It was a busy week with significant developments. Three of them fall in areas I’ve commented on in the past. It’s crucial to compare where we are with what I wrote on the third parties, the Gaza war, and abortion, as these past commentaries hold significant relevance to our current situation.

In my series, ‘The Future Party” (On this Site), I stressed the pressing need for a more competitive political landscape. We must enhance our choices at all levels. Recent presidential elections have presented us with candidates most Americans didn’t want to vote for. The current election, featuring two widely unpopular candidates, is a stark reminder of this issue. The ‘No Labels Party,’ which pledged to offer more options, should’ve thrived in this climate. While it has made progress in securing spots on state ballots, they’re facing a lot of work getting candidates. 

In my series, ‘The Future Party,” I concluded that you can’t defeat someone without one and must stand for something. I based my brief involvement with the emerging Howard Shultz third-party campaign on crafting a platform for the Starbucks founder to champion. However, no such platform materialized, and Shultz withdrew when it appeared he could potentially harm the Democrats, thereby inadvertently supporting the re-election of the Republican incumbent. This excuse is a stark reminder that new voices must have substance and conviction to make a lasting impact.

No Labels is like a guy getting a parking space without owning a car, but it’s okay because he didn’t know where he wanted to go in the first place. The party’s inability to find a presidential candidate left it with only egg on its face.

 Contrast that to the last successful new party, the Republicans. First, they had a clear purpose, primarily opposing slavery. They nominated John C. Fremont in 1856 and then Abraham Lincoln in1860. Both were believers. They didn’t worry about those they ran against. Lincoln believed in something and led a young party to victory.

Our nation is drowning in debt, with entitlements scheduled to swallow the national budget. Simpson-Bowles’s  plan  to reform Social Security was the last bipartisan proposal to tackle the problem. Even though it is a sensible solution, President Obama, who instigated the legislation, walked away. Both major parties have since refused to confront the looming crisis. 

Couldn’t No-Labels step up with solutions? Well-known people in politics and other areas understand the debt problem and could take the lead in finding a solution. Who wants to lead a party without purpose?  Only when No-labels figures out what it wants to accomplish will I and others who see the need for more political choice get on board. 

The situation in Gaza and the rest of the Middle East is going in the wrong direction, with the Biden administration threatening to reduce aid to Israel if it goes into Hamas’ last stronghold. It demands Israel drastically reduce Gazan casualties and make sure they’re well-fed. 

Never have these conditions been demanded of a nation brutely attacked. Placing requirements on any group of people not demanded of others is the definition of discrimination. We saw this anti-semitism take hold of the U.K.’s left-wing labor party under Jeremy Corbyn. Now, it’s emerging in Biden’s left-wing Democratic party. 

While I would’ve waged war differently with fewer causalities, unrestricted aid, and non-combatants, especially with the women, children, and infirm removed from harm’s way, one has to wonder if even my plan would’ve run afoul of the administration’s growing anti-Jewish bigotry. Rather than fully supporting Israel, the administration is more concerned with appeasing some Michigan voters, shouting, “Death to Israel, and death to America.” I never thought I would see anything like this. I fear that it’ll get worse.

Arizona’s Supreme Court reviving a Civil War era anti-abortion law and Trump endorsing states writing their own abortion rules, the Abortion issue is on the front pages. Democrats are doubling down on allowing the practice right up to birth. Florida restricts it to the first six weeks—extreme positions on both sides.

Only a dispassionate examination of the factors will allow us to arrive at a compromise most can abide by. It’s an excellent time to review them. 

Most abortions are now self-induced using the abortion pill allowed in the first eleven weeks. If we can’t prevent the flow of fentanyl pills, doing away with abortions during this period will prove impossible. As we’ve found with prohibition, ineffective laws only increase lawlessness.

However, most of the developed world settled around fifteen weeks to restrictthe abortions, with some exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. Generally, we’ve seen little Tyke on a sonogram by this time. Testing on the fetus has begun. Sometimes, we find something requiring procedures, even lifesaving, in the womb. This circumstance brings up points we have to consider. 

You can’t perform lifesaving operations on something not alive. Everyone has to concede the fetus is now a living feeling being. Human living things deserve legal protection. Can we ethically do less than we do for our pets? 

Testing of the fetus has a probability of presenting situations outside the medical. With ever-increasing accuracy in analysing  genes, enzymes, and hormones, we’ll know much more. Aided by A.I., it will be sooner rather than later. We’ll likely be aware of who will be on the autism spectrum, a member  of the LBGTQ+ community, or medically challenged. This knowledge might result in more abortions later in pregnancy.

Most Americans are limiting their number of children to two or less. How many will decide dealing with an autistic child is undesirable or beyond their means and capabilities and terminate? 

Religious or social positions towards the LBGTQ+ community may lead to even greater numbers of terminations. Will the twenty-five percent finding gay relations unacceptable be amenable to having a gay child? Even those claiming to accept LBGTQ+ may not want to deal with a gay or transgender child. 

People who are different have provided unique points of view, benefiting all. We need to preserve this diversity. However, under Democrat proposals, a mother alone can decide to abort well after 15 weeks of probably right up to birth. 

We have no way to predict how many more abortions will occur under these circumstances, but we do know there will be fewer autistics and gays. Only much later will we learn the actual numbers.

For those pooh-poohing my concerns, I offer China as a cautionary tale. When that nation instituted its one-child policy, few, if any, among the ruling communists predicted it would result in a significant number of female abortions, resulting in far more of the favored boys. We only found out about the imbalance much later. This problem will adversely affect China for generations.

Before we fall into a similar trap, those on the autism spectrum, such as Bill Gates and gays like Pete Buttigieg, need to speak up and sound the alarm. Like in China, it’ll be too late if we wait for the actual data on these choice abortions. 

I’ve made these points previously, but these recent events made this reiteration necessary.