaining non-partisanship?

Locally, ours isn’t the worst city regarding openness, but it could do better. The city routinely breaks the law when withholding videos of police shootings, for example, by delaying public access without a legal excuse. When firing Greg Ewing, LCPSD broke the law until threatened with suit.

This coming Thursday, the local Sunshine Week celebration will feature a panel discussion of “Crime Reporting and the Public Interest” in NMSU’s Branson Library’s First Floor Atrium (1305 Frenger Mall), at 4-5 pm. Panelists include Searchlight’s Joshua Bowling the Sun-News’s Justin Garcia, Robert Moore (El Paso Matters), and Dan Trujillo from LCPD.

It’s an important issue.

                                              – 30 --

 

 [The above column appeared Sunday, 19 March 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

Sunday, March 12, 2023

How Do you Rely on Fox News Folks who Don't Believe their own Bullshit?

Why are Fox viewers so unaffected by revelations that Fox News personalities didn’t believe the “fraudulent election” story they were pushing, and privately loathed Donald Trump while singing his praises?

The morning after Tucker Carlson aired video of some non-violent moments in the January 6th insurrection, a reader emailed me to criticize me for saying “insurrection.” It was peaceful, he insisted. Tucker Carlson’s video proved that.

He asked why a guard shot Ashley Babbit, “a diminutive woman.” Maybe because she was coming through an opening at the head of a mob (some armed) that was invading the Capitol, threatening lawmakers, and attacking Capitol Police?

No matter that hundreds have pled guilty, many blaming Donald Trump. No matter the abundance of violent acts caught on video, or the tearful testimony of police officers.

I asked why election-deniers had struck out in sixty-plus legal cases, some before Trump-appointed judges, if there was so much evidence of fraud. He responded that the Supreme Court had gotten things badly wrong in Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, and Roe v Wade. You can’t trust judges, I guess.

Does he realize he’s quoting the insurrection minimization rhetoric of a man who privately wrote that Trump not only was responsible for January 6th but was “a demonic force, a destroyer?” Carlson supported election denial while privately urging Trump to disavow “crazy” election lawyer Sydney Powell.

The Fox revelations remind me of the six months co-hosting a show on a local commercial radio station. Keith Whelpley and I discussed events and took calls. We were followed by Rush Limbaugh and preceded by local attorney Kelly O’Connell. Callers harangued us for our progressive views, though many expressed appreciation for our willingness to engage. Shows were exhausting.

The station provided a “How-to” guide to doing talk radio. The key? Make the audience afraid of someone or something, then convince them that only you can protect them. That so perfectly described Limbaugh’s conduct that I was amazed to see it in writing.

Many find Fox’s hypocrisy startling.

So why are many folks (like my correspondent) not startled? If my private emails mocked what I publicly pronounced as important truths, you’d sure question my credibility. You likely read critically a variety of sources.

Fox viewers watch Fox. A friend says Fox isn’t really mentioning all this. One Fox guy, somewhat of a journalist, apparently alluded to the scandal but said he couldn’t talk about it. So it didn’t happen. Besides, whatever folks like me are reading obviously comes from fake sources like the New York Times, PBS, court cases, hearings, and the like.

Marjorie Taylor Greene wants the House Oversight Committee to visit accused insurrectionists. There are 2,200,000 prisoners in the U.S. Inhumane prison conditions were not of interest to her (because so many prisoners are Black?) until we jailed white folks charged with trying to support a presidential coup. We must treat them right!

You could say Greene’s an outlier; but who released January 6th footage to Fox, though not to actual news media? Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, a position once held by powerful figures with strong characters, such as Henry Clay, Thomas Reed, Joseph Cannon, Sam Rayburn, and Nancy Pelosi.

Trump’s dwindling power won’t relieve conservatives from making a choice on whether stuff like decency, truth, and democracy matter. That guy in Florida censoring every voice he dislikes doesn’t stand for those values.

                      – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 12 March 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

Sunday, March 5, 2023

John Eastman Lives among Us

John Eastman, the mediocre lawyer who apparently participated in a treasonous effort to veto the 2020 U.S. Presidential popular vote and electoral count, resides in Santa Fe, which annoys many there.

Eastman complains that he’s being punished for “daring to challenge illegality and fraud in the 2020 election.” Sounds lawful, even noble. But instead of filing a fact-based lawsuit and letting the courts decide, Eastman acted to change the result of a presidential election, knowing full-well he had no proof of fraud.

Eastman’s alleged conduct strayed well beyond representing Trump and counseling Trump on his lawful options. Eastman filed “frivolous” lawsuits. That’s legalese for pleadings so bad that the pleader not only loses but may have to pay the opposition’s legal fees. He was part of a coup attempt featuring violence, threats, and fraudulent electors.

Bar associations love aggressive lawyers, but even they are tossing Eastman out. The California Bar’s eleven charges against him include lying about purported election fraud, including at the infamous January 6 Trump rally in D.C. that sparked the same-day invasion of the Capitol. Eastman also urged Vice-President Pence to stop the electoral count after admitting that Pence could not lawfully do so. That’s not “daring to challenge election fraud.” It’s attempting to commit election fraud.

Not many alleged criminals are plagued by protesters objecting to their presence. That’s mostly reserved for pederasts. But treason’s not too popular either. Our limited democracy is too precious to let those who threaten it forget what they’ve done.

Should Eastman be allowed to live his personal life without facing unfriendly strangers on the street?

First, Eastman should “man up” and admit what the real issues are. I’d sympathize more if he were more candid. Second, he’s a comfortably wealthy white man in a fancy house, not, say, a vulnerable young woman seeking medical care and running a gauntlet of Eastman’s political allies to reach a clinic.

Still, it’s a tough line to draw. Judicially, he’s not guilty until proven so; but the protesters are entirled to speak out. The public nature of the evidence means we’ve all seen it.

Certainly no one should do or encourage any form of violence or threatening conduct, or commit any crime against Eastman. Nor should anyone make his life miserable. We should not physically attack him as his allies did the Capitol Police. We should not rough him up, as his “client” urged supporters to do to dissenters at political rallies. He remains a citizen, convicted of no felony.

Letting Eastman know you know who he is, and despise what he did, seems fair game when passing him on the street or eating in the same restaurant. (Engaging with him at great length is more than I’d care to do.) A quiet presence of protesters on his street, or at the locked gate to his residential area, seems fair too.

Believing in civil political discourse doesn’t mean one has to share a table with an apparent traitor.

Still, we punish people through our laws. Yeah, I think Eastman is a coprophagous homunculus. But, as a former civil rights worker and antiwar protester, I’ve experienced people making life unpleasant for someone whose conduct offends them. Even criminal convictions can be erroneous. (Consider Trump’s full-page ad demanding the death penalty for the later-exonerated “Central Park Five.”)

I’d urge justifiably outraged neighbors to limit sharply their conduct toward Eastman. None of us is without sin.

                                                  – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 5 March 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

[Maybe I should have written about the interesting discussion of police accountability at the recent Las Cruces City Council work session, or about legislative developments in Santa Fe, or other appealing subjects; but I got annoyed by Eastman’s self-righteous complaints, featuring a very inaccurate account of his alleged conduct. It was easy to feel he should be punished extensively. (He lacks any of the usual excuses for crime, that he didn’t know any better or was desperate to pay the rent, or drunkenness.) At the same time, I do not wish to see that widespread feeling of revulsion turn into misconduct toward him, particularly any kind of violence. That is not how we should conduct ourselves. We don’t have to like him, or break bread with him, or play tennis with him, but not only do we have no right to harm him, we have much to loose by conducting ourselves as extremist Muslims and dedicated Trump fans feel entitled (or even called!) to do. And I got intrigued by trying to figure out where one ought to draw the line!]

