Liberals Lacking Logic

You know, there's probably only one thing that bothers me more than when liberals undermine values and try to steer people away from following a good moral conscience: when they misrepresent the truth in pursuit of that objective.

The cartoonist blog SouthDaCola features a post today which combines three images. The first is an image of someone sending a text message which says "scott u r fat" and below it says "mean spirited text messages" and a box marked "X" ILLEGAL. The second is an image of a birth control pill dispenser which says below it "dispensing birth control" marked "X" ILLEGAL. The third shows someone with an automatic weapon hanging around their shoulder from a strap and below it says "gun-toting college students" with "X" marked LEGAL.

The blog post comments say

I guess most of South Dakotans are wacked out religious right neo-cons that hate the first amendment, healthcare privacy, and love violence.

(I love how liberals throw around that "neo-con" term when they're talking about something that really gets them in a tiff.)

The three items obviously reference three matters being considered by the South Dakota Legislature.

The first is HB 1313 which would make it illegal to send text or email messages that , intimidate, threaten, harass or annoy such person by using obscene or lewd language or by suggesting a lewd or lascivious act, threaten to inflict physical harm or injury to any person or property, extort money or other things of value. This adds to SDCL 49-31-31 which already makes it illegal to use a telephone to do such things.

The second refers to HB 164 which was intended to override the right of pharmacists to not sell drugs that violate their conscience. That bill failed today.

The third refers to HB 1261 which would protect the Second Amendment right of college students to possess firearms on campus. This bill comes on the heels of a legislative effort to take that right away from them.

I think it's a valid point with which few would disagree that, just as telephone harassment is illegal, other forms of electronic harassment should be illegal. Since when has the First Amendment ever guaranteed the right to threaten or harass someone? I don't see a problem with this bill.

I also think it's a valid point, which some--especially those who are inherently afraid of guns--would disagree with, that the Second Amendment isn't suspended when you live on a college campus. And since when has the right to keep and bear arms equaled a love for violence (hint: they're often very useful in deterring and quelling violence against people)? And another valid point is that outlawing weapons on campus isn't going to stop a Virginia Tech-style gunman from slaughtering people anyway.

What I find puzzling/ disingenuous/ deceptive/ dishonest/ incorrect/ false is that middle part that says "dispensing birth control X illegal." Who made it illegal? Where is that law? Where is that bill? And if healthcare is so private that a pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to exercise his or her conscience in considering the sale of a product, maybe it's too private to go to the pharmacist in the first place; after all, you're already involving him by asking him for the product in the first place.

I know liberals are pretty slow sometimes, but is it really that tough to discern the difference between the moral decision made by a professional in the sale of a product they consider harmful, and a law prohibiting the sale of a product?

Since when has the decision of a business person been the same thing as a law passed by elected representatives? Though I suppose it follows if the liberals who wrote SB 164 can't figure out that pharmacists aren't "government entities" who carry out "government intrusions," then there might be other liberals who can't grasp the difference between a law and an individual decision.

You don't have to agree or disagree with these bills, but has analytical thought and logic fallen to such a low that someone actually sees a wrongful inconsistency between these three bills?