Charlie Gard’s Parents End Their Legal Battle

Article

I read several articles for this blog post, but the majority of my information comes from ABC which has a left-leaning bias, although they claim to be unbiased.

Charlie Gard, an 11-month old baby boy in London, was born with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a disease which causes muscle weakening and eventually organ failure. Charlie has been unable to breathe unassisted for some time now. Two doctors, one from Italy and one from the United States, were interested in offering experimental treatment to help his mitochondrial DNA. Great Osmond Street Hospital in London had recommended against Charlie’s treatment with the medication. His parents had to fight to keep their son on life support, as they believed that the experimental medicine could save him and restore his health.

Despite the support from Pope Francis and President Donald Trump, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, little Charlie’s parents, announced Monday that they were withdrawing their court case. Chris realized, after hearing the doctors’ assessment, that too much time had been wasted, and that it was too late for his son. They have asked for media privacy as they decide when to take their son off life support and spend their last little bit of time with him.

Parents often say that they want to give their children the world, and Chris and Connie were told they couldn’t because it was too risky or expensive. It’s very sad that Charlie’s parents were willing to spare no expense to try to save their son, and yet they were hindered by the hospital officials who didn’t want to give someone a chance at a better life. -ES

Kate’s Law: Protection or Discrimination?

Article

While researching this topic, I read articles from CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, but NBC gave the best general explanation. Although the straightforward commentary was followed by par-for-the-course liberal quotes from NBC, Dartunorro Clark in his article, “House Passes ‘Kate’s Law,’ Votes to Defund Sanctuary Cities,” gave a good analysis of the event.

“Kate’s Law”, which was passed by the House on June 29, 2017,  was named after Kathryn Steinle. Steinle had been walking on Pier 14 one night with her father when she was shot in the back by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who had been deported five times (Washington Post). Kate’s Law would put a stop to the back and forth, by creating a minimum of five years jail time for any deported immigrant who returned. Critics of the bill say that it would endanger the relationships between immigrants and law enforcement officers, and, according to the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, “cultivate fear”.

First of all, immigrants who are legal citizens, visiting the country legally, or otherwise obeying the law should have nothing to fear because they are obeying the law. There should not be fear of punishment in the heart of someone who does the right thing. However, if the person has immigrated illegally, or continue to live without documentation, they are breaking the law. If they do something wrong, they are found out and deported as punishment. Sanctuary cities, such as San Francisco, where Steinle was killed, offers a place of safety for the illegals who do as they please. This is the real problem. In the name of being friendly and welcoming, cities are allowing criminals to roam the streets and harm legal citizens, as Lopez-Sanchez, did.

For example, if a child was invited to his friend’s house, and behaves well, he will be welcomed, and the friend’s parents will be delighted to have him return anytime he wants and stay as long as he wants. However, if the child were to run around and break things, it is unlikely that the friend’s parents, or the friend, would want him to return.

Immigration works the same way. If the visitors and newcomers obey the law, they are welcomed. It is the criminals who don’t obey the law that this law is designed for. Kate’s Law is not made to target the people who seek to escape persecution, it is to protect them. -ES

 

Was the murder of Nabra Hassanen a hate crime?

On Sunday, a group of teens from Virginia headed from their local mosque to McDonalds before their next fast. As they meandered along, some on bikes and some on foot, a young man, Darwin Martinez Torres, drove up and began arguing with one of the members of the group. Torres is believed to have later found the same group in a nearby parking lot, pursued them with a baseball bat, and beat to death a young woman, Nabra Hassanen, aged 17.

Two hours later, Torres stopped by the Fairfax County police for driving the car associated with the crime and was arrested. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement requested that Torres be held, because they believe he entered the country illegally from El Salvador.

The family and the entire community who knew Nabra are, of course, devastated that their daughter, sister, and friend has died so tragically. She was known as a very loving person, according to her father, Mahmoud. He also believes that his daughter was picked out and killed because of her traditional headdress, which indicated her Muslim religion. Mahmoud thinks of the incident as a hate crime.

Police are saying otherwise: there is no evidence of racial slurs and Torres is believed to have acted alone; therefore, the attack is not being investigated as a hate crime. It is understandable why the family would be upset, even angry at the man who killed their daughter. He had little to no control over his emotions, which resulted in the terrifying attack which forever altered the lives of an entire community.

To say that he committed a hate crime, that he singled out one person because of their religion is not the most accurate depiction of the incident. The term “hate crime” implies loathing and discrimination. “Hate crime” often makes people focus on themselves, how they have been wronged by the discrimination of another, instead of sending prayers and support to the family in their time of sadness.

Torres chased a group of Muslims out of anger, not hate. He killed Nabra because she was the easiest target: she fell after being pursued. While it is coincidence that a group of Muslims were attacked in London that day, this was an in-the-moment attack by a man acting out of anger. He will be punished. -ES

 

Sixth Congressional District Special Election

In mid-April, John Ossoff, a Democrat, and Karen Handel, a Republican, ran for electoral office in the special election for the Sixth Congressional District. After President Trump called upon former Representative Tom Price to be the Secretary of the Health and Human Services, a new representative was needed. The votes Ossoff received was 1.9 percent short of the 50 percent he needed to win the election. If he had won, Ossoff would have been the first Democratic candidate from that district since the Carter administration. However, in the runoff, it is unclear whether or not he will be as successful. Much of the funding for his campaign, however, came from sources outside the district, reaching as far as California, where people were hoping to gain another Democratic seat.

Obviously, when a candidate has more money, there are more possibilities by which they may get their name out. When outside sources interfere, like the wealthy supporters in California, it creates an unfair advantage over the other candidates, regardless of the qualifications of the individual candidates. If there is much outside help coming in, the candidate with that help will likely saturate the district with political signs, radio announcements, television commercials, and so forth. It is more difficult to advertise another campaign in an area that is already filled. Heavily involved outside sources often have ulterior motives. In this case, California supporters are only looking to create the political economy they desire, and not necessarily hoping to promote the candidate best suited for the job.

In this case, the outside influences of money and support coming from California will likely prove to be unfortunate for the Sixth Congressional District. Ossoff, a younger, less experienced candidate is probably not the best man for the job, especially considering Handel’s years of experience working in government. -ES