Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason. [...] The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion.

–HHS-45-CFR, p.17

Effectively, what this appears to mean is that, as in institution, you’re still eligible for government funding regardless of the institution’s beliefs (and policies) regarding abortion. While on the surface that policy is  about as amazingly engaging at that text itself, this results in a more interesting side effect when taking into consideration certain arguments regarding hormonal and emergency contraceptives, which some argue are abortive in and of themselves (more so in the case of the latter).  In this vein, such an act would make it perfectly legal for medical instutitions to deny such contraceptive measures as they see fit.

As such, I myself see I need to propose my solution to the problem.  Consider that those of the pro-life ideological camp generally classify abortion as a type of murder due to the destruction of a potential life.  Also consider that every second you’re not engaged in sexual intercourse, you could be conceiving a child.  Think: every sexless minute of everyone’s lives, people are are ending millions, if not billions, of potential lives.  With this in mind, I present to you my improved definition of abortion (based on the original present in HHS-45-CFR), which surely will immediately be selected by the DHHS to replace its current wording:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. While commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins differ, we believe that a simple definition, satisfying to most parties, can be used. We present that any action that destroys human life after or prior to conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in our definition of the term “abortion.”

And there you have it.

Then came super Tuesday.  Many of us were hopeful that Paul would be able to stage a comeback, and enter his rightful place as Republican front runner.  However, as the results slowly tricked in throughout the day, it became clear the this wouldn’t be the case.  With the majority of states voting that day having turned against Paul, chances of his nomination grew slim to none.  Furthermore, in a move of supreme foresight, Paul declared that, while he would remain in the race, he would not pursue the presidency as a third-party:  (perhaps a certain other individual could learn a thing or two from Paul)

Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.

–Ron Paul, in a February 8th blog post

Fast-forward to today.  Ron Paul while winning over 42 delegates from various states, is now presented with a particular challenge: the mathematical impossibility of his nomination.  While his selfless commitment to not running as a third-party is certainly noble, it considerably decreases the probability of his becoming president–or does it?

Let’s look back in time a bit.  Anyone remember Henry Lodge?  No?  In the 1964 Republican Primary, Lodge was notable  for having won in three states: New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Massachusetts–without campaigning!  In fact, he was serving as an ambassador in Vietnam during the primary, and wasn’t even in the United States at the time–many still refer to his “campaign” as “walking for President”.  However, his winning of these states was no accident–a group of dedicated individuals had worked tirelessly in the weeks leading up to the primary to promote Lodge as a viable candidate.  Now, you may be asking, what does this all have to do with Ron Paul?

It has, in fact, everything to do with Paul’s 2008 campaign.  Keep in mind that, in 1964, the Internet didn’t yet exist.  All the campaigning by Lodge’s supporters was done without the aid of social networking, email, instant messaging, or even cellular phones.  If such a tactic could be applied in modern times, Paul’s support could indeed skyrocket, regardless of whether or not his name appears on the ballot!  So keep on Digging, and maybe, just maybe, there can be, to quote Paul’s campaign slogan, “Hope for America.”