[Another point how is much less weight we should give the fact that he hasn’t (yet) been convicted of any crime. In many cases, from whether or not ___ bludgeoned her husband to death, to the Central Park Five, to the recent Murtaugh murder verdict, we do not know a lot of the key facts, but can see only circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, and often do not know what was actually presented to the jury. In those, we have only our prejudices and fallible guesses about what happened. Eastman’s case is different in at least two ways: first, it’s political as much as judicial, and trying to abuse power and usurp the presidency could get one shunned, even if the actual conduct was execrable but not criminal; and much of the evidence is in the public domain because of public hearings and news reports. If he is tried, the lawyers’ arguments will concern motive, mental state, and the subtleties of how the law applies to the facts, not many of the facts themselves. The basic facts, that he sought to overturn an election by shouting fraud when he knew he lacked any serious evidence of fraud, participating in putting forth slates of electors he knew had no claim of legitimcy, shouting “election fraud” to help whip up the January 2020 crowd in D.C., and urging Pence to stop the count when he knew Pence had no such authority, are embedded in documents and/or sworn witness testimony, including his own. Even so, it is not our role to punish him. Our system of justice is more important than punishing one greedy clown.]

 

Sunday, February 26, 2023

Adiós, Señor Taylor y Romero - with love and respect!

 They were raised in farm country and not wealthy. Both men traced their ancestors far back, one to a conquistador traveling our valley in 1598, the other to a young Brit who immigrated in 1635.

One served four years in the Navy during World War II, the other graduated from the Naval Academy right after the war.

Each was a partner in a loving, lifelong marriage that could be an example to all of us. (Death ended one after 63 years and will soon end the other after 76.)

They were deeply religious (one Catholic, one Southern Baptist, until the Baptists ceased letting women be pastors.) Both were gentle, courteous, and thoughtful, yet could be firm when appropriate.

As boys, both saw ethnic prejudices up close.

One was Hispanic/Anglo. When he and his wife moved out to an old house in Mesilla (not yet so fancy), visitors from his professional life said, “You can’t raise your kids in this sort of place.” He replied, “I was born in this sort of place.” The other, a white southern boy, lived in a village populated mostly by “coloreds.” His staunchly segregationist father let him befriend Black farmhands’ kids. Both grew to oppose racism passionately.

Both continued to serve the public into their 90s. When one retired from teaching, he got talked into running for our state legislature and served 20 years, known as “the Conscience of the Legislature.” For the rest of his life, he actively supported progressive ideas and inspired and mentored younger candidates. The other, after politics, won a Nobel Prize and was fostering peace and hammering nails with Habitat for Humanity for decades.

J. Paul Taylor was a beloved friend, with a great sense of humor. He repeatedly amazed me. Meeting scores of people, he not only knew everyone’s name but asked after each person’s parents, siblings, or dog. Listening to him talk about the legislature with a mutual friend who’d known him back then, I wondered if he ever forgot anything.

I never met Jimmy Carter. Wikipedia notes that “As a dark horse candidate not well known outside of Georgia, Carter won the 1976 Democratic presidential nomination.” As a young reporter in Las Cruces in 1975, I suddenly noticed all these middle-class folks from Georgia walking our streets, visiting with people. They said that soon we’d be hearing about their wonderful friend and neighbor Jimmy Carter, ‘cause he’d be running for President. They were sincere and persuasive, but no one felt real sure they were sane.

The first time candidate Taylor canvassed in Mesilla, he emerged from the first house at the same time a supporter finished a whole block. One year, a constituent’s dog bit him. Days later, someone asked if he’d confirmed with the owner that the dog had been vaccinated against rabies. He said he hadn’t, because asking would make the owner feel so terrible about the bite. He just looked over the fence every so often to make sure the dog was acting normally.

Both fought for justice early, without waiting ‘til it was fashionable. J Paul did much to lessen inequality here; and Carter’s early antiracism positions were startling in a southern politician. (Right before and right after Carter, Georgia’s governors were virulent racists.

These were special people. One died this month at 102. The other, 98, is receiving hospice care at home. Each enriched our world considerably.

                                                    – 30 --

 

J Paul Is 95!
[The above column appeared Sunday, 26 February 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

I previously wrote columns on J Paul June 10, 2012 ( "A Saturday Afternoon in Mesilla" ), May 11, 2014 ( “An Admirable Friend” ), September 7, 2015 ( "Where Love Abides - J Paul Taylor is 95!" ) [this was prepared as a column but events preempted it], September 3, 2017 ( "Heroes at 97 - Marthe Cohn and J Paul Taylor" ) [this one’s less about J Paul and more about Marthe Cohn], and September 2, 2018 ( "Civil Political Discourse -- an Endangered Practice" ), and mentioned him in numerous others.

