Hyde Amendment Abortion Red Line in Congress

Michael Streich

 

Congressman Henry Hyde severed his Illinois district from 1975 until his death in 2007. Hyde was known as a conservative Republican, leading efforts to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998. It was Hyde who carried the Article of Impeachment from the House to the U.S. Senate chamber. Henry Hyde, however, will best be remembered for his unrelenting fight to limit federal funding of abortion, accomplished through the 1976 Hyde Amendment.

 

Scope of the Hyde Amendment

 

Since 1976, Hyde Amendment language has been incorporated into every annual appropriations legislation. That language stipulated that, “…none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.” Consistently, the only exemption made by the act concerned the life of the mother. Since 1993, however, Congress added sections governing cases of rape and incest. Hyde opposed such exemptions, claiming that women would lie about their sexual histories in order to secure abortions.

 

The focus of the Hyde Amendment involved federal Medicaid reimbursements to the various states. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Amendment in the case Harris v McRae, maintaining that withholding reimbursement funds to states that permitted abortions under Medicaid was a legal federal prerogative.

 

Responding to the Roe v Wade Decision

 

The Hyde Amendment represented the first major legislative effort on the part of the Congress to roll back the effects of the 1973 Roe v Wade landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned state laws banning abortion. Hyde was a Roman Catholic who campaigned on a Pro Life mandate to overturn Roe and, barring that, limit the practice of abortion however possible.

 

The Roe decision galvanized public opinion, inaugurating abortion politics as a national debate. Groups such as the National Right to Life targeted liberal members of Congress that favored the Pro Choice stance. Abortion became the political litmus test used to elect public servants in local, state, and federal elections. Members of the judiciary upholding Roe in subsequent abortion cases were labeled as “activist judges.” Abortion politics continues in the 21^st Century in American elections.

 

Opposition to the Hyde Amendment

 

The Hyde Amendment was severely criticized by women’s organizations and abortion rights groups like the National Abortion Federation. Hyde became the object of intense opposition, notably after it was disclosed that he had been involved in an extra-marital affair. In 1993, Congresswoman Cynthia A. McKinney angrily stated that the Hyde Amendment unfairly punished poor black women, during a U.S. House debate on the reauthorization of the measure.

 

In March 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, referred to by opponents as “Obamacare.” Health care reform, resulting from a reconciliation bill crafted in a Congressional Conference Committee, was ambiguous regarding Hyde Amendment language. In order to secure the votes necessary to pass the legislation, President Barack Obama signed an executive order (number 13535) which stated that, “The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions to the newly created health insurances exchanges.”

 

Since the passage of health care reform, many states, struggling with large budget shortfalls, have assailed abortion and birth control beyond the prohibitions of the Hyde Amendment, denying state funds, for example, to Planned Parenthood. In North Carolina, the state legislature enacted a law in the spring 2011 session putting limitations on abortion practices. According to the Guttmacher Institute (August 1, 2011), 39 states currently prohibit abortions.

 

The Hyde Amendment, however, was the first significant attempt to limit abortion in the United States. Although exceptions were added, the language has not changed and is still in force today.

 

References:

 

“An Overview of Abortion Laws,” Guttmacher Institute, August 1, 2011

Bernstein, Dennis and Leslie Kean. Henry Hyde’s Moral Universe. Monroe, ME: Common Courage, 1999

Bonner, Lynn. “In policy shift, N.C. considers limits on abortion,” Charlotte Observer, May 11, 2011.

Executive Order 13535 of March 24, 2010. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 59

Luker, Kristin. Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood. Berkely: University of California Press, 1984

U.S. House Congressional Record, June 24, 1999, p. H4858

U.S. House Congressional Record, November 7, 2009, p. H12921

[copyright owned by Michael Streich; any reproductions in any format require written permission]

 

 Mount Sinai: Holy Pinnacle

High Places in the Ancient World Michael Streich

Throughout the ancient world, mountains played important roles in the religious experiences of peoples and their culture. Sacred mountains were the homes of gods, such as Mt. Olympus in Greece, or the repository of knowledge as in the case of Mt. Parnassus, also in Greece. In the ancient Near East, few sacred mountain tops rivaled Mt. Sinai, referred to as the mountain of fire and associated with the Old Testament law-giver Moses.

