An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams Talks About Family History of Abuse
Global Cooperation: Gone Like a ‘Mirage’ – Liberation, France »
Abortion Is Not Health Care, Redux
Sen. John Cornyn just read a letter he received from a Catholic bishop in which, among other things, the bishop told Cornyn, “I can’t emphasize enough that abortion is not health care.”
Isn’t it nice to know that Cornyn and every other Republican in the current Congress believes it’s right, proper, and just for a Catholic bishop (or any religious figure) to make medical decisions for women?
35 Responses to “Abortion Is Not Health Care, Redux”
Not everyone approves of funding medical coverage for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOC7a2Tw_8o
“There are limits to the right of choice, and obviously limits to humanity.”
And what are those limits? It's easy to talk about these things in the abstract, but when confronted with real situations, not so much, for most people. But for the “righteous” it is simple, No Exceptions. These are the same people that complain that their taxes are too high when supporting a child that costs a million dollars a year to keep alive.
“Isn’t it nice to know that Cornyn and every other Republican in the current Congress believes it’s right, proper, and just for a Catholic bishop (or any religious figure) to make medical decisions for women?”
So now you object to writing letters to our Congressional delegation to make our feelings known?
This bishop has as much right as I do to write his/our Congress for redress of grievances. I sent a very similar letter, email, and phone call to all of my representatives. Is it because I believe that I want to make others' medical decisions? No – but good twist on words, Kathy. It's simply because I believe (as well as most other Amercans) that abortion under non-emergent conditions is murder; and that we do not want to be complissory to it.
There is no inherent “right” [sic] to abortion, or to federal provision of it as an entitlement (which childish and demented people may assume should be “automatic,” with all that word conveys). I had predicted that abortion, which remains tangential, would be elevated by agitated extremists to a serious if not a crucial unnecessary political issue in association with general health care “reform,” and some exhibited the predictable lack of discipline (if not also intelligence!) to make it an issue and to repel the mainstream and give consequently even some Democrats second thoughts about the reform effort, once it was thereby tainted. This is another example and a glaring one where the fringe left goes way too far and is wrecking the Left's own effort, this time on health care reform, though overreach and misconduct.
Way to go!
[clapping pinkies together]
“There are limits to the right of choice, and obviously limits to humanity.”
In this case it's not so much the nature of what you are discussing (or the impropriety of demands for what is normally elective and far from truly necessary, and misstating any negative expressions that are directed against it dishonestly as anti-female, or other deliberate nonsense or misconduct). The limits that are really at issue here (other than to lower limits of conduct by some lefties) are to what anybody can reasonably expect to do or to get away with, not so much by people mis-exploiting abortion here, but with the health care effort in general and what the lib Dems have illogically as well as unrealistically and wrongfully been rushing (note; itself wrong) to do all year. It's the Left that's wrecking, again, this latest effort by the Left. How? Why? Will they ever learn?
“So now you object to writing letters to our Congressional delegation to make our feelings known?”
Kathy's latest illogical example is must more overreach, no doubt largely out of mistaken frustration and anger.
It probably is just a bonus to note that she probably wouldn't have minded the anti-West-and-US-nuke stunts some of the Religious Left engaged in, in the 1980s against the evil Reagan, or the “liberation theology” Marxist-style stuff they supported elsewhere in the world (including on behalf of the USSR in Central America), or the “sanctuary” stuff, et cetera. (Will these people reemerge when the lib Dems pursue immigration “reform” sometime, and do any of them yet have second thoughts about Chavez?)
“good twist on words”
Actually, musty — not really original this time. (Stale, even)
The big problem is that the lefties overreached in Washington (and did other things wrong that led to their current failures), they aren't going to get anything like what many dreamed of in the name of health care “reform,” and now the barrel is starting to really be scraped for people and objects to which to redirect the blame that these people are still unable or unwilling to face.
JD, my sentiments exactly. I will say this — our unknowing complicity with unsavory things our tax dollars fund likely is deep-and-wide. In this case, we happen to be in-the-know, and need to speak up at TMV and elsewhere. Thanks for doing so, and thank you to the Catholic Bishop for being both a model believer and model citizen.
And thank you, redbus, for erasing 50% of the population from the human race.
Sam Brownback, a few minutes ago, just said the magic words of love and humanity again: “Abortion is not health care.” And once again, as happens every time I hear those words, my stomach turned over. It wasn't just anger. It was the stomach-turning feeling you get when you hear something that makes you feel unsafe, something that makes you feel the person speaking those words sees you as less than a full human being.
Actually, I can't even describe how it feels to hear Sam Brownback, and a Catholic bishop, and all the other people I've heard say it lately, that abortion is not health care. I can't describe how it feels. And even if I could, none of you would understand or take it seriously.