He was a wonderful man, a great friend, and, obviously, someone who helped many, either privately, in personal relationships or as a teacher, or publicly, as legislator and respected and beloved elder statesman.

Reading through those five columns, and reflecting on more private times with Paul, is like leafing through a photo album. (And most, particularly the one from his 95th birthday, include many photos.)

What none of this quite says is how delightful he was to spend time with one-on-one or in a smaller group. He stayed witty, sharp, curious, and caring at ages most people won’t reach and many will be querulous, quarrelsome, or no longer home. It helps that he was beloved. (I can remember only one person in the past decade who had something negative to say about him, and, as I recall, it was a political grudge more than personal.) But he was beloved because he made himself beloved, by who he was and how he treated others. (A cherished personal memory is of his face when he spoke of my Sunday columns and added, “I get so mad when they attack you!”)

One day we took a ride to the home he grew up in. Kari and I interviewed him, while Rob and sometimes I shot video. It was an interesting visit to his past, adding a dimension to our knowledge of him.

The second of my Sunday columns on Paul includes this:

It's not something we've discussed, but I think he lives each day with gratitude, as all of us should. He mourns his wife, one of his sons, and who knows what and whom else; but while J. Paul is alive he will not only enjoy each day but bring some joy to others.

Though he would likely demur, he has at every stage of his life been an example to his community. As a young man of mixed ethnicity in an unwise world, he got on with his work; was a loving husband and father, and a caring teacher; and (without a chip on his shoulder) said what needed to be said, probably in a way uniquely capable of being heard by those who needed to hear. Later, at an age when most are preoccupied with golf or bridge, he battled politically for what he believed. At an age most of us won't even reach, he continues to stand up for what he believes is right. Quietly, with an apparent humility that only makes his words more effective.

 

That column was also interspersed with this a poem, for what it’s worth:

In Mexican dress
the children dance as they've learned.
The village elder
has only to smile and clap
with delight he seems to feel.


He has seen seasons
come and go, fought many fights.
Now they honor him.
His body fails more and more,
as they learn to control theirs.


He waves as they pass.
He knows all the village kids,
taught their grandfathers.
When a great tree dies, it leaves
a huge hole where its roots were.

 

The account of his 95th birthday party, at the Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum, gives a flavor of J Paul:

J. Paul is a gentleman. He is smart, funny, and sweet-natured; but when he stands up for what he believes, he has a spine of steel.  . . .

Now, as Paul speaks, the Organs are visible through the window behind him. I remember listening when he spoke briefly at an outdoor press conference of Hispanic leaders calling for support for the Monument proposal. The nearby Robledos Mountains, part of the proposed monument, were named for an ancestor of J. Paul's. Tonight a state official reads a tribute birthday letter to Paul signed by Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

. . . 

Some folks have a quality of time and culture I respect. Their generations intertwine like vines, growing thick and strong with the decades. They did not arrive last year from Michigan.

Mark Medoff with Hope
The room is full of Paul's family and friends. Many are my friends too. I photograph a man in his seventies, kissing his infant granddaughter, and see the 28-year-old professor he was in 1969 who held his fiction-writing class out in the Corbett Center lobby because classrooms were too dull. I greet a retired judge whom I have not seen for forty years by apologizing for what I wrote about him in the newspaper back then. (He reminds me that trial lawyers develop thick skins.)

Watching the genuine joy and affection with which Paul greets all these people from so many moments in his long life, I remember his reunion at that book-signing with a schoolmate who now lived in Hatch. They hadn't seen each other in years. With neither able to drive, they might not get to talk again soon – or ever. I do not see him tonight, and wonder whether they will meet again.


Paul combines love of history with openness to new ideas; Catholic faith with progressive politics; and the wisdom of age with youth-like joy.

Paul combines love of history with openness to new ideas; Catholic faith with progressive politics; and the wisdom of age with youth-like joy.

