Resist the Corruption of the Department of Justice

We’ve lamented in the past that the nation’s cultural decay is too often summarized by the single word “abortion”---which is, to us, a too narrow view of the problem. If all abortions were banned, but the culture of sexual immorality remains unchanged—humans as no better than animals in heat; sex as recreation for anyone at any age; marriage as either outdated or in need of opening up to new definitions; glorification of single motherhood against overwhelming evidence of its dysfunctional and harmful impact on children—we’re not sure how much better off society would be. Make no mistake, we are on the pro-life side of the abortion debate, but we believe sexual morality is the bigger issue.

This comes to mind as we read Melanie Phillips' recent piece uncovering Obama’s appointment of David Ogden as a Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. The appointment of Ogden represents moral corruption and confusion at the highest levels. In Ms. Phillips’ words:

"Ogden has made his legal career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection legislation and undermining family values. As FoxNews reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors arguing against the Children's Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18.

The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:

     In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ...

In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified -- because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:

     There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults."

Let’s dispense with the idea of demonizing David Ogden. We don’t know him. But we do recognize confused and distorted thinking when we read it. It is intellectualism disengaged from the soul.

To assert that “evidence shows the [the woman who has an abortion] is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness” than adverse psychological effects” is sheer moral idiocy. It is the words of someone who wishes it were so, but has not spent five minutes speaking with a real woman who has undergone a real abortion. If he were to take the time to do so, he might find 100 different words women use to describe the after-effects of an abortion, but “happiness” would not be one of them.

To further assert that “unvarying and highly significant findings’ indicate there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between the judgment of 14-15 year olds, and adults, is lunacy at an incomprehensible level. It brings to mind Orwell’s observation that some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual would believe them. Again, we don’t know David Ogden, but somehow we doubt he’s had any 14-15 year old children of his own—or if he has, we wouldn’t be surprised if either (a) he doesn’t believe his own words and does in fact exercise parental supervision over them, or (b) his children are well on their way to lives characterized by insubordination and lack of discipline, leading to adult lives of persistent discontent and unhappiness.

The capper is of course Ogden’s advocacy against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18. Sorry, Mr. Ogden, but there is no argument against this law.

So what does all this mean in the context of Brushfires of Freedom? The answer is that truth and freedom—meaning the truth of God and God’s creation, and the idea of individual freedom and responsibility under God--always go hand-in-hand. The intellectual’s rationalized truth in place of divine Truth leads to confusion and darkness; just as freedom without truth leads to complete anarchy.

Americans must resist this corruption of the U.S. Department of Justice. Call on your elected representatives to call for the removal of Ogden. This is not a low-level, ‘what difference does it make’, shrug it off appointment. This is moral idiocy-level thinking near the highest levels of the American Department of Justice. It is a disgrace.

Paul Gable

Posted February 8, 2009