 

Prominence of Mount Sinai

 

Although not the tallest peak in the region, Mt. Sinai, at 7,370 feet, is considerably higher than the surrounding mountains, most of which rise to 4,000 feet. Mt. Sinai, also referred to as Mt. Horeb (although some scholars claim the two names denote different locations), features, in part, red granite rock which, when hit by the sun, looks like fire. The name “Sinai” is derived from the term “to shine.”

 

At certain times of the year, the mountain is alive with thunderstorms that, in ancient times, caused awe among the peoples below. Little wonder Sinai was considered the home of God. In Exodus 24:18, the writer states that, “Moses entered the midst of the cloud as he went up to the mountain…” This was the same mountain where, years earlier, Moses had experienced the “burning bush” in which Yahweh recruited him to go back to Egypt and bring out Israel to the “promised land.”

 

Scholars note that the rugged and stormy conditions associated with Mt. Sinai complemented the Hebrew view of God. Professor of Near East Studies Donald Redford comments that the Hebrew God “displays atmospheric and chthonic traits, being intimately associated with the wind, earthquake, fire and thunder.” (379)

 

Israel at Mount Sinai

 

According to Old Testament tradition, uncorroborated by substantive historical evidence, the Exodus Hebrews spent nearly a year encamped in the valley below the mountain. Four streams in the immediate vicinity would have provided the necessary water for such a mass of people.

 

Twice Moses ascended the mountain, staying at the top for forty days and nights each time. After the first sojourn, he returned with the Ten Commandments only to find that the people were in revolt. In anger, he smashed the tablets upon which the law had been written, “by the finger of God,” according to Old Testament writers. Following another forty-day period, Moses returned and presented the base of Hebrew law. In addition, he enunciated a “covenant,” so much a part of Old Testament tradition, made between God and his chosen people.

 

In essence, the Mosaic Law, which would fill many chapters of the Pentateuch, was in many cases nothing radically different from other Near East law codes.

 

The Symbol of Mt. Sinai for the Early Church

 

In the 4^th and 5^th centuries, as men and women became disillusioned with the lukewarm nature of official Christendom, many took to the deserts, especially in the Sinai, to pursue the ascetic lives of hermits. The imposing Mt. Sinai again reached out to these spiritually hungry Christians.

 

In AD 537, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian built a monastery at the base of the mountain which still stands today. As long as deity is associated with nature, particularly the “high places” of the world, Mt. Sinai will play a prominent role in religious experience.

 

Sources:

 

Colonel Claude R. Conder, LL.D., “Sinai,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939)

Michael Grant, The History of Ancient Israel (History Book Club/Orion Publishing Group, 2002)

Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton University Press, 1992)

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints require written permission]

 

 Mutiny in the Continental Army of Washington

M.Streich

1781 began with ominous tiding sent to George Washington from Brigadier General Anthony Wayne in Morristown, New Jersey. Large numbers of soldiers from the Pennsylvania Line had mutinied and were marching to Philadelphia to demand an end to their deprivations. For Washington, the news came after the events of 1780, all of which pointed to despair for the Patriot cause: in the South, Charleston had fallen to the British; Benedict Arnold had defected to the British and would forever be known as a traitor, and the British seemed stronger than ever, waiting out the winter in heavily fortified New York. The mutiny of Pennsylvania soldiers merely added to the despondency felt by the leaders of the Revolution.

 

Payment Grievances and Camp Conditions

 

By the end of 1780, morale in many of the regiments was low. Soldiers had not been paid and when they were, it was in Continental currency, issued by the Congress in Philadelphia. This paper currency was practically worthless. Historian Carl Van Doren comments that, “…a soldier’s pay for an entire year was worth only about a dollar in silver.” The phrase “not worth a continental” was rooted in this period of American History.

 

Many mutineers in January 1781 complained that they had never received promised bounties for enlisting. Others that had received bounties were cheated out of their money, often by their own officers. Their own state government in Philadelphia had exhausted all financial resources. According to Van Doren, “Pennsylvania might be, as Washington said, full of flour, but had no money to buy it with…”

 

The soldiers that finally mutinied in Morristown and marched on to Princeton had no fresh bread, no meat, and little alcohol to consume – all part of their daily ration. One of the first tasks General Wayne accomplished after accompanying the men to Princeton was to prevail upon the local inhabitants to feed the hungry men. This did much to dispel angry feelings and avoid their pillaging the countryside.