Paul's beautiful house in Mesilla is a state monument that will teach generations of children and tourists something of what life was like in a vanished time and place.

One of Paul's daughters said that what mattered most in that house was “the love that abided there.” I see it in Paul's eyes.


You’ve more than earned your rest, amigo!

Sunday, February 19, 2023

Rihanna, Abortion, and Us

I’m not much for Super Bowl half-time shows, though I appreciate that Rihanna successfully ordered a racist presidential candidate to cease using her music at rallies. My wife said Rihanna looked pregnant.

“Pro-life” folks have seized on Rihanna’s pregnancy as if it contradicts her political views. They evidently believe that supporting people’s rights to decide stuff about their own bodies means being against pregnancy.

Pride in a pregnancy, and love and hopes for a child, aren't inconsistent with believing women whose pregnancies are dangerous, abusive, unhealthy, financially disastrous, or just too damned inconvenient right now should be free to end them.

When friends have babies, we share in their delight. Pregnancy, when the child is welcome, is a joyful event. Some pregnancies are joyless. Sure, an unexpected pregnancy can work out fine; but it’s not our business to order folks to abort or give birth.

But the folks twittering about Rihanna see choice supporters as evil, baby-hating monsters. “You voted for Biden but you’re delighted a grandkid is coming? Jeez, what a hypocrite!”

The love and support I’d offer a pregnant friend or relative is not conditioned on whether or not she plans to give birth. If I have an opinion, I might, if asked, mildly voice it. But only as another perspective to toss into her bucket of thoughts and emotions, and factor in – if she cares to. Sure, a desired pregnancy is cause for celebration, while abortion is a medicalprocedure. I’ve never heard anyone express delight at that prospect, but neither need it be debilitating. Bottom line, women should be free to handle their pregnancy as they choose, or feel they must.

I was over 21 when Roe v Wade was decided. I recall the debates thereafter, which seemed largely a part of what are now called “the culture wars.” Some people were frightened or appalled by the specters of “free love,” drug consumption, contraception, draft resistance, and integration. There was a (partly generational) battle over various freedoms.

People argued about what was morally right and whether those with restrictive codes of conduct could continue imposing that code on others: making girls and women wear bras, limiting how sexy dances could be, stifling free speech, and otherwise ensuring that the young followed the established mores and habits, and that rebellious youth behaved “like decent Americans.”

Few spoke of “protecting life.” (To anyone who knew a woman who suffered because her illegal abortion could not involve a hospital, even if things went wrong, the anti-choice frenzy hardly seemed life-affirming.)

A minor official in the Reagan Administration largely invented that rhetoric about killing babies to entice Evangelicals. “Fighting for the life of unborn babies” sounded far more catchy than “forcing pregnant women to give birth.” Heroic, almost. Unborn fetuses were now described as children, to suggest that permitting abortions is like massacring children toddling around a Christmas tree.

“Pro-life” is arrogant and inaccurate. In growing vegetables, writing poetry, trying to improve people’s lives, and urging peace and tolerance, I feel as life-affirming as anyone. I’m pro-life, though I’ll insist on ending my own life when it’s time.

Ironically, “pro-life” advocates not only ignore pregnant women’s life, health, and safety, they tend to be loudest in supporting capital punishment, and least energetic about ensuring the newly-born, even if poor, get the medical care, physical and emotional nourishment, and quality education that ensures we all thrive beyond the womb.

Does that make sense?

                                              – 30 --

 

 [The above column appeared Sunday, 19 February 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

[I wanted to write about our great loss, the death of J Paul Taylor at 102. But I also thought it might be better to wait, and write after whatever public ceremonygenerated more praise about him. I’ve written of him often in this space, and will agao next Sunday or the one after. (His funeral is set for Friday, beyond my next deadline.)

[And I feel strongly about what I did write on. The usurpation of the phrase “pro-life” by folks who least live in ways that foster life and freedom is always an irritant. At some later date, I’ll write about the huge irony of citizens misusing the words of Jesus Christ to perpetrate just the kind of hatred and judgments he spoke against. Enough, though! Enjoy your Sunday!]

Tompkins Square Park, Manhattan - 1968