Today's Cultural Warfare Update, and also, what am I missing here?

Something's going on and I don't know what it is, and I hate that. Seriously, something has to be up and I'm missing it and I don't know what it is. Judge Roberts today talked about how there's a right to privacy in the US Constitution and how you can't overturn a previous decision solely because you didn't like how it was argued and how he still considers Roe v. Wade to be settled precedent, and he says that if he'd found his Amendment 2 work morally objectionable, he wouldn't have done it - and the fundamentalists still have all guns out on his behalf.

Meanwhile, Concerned Women for America is talking about a 10-year campaign to build pressure for mass impeachments on the Federal and State courts, entirely based on rulings against anti-gay law. (They talk about the Massachusetts marriage case and Lawrence v. Evans, but interestingly, it was the Amendment 2 equal-protection case, Bowers vs. Hardwick, which got the movement started, according to them.) Yet they're agitating stridently and continually for someone who worked against them on one of those very cases, and has declared himself (through his press agent) a Constitutionalist instead of a strict Constructionist, which is not the same thing...

What am I missing? Something's going down and I'm not in on it, and it's bugging me. Seriously. What's going on? Something is. I just don't know what.

Meanwhile, here are the stories:

"Faith and Freedom Network" has started a fundraiser to raise money for an anti-marriage, anti-civil unions political campaign in Washington State;

Vatican decides: gay people cannot be part of the seminary system, regardless of celibacy - previously, your sexual orientation didn't matter if you were celibate, since everyone had to be the same way, so this is a significant change;

Roberts: would have refused participation in the lawsuit against Colorado's Amendment 2 (Romer v. Evans) if he found the work "morally objectionable"; also states the Constitution supports a right to privacy; this from Focus on the Family;

FotF complains about California bill to on morning-after pill dispensing at pharmacies; their article is confusing so I'm unsure about the bill's actual text;

FotF: emergency-contraception fights in Illinois, fundamentalist group brings lawsuit against the state;

FotF: Arizona State University recognises Christian club that at least formerly had religious requirements for officeholders - I don't know whether that's still the case or not;

President Bush assigns anti-abortion doctor to bioethics board - Focus on the Family praises him as a solid conservative;

National Council on Bible Curriculum for Public Schools campaigning for classes on the bible nationally in public schools;

Anti-abortion groups in the UK upset about development of "embryos" from egg cells only, calls it "Frankenstein science," a term that's picked up favour in recent weeks;

FotF upset at fertility treatment in the UK;

CWA continues to push Roberts for the Supreme Court - Press Release supporting him;

Pro-Life News reports on Roberts's statement that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution and that he respects precedent and that it's not enough to think a decision was badly decided to overturn it if it's a longstanding precedent - but continue to reassure their readers that he would overturn Roe v. Wade if given a chance; wtf is going on here?;

:::: NOTE THIS ONE: CWA talks about "cleaning up the judiciary" via mass impeachments - every example they give is anti-GBLT (Amendment 2, Lawrence v. Texas, the Massachusetts case legalising marriage rights for gayfolk) - and they talk about a 10-year programme to build support;

Traditional Values Coalition continues pushing hard for John Roberts to be confirmed - top article features pro-Roberts TVC protesters carrying pro-Roberts signs and "OVERTURN ROE" signs. Meanwhile, his press agent issues a statement calling him a Constitutionalist, which is not the same thing as a Constructionist and not nearly as compatible with the fundamentalist demands. My big question is, what are people being told? The pieces are not adding up here, and despite my research, I can't find out what's going on. Stuff like this sends up red flags but I can not get a handle on what those flags are indicating.

( Transcriptions, articles, and excerpts )

And in other news...

[ ]?! [ ]?! [ ]?!?!?!

PRC China companies make beauty products from the skin of executed prisoners. No, really. Soylent Rouge is made of people.

The beauty products from the skin of executed Chinese prisoners
Cosmetics firm targets UK market
Lack of regulation puts users at risk

Ian Cobain and Adam Luck
Tuesday September 13, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1568622,00.html

A Chinese cosmetics company is using skin harvested from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in Europe, an investigation by the Guardian has discovered.

Agents for the firm have told would-be customers it is developing collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments from skin taken from prisoners after they have been shot. The agents say some of the company's products have been exported to the UK, and that the use of skin from condemned convicts is "traditional" and nothing to "make such a big fuss about".

With European regulations to control cosmetic treatments such as collagen not expected for several years, doctors and politicians say the discovery highlights the dangers faced by the increasing number of Britons seeking to improve their looks. Apart from the ethical concerns, there is also the potential risk of infection.
MPs on the Commons select health committee are to examine the regulatory system and may launch an investigation and question ministers about the need for immediate new controls. "I am sure that the committee will want to look at this," said Kevin Barron, its Labour chairman. "This is something everyone in society will be very concerned about."

[More at URL]