Abcarian: The anti-abortion gang that couldn’t shoot straight has lost again. This time they tried to run their play by the State Department, and got nowhere.
Let’s start with an oldie but a goodie, and one which makes me chuckle every time I read it.
In a letter dated November 16, 2004, the State Department informed Senate Democrats (and a couple of other groups) that the State Department was not going to oppose a measure aimed at banning abortions after 20 weeks (see the first story in the sidebar). That’s a nice thing to do. And as a reader might point out, it’s also very typical of the government to not do what it is told. As long as you have the will, and the ability, you will get what you want.
Then there’s the other part: the State Department told us that the measures were not on their radar screen when the Administration was making their own internal review and analysis. In other words, we now know just what the Administration wanted to avoid (i.e., the ban). And we know that the Administration is not shy about doing a little bit of what they don’t want to do (i.e., not having the State Department opposing a law).
Now, that’s just the first story. You won’t be getting any story on the second story, and the third story, and the fourth story, and so on.
But here’s the second story: the Administration is in a position to get on our side with the most powerful weapon in their arsenal, and they have not only not used it, but actively resisted it.
And yet, they claim that what they did was perfectly legal.
Let me explain.
It’s not so far-fetched to assume that some government employee is in the position of being able to, or likely to, stop a law they don’t like just by refusing to go along with it. A simple example: the administration is in the position of being able to stop a law that would compel the disclosure of classified information. They can’t do that if they don’t agree to the law.
And on this question, they will have a very big advantage: the power of the pen.
If they refuse to go along with the law and issue a veto, they can come up with a very strong explanation for why they did it.
And let’s be honest: