This year at Indy, Tony George and his Indy Car Racing League (IRL)) broke a long standing tradition at Indy and forced another race to occur on the same day. In Michigan the US 500 was raced on the same day by members of CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) in protest to the IRL. It was the first time another race was held opposite of the Indy 500. There were a record 17 rookies starting at Indy because many of the more experienced drivers were racing at Michigan. There was only one driver in the race who had won at Indy before. The IRL had dramatically changed the Indy 500. The IRL and CART are two racing leagues with opposing views on where the sport of auto racing is going. CART is supporting the way the sport has been progressing in recent years. That includes trying to increase the speed of the cars at whatever means possible. The IRL was formed a few years ago under the direction of Tony George. He is trying to make the sport less expensive and safer by using different motors/chassis and slowing down speeds.
Racing has always been about going faster than the next driver. It was about trying to beat course records and lap speeds. But if Tony George has his way, all course speeds will be reduced due to switching from turbo Indy V6 engines to normally aspirated V8’s. The result is less horsepower, thus slower speeds. Records would never be broken, and the sport would lose some of its appeal. Racing has always been a strive to go faster; there is no real reason to change it now. One of Tony George’s justification is that the sport would become safer. That is not true. The difference would not be much . The fatality rate for a 230 mph crash, and a 210 mph crash, is not that much different.
An Analysis of the Legality of Abortion
An Analysis of the Legality of Abortion
In Abortion and Social Justice, Dennis Horan, J.D. et alii argue “The Legal Case For the Unborn Child”:
Abortion is not a private matter. The destruction of human life, even ‘incipient’ or developing human life in the womb, can never be considered a private matter under our law. The contention that it is a private matter would be too ludicrous and absurd to even argue were it not so often put forth under such intellectually impeccable auspices. Would those civil libertarians who argue that abortion is a private matter, argue that the exercise of civil rights is purely a private matter between the Black man and the man that thwarts them? Certainly not. Just as the civil right to vote must be protected by law, so too the most fundamental and basic of all civil rights – the Right to Life – must be protected by law.(105)
In her book, Abortion and Dialogue: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and American Law, Ruth Colker explains why Roe v. Wade is considered an “activist” decision:
Second, it [Roe v. Wade]set the tone for how activist the Court would be in our lives. Rather than simply rule for the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, thereby invalidating the challenged Texas abortion statute, the Court outlined the parameters of a constitutional abortion statute. In other words, the Court drafted a model statute rather than simply striking down the Texas statute. Such judicial involvement in legislative activity is considered to be highly activist because the Court, in a sense, is displacing the legislature’s role in society. Such activisim is often criticized for interfering with legislative dialogue, because the judiciary, an undemocratic institution, has substituted its judgment for that of the legislature. (102)
Former president Ronald Reagan in his book, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, states how the Roe v. Wade decision is a violation of the Constitution:
Make no mistake, aboriton-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born.