I will say to you and to JD and to Sam Brownback, and that Catholic bishop, and everyone else who believes that it's perfectly factual and okay for them to decide that abortion is not health care — I will say to all of you what Tom Lehrer said about the NY Daily News when he lampooned it in his song, “Daily News, Daily Blues”: “They have the right to their opinions, but I despise those opinions.”
Individuals who use the nomenclature that “abortion is not health care” can say that and Luntzify a legal medical procedure all they want. It doesn't change the reality of the law of the land.
The bill does not fund medical coverage for abortion, so I don't know what you're talking about.
No, I object to Cornyn and others stating that abortion is not healthcare, although I'm not suggesting they should be fined or jailed for saying it. I am saying that it is extremely objectionable — outrageous, in fact — to say abortion is not health care, because it clearly IS health care — unless you consider women to be somehow non-physical or non-human entities to which the word “health” doesn't apply.
I plead ignorance — what does Luntzify mean?
Just wondering how it would classify the woman in Virginia that smothered the baby with umbilical cord still attached Since it didn't fit as a murder and she couldn't be charged, one has to wonder if her getting treatment for any injury from cutting herself away from the dead fetus would be covered, like someone who cut off their own finger might be. I certainly wouldn't want my taxdollars paying for it.
Any idea how such a case might be treated under the healthcare bills? I really don't know.
I think it refers to Frank Luntz,and is suggesting an effort to choose words so as to alter perceptions and responses. a Conservative might use Obamify in a similar manner. Maybe even “Kattenate” on these forums =P.
Kathy and Jillmz, gotta love democracy in action. Looks like neither you nor Rep. Stupak will be satisfied. That probably means we'll end up with something that will satisfy those in the middle. That's a positive outcome.
And one more comment…Sen. Sam Brownback is a man of conviction, hasn 't wavered on his opposition to abortion in all his years in the House and Senate. That I can respect.
Sen. Sam Brownback is a man of conviction, hasn 't wavered on his opposition to abortion in all his years in the House and Senate. That I can respect.
I cannot, because his convictions lead him to believe that women do not have health concerns — or at least none that he needs to be concerned with. The constant repetition by him and others who share his “convictions” about how beautiful and valuable human life is, *all* human life, *all* human life (repeat this ten times with tears in your eyes and let your voice shake just a little), obviously do not consider a woman to have a life or to be a human life. You may deny this, but there is no other logical conclusion to take from the statement, “Abortion is not health care. It has no place in a health care bill.”
You will have to forgive me for not feeling any respect for Sam Brownback, therefore — I mean, given that I am a woman, and that my daughter is a woman.
Also this:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=725
They certainly need to tighten it up so that States that decide not to allow this not have their taxpayer money used to fund it. The Premiums should only be paid by those electing for such coverage. The bi partisan approved Stupak Amendment offered such protections.
I forgive you Kathy, although I don't agree with you that a man can't be respected for standing up for his belief that abortion is baby killing, and that baby killing is morally wrong. Men can love children too you know.
Funny, I wonder how many of these “men of conviction” have in the past, had indiscretions and they personally funded a woman's abortion because they didn't want to be burdened with parenthood? Last I checked, a woman can't have a baby on her own (unless we see another star in the East)
.
As to abortion not being health care, try telling that to the couple that finds out that if the woman carries her baby with a serious birth defect to term that the baby will be born dead and she still gets to go through all the risks involved with childbirth. While I'm no fan of elective abortions to rid the consequences of doing something stupid, it is reality that there are some cases where abortion is necessary on some level.
Regardless, the government has no business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. Tell you what, let's have the government dictate that a man must get a vasectomy after a certain age or not have his Viagra prescription subsidized but he has to pay full retail for it on his prescription drug plan. Then you can complain about abortion all you like.
Sorry Kathy – Frank Luntz – I made up the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
You know, Redbus – I was accused yesterday of not reading what people write, but now I'm going to suggest the same. Where you get the notion that I won't be satisfied is beyond me. Sheesh. This is a blog first and foremost – these are comment threads where we debate, dialogue, argue.
Democracy rarely satisfies everyone – and I don't expect it to. So whether I am or am not satisfied in regard to any one element is really irrelevant.
Now – if you're saying that you feel badly for me that some element I care about isn't coming out the way I want it, well, thank you. But otherwise, really – don't cry for me, anyone. Now that I'm a city council member, believe me, I'm well aware of how nearly impossibly it is to satisfy people – but then being the parent of two teens is a pretty good hands on lesson in that too.
“Tell you what, let's have the government dictate that a man must get a vasectomy after a certain age or not have his Viagra prescription subsidized but he has to pay full retail for it on his prescription drug plan”
I don't know how the first as any relationship to the public funding of abortion argument, but I am behind you 100% in eliminating the public funding of any Viagra. It has bent the cost curve for escorts in the wrong direction.
Thanks, Leonidas, for the reality check. How many men are “walking wounded” because they would have gladly cared for their unborn, had they been given that option? Men are the forgotten victims of elective abortions.
Let's see, Kathy, I've written off 50% of the human race, i.e. females, because I believe that the unborn should be protected? I'm a very, very, bad person. Shame on me! No, actually, I will give a voice to those who have none, and that is the unborn.
Jillmz, thanks for serving on the city council of your town. That must be a thankless job at times.
What I was suggesting was not based on a word-by-word reading of your post. Instead, I looked at the thread, saw that you and Kathy were off to the left on the issue, and said as much. Arguably, Rep. Stupak is off to the right. This site is the Moderate Voice. It seemed like the place to point that out. And yes, I'm probably right-of-center on the abortion issue. That's no surprise to those who have read my frequent posts here on the matter. But I believe there's some evidence to show that within 10 years, my position will no longer be “right-of-center” but center, as the American public is becoming more conservative on the issue. As that happens, the angst for those who are out of that mainstream is likely to increase.
Abortion IS a medical procedure, as is euthinasia…..as was what Jack the Ripper performed…… and so on.
J.D., as one who often supports what you say, let me say: This comment wasn't helpful.
I know, Redbus……
I get mental-diarrhea from time to time.
I try to keep it logical and respectful, and fail periodically.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
Which is exactly why I and others who are convinced pregnant women are living beings will raise the voices that we do have to help each other. Just because a woman's voice can be heard is no reason not to listen.
And just because a fetus's voice can't be heard doesn't mean you know what it would say if it had a voice. The fetus doesn't have a choice, about anything. Don't fool yourself that you are the fetus, making the fetus's choice. You are not. You are a separate person, the fetus doesn't have a choice and doesn't have the wish for a choice and doesn't have the capacity for a choice. Choice is a meaningless concept for a fetus. If a fetus did have a choice, maybe it would choose to return to the spirit world and incarnate into a healthier body in a kinder world — one where the needs of babies were prioritized after birth as well as before; or one where there wasn't a war going on that would blow up the baby's body six months or a year or two years after her birth. Do you think if a fetus had a choice, it would choose to be born in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or Somalia or Sudan? A fetus has no choice. And those living beings who do have a choice are told they mustn't use it.
Likewise, how many men not only did not want their unborn child but also funded the procedure to take care of it?
What really gets my goat is when a man seems to think that women look at abortion the same way that they look at getting a bikini wax or maybe even cosmetic surgery. Women who decide to get an abortion are normally not cavalier about it and know that they have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives. Again, I am no fan of elective abortions as a form of birth control (and I doubt that's all that common anymore) but once it's codified into law that a woman cannot get one kind of medical procedure, how long before there are any other number of medical procedures she can't have? Does “slippery slope” come to mind?
As a side note…isn't if funny that the most vocal opponents to abortion also tend to be anti-birth control (see the Catholic Church)? It seems to me that with proper birth control and sex education, elective abortions for non-medical reasons become unnecessary.
Kind of funny, Anna, for me to be on the receving end of the “slippery slope” argument for a change! There's more consensus on conception control than you think. The Roman Catholic Church appears to be alone it its position against conception control — the only kind they allow is the so-called “rythm method.” There has been some voices raised among fundamentalist Christians against vasectomies and tubal ligation. They aren't gaining a lot of traction. The majority position among conservative Christians (which is how I would describe myself) is “no” to abortion in almost all circumstances, and “yes” to various kinds of conception control. Your “slippery slope” appears nowhere in sight.
Of course, my “slippery slope” argument was not in regards to contraception but medical procedures but that was an interesting way of almost ignoring everything I said prior to talking about contraception.
When you say “no to abortion in almost all circumstances”, what are those circumstances that are acceptable to you? Who gets to decide which circumstances are acceptable? You? Someone's church? You might even bring God into it but then…who's God…whose religion? Why should a conservative Christian's moral values be dictated onto others under the law, particularly since there is no state religion in this country and not everyone may subscribe to those beliefs (or even not believe in God at all)?
Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal but rare and that a woman's body is her own. I wouldn't dream of trying to dictate to you a medical procedure that you couldn't receive, why on earth would you want to dictate as such to me? What if someone (or many someones) who's beliefs follow the Jehovah's Witness' religion and they tried to dictate to you that you couldn't receive an organ transplant just because they believed it to be wrong? Would you stand for that? Somehow, I don't think so.
Anna, it's nice to have another Kathy to debate!
I'm not sure what you mean by “medical procedures” that potentially could be outlawed after abortion in your “slippery slope” scenario. Please explain.
Your other points:
Values — People legislate them all the time. Reference hate crime bills, for example. A Christian point of view is one among many that in a democracy should be represented. Don't forget that President Obama's commitment to environmental issues – according to his own admission – stems from his Christian faith. Good for him. Now, I'd like to see him extend that to protecting the unborn, another clear inference of faith.