 

British Attempts to Recruit Pennsylvania Mutineers

 

Sir Henry Clinton in New York endorsed a concerted effort to send appeals to the mutineers at Princeton and later at Trenton. These appeals offered amnesty, cash bounties, and promises of employment – on paper, British soldiers were paid far less than the Continentals, but in reality their pay was still worth something as the patriot currency kept declining in value.

 

British agents managed to bring Clinton’s proposals to the mutineers, led by a committee of sergeants, but were apprehended and turned over to Anthony Wayne. Eventually sent to Trenton under heavy guard, the two captured spies were tried and hung. But there were other efforts on the part of the British as well as double-agents that worked both sides of the conflict for a price. There is ample evidence, however, that the mutineers had no intention of supporting the British or loyalist cause.

 

End of the Pennsylvania Line’s Mutiny

 

Following several days of negotiations that began in Princeton, the mutiny ended in Trenton and more than 1200 men were discharged, based on their sworn statements that their enlistments should have ended sooner, that their wages had not been paid, and that some enlistments were tied to excessive drinking! Recruiters used rum to seal the enlistments when the Revolution first began.

 

As the mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line was ending, another, smaller mutiny erupted among New Jersey troops encamped at Pompton. Although their grievances paralleled those of the Pennsylvania Line, reaction was swift and decisive. Washington himself dealt with the uprising, surrounding the men at Chatham and authorizing the execution of two ringleaders. Rumors that more units were close to mutiny contributed to Washington’s prompt response.

 

Results of the 1781 Mutinies

 

Discipline within the Continental Army strengthened as a result of the early 1781 mutinies. Additionally, colonial assemblies took a more proactive role in supplying Washington with supplies, especially in New England. Swift suppression of the munities may have also facilitated greater French support in terms of loans used to purchase clothing as well as ammunition from Europe.

 

Van Doren suggests that the mutinies contributed to greater unity among the colonies, pointing out that Maryland ratified the Articles of Confederation at the end of January 1781 and that the Congress in Philadelphia published them on March 1^st.

 

The mutinies also demonstrated how vulnerable the cause of independence had become. Had Sir Henry Clinton sent troops into New Jersey, a risk he was reluctant to take, negotiations with the mutineers and their officers might have been jeopardized. At the same time, the leadership of Washington, Anthony Wayne, Lafayette, and numerous other officers characterized an effective command that used wisdom and decisive action to unify the Army while doing everything possible to address sincere grievances.

 

References:

 

Carl Van Doren, Mutiny in January (The Viking Press, 1943)

Robert Harvey, “A Few Bloody Noses:” The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (Overlook Press, 2002)

Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2. (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints require written permission]

 

 Beware the Demagogue in American History

The presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt began in 1933 following the "Great Depression" which saw millions of Americans left unemployed and in poverty. At the time, numerous groups from the so-called "far right" to the left clamored for power, each promising a new and permanent solution to the growing national crisis. This was also the time dictators in Europe capitalized on the worldwide depression. Hitler took power, for example, in 1933, the same year FDR became president.

One of the most vociferous demagogues of that time was Huey Long, the "Kingfish" from Louisiana who gained power and popularity first in his home state and then throughout the South. At first, he supported FDR but by the mid-term elections had begun to explore his own possible run for the presidency. Like other disparate voices at the time, Long was, according the historian Albert Fried, a "...master of dissimulation." If Twitter had existed during Long's life, he would have been disconnected for spreading misinformation.

Long was believed by millions. Yet, as Fried wrote, Long was, "an unprincipled rowdy, a threat to the American Commonwealth." Fried quotes another writer who called Long a "Pied Piper"..."leading America to dictatorship." Fortunately, before Long could cause more harm, he was assassinated in Baton Rouge. Long, however, was not the only threat to American democracy in our history. Such men existed ever since the founding of the nation. Men like Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

One of the primary duties of the citizenry is to constantly be aware of political and social events and to know the history of the American nation. Edmund Burke reputedly said that, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

For further reading, quotes taken from

Albert Fried, FDR and His Enemies. 1999, Palgrave; St.  Martin's Press. 

Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria: Mad or Just Eccentric? Michael Streich

The royal palaces of Ludwig II of Bavaria represented the king’s fantasy life and provided a retreat from the real world for a man historian Paola Calore equates with a narcissistic personality. Unlike the other great castles and palaces build by 18^th and 19^th century kings and queens, Neuschwanstein, Linderhof, and Herrenchiemsee never hosted official state functions. These extensions of Ludwig’s fantasy life demonstrated his infatuation with Louis XIV and France as well as old German legends and Nordic sagas. Neuschwanstein particularly conformed to the images brought to life by the operas of Richard Wagner over which the king obsessed. This was Ludwig’s tribute to the Holy Grail, a fitting resting place for his wandering soul.

 

Ludwig’s Early Life

 

Born into the Wittelsbach ruling family in 1845, Ludwig was never prepared to become king at the age of 18. His Prussian mother spent little time with him while his father attended to affairs of state. Influenced by the forests and mountains surrounding the family estate at Hohenschwangau, legendary home of medieval knights, Ludwig withdrew into his own world.

 

According to his mother, Queen Marie, Ludwig, as a child, developed an interest in art, enjoyed building, and “loved dressing up as a nun.” Unlike his younger brother Otto who played with tin soldiers, Ludwig preferred to read and became particularly interested in the Gothic romanticism of Sir Walter Scott. He admired William Tell and as a teen began to read Richard Wagner’s libretti for Lohengrin and Tannhauser. Shy, introspective, and hypersensitive, Ludwig hated to be touched by others.

 

Ludwig’s “Sacred Places”

 

Ludwig became king of Bavaria at 18 following the unexpected death of his father Max. It was a time of war as Bismarck was beginning the process of German unification. Unprepared for political leadership, Ludwig retreated whenever possible into his dream world, beginning the construction of Neuschwanstein castle September 5, 1869. In conjunction with his Wagnerian infatuation, Ludwig’s Romanesque castle would glorify the old German legends of Parsifal and Lohengrin, the latter a mythical knight of the Swan.

 

This “temple dedicated to Wagnerian creativity,” according to one historian, became Ludwig’s private fantasy retreat. The Festival Hall was a recreation of the Room of the Bards at the Wartburg Castle. The walls were filled with symbols and images of Germanic legend. Days before his death on September 5, 1869, Ludwig requested that his sacred places, so named by Cabinet Secretary Friedrich von Ziegler, be destroyed after he died.

 

Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee

 

Both Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee were Ludwig’s monuments to his idol, Louis XIV of France, the “Sun King.” The smallest of Ludwig’s castles, Linderhof was the only one completed before his death. Modeled on Versailles, Linderhof was Ludwig’s private place of retreat where he could relive the past. Paintings throughout the palace glorify court life at Versailles as well as the men and women that dominated court life both under Louis XIV and Louis V.

 

Ancillary structures added to the ambience. The grotto was a tribute to the Mount of Venus and may have been influenced by the Blue Grotto of Capri. The Moorish Kiosk reflected an Arabian influence. One of Ludwig’s never-begun projects included a Byzantine Palace.

 

Herrenchiemsee represented Ludwig’s attempt to reproduce Versailles. Like Linderhof, the underlying ideological foundation was royal absolutism. This is best seen in the construction of the 300-foot grand gallery of mirrors, a reproduction of the famous Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. In both palaces, the king’s bed chamber served as the central room, conforming to the life of Louis XIV. The staircase in the southern wing of the palace is an exact reproduction of the Ambassador’s Staircase at Versailles.

 

Death of Ludwig

 

In 1886 Ludwig was deposed and declared mentally incompetent. Several days later, he mysteriously drowned in Lake Starnberg. Neuschwanstein was opened as a museum three days after his death.

 

Sources:

 

Wilfred Blunt, The Dream King: Ludwig II of Bavaria (Viking Press, 1970)

Paola Calore, “Neuschwanstein,” Royal Palaces (Barnes & Noble Books, 2006)

Christopher McIntosh, Ludwig II of Bavaria: The Swan King (Barnes & Noble Books, 1982)

“Royal Castles of Ludwig II,” German Embassy video, West Glen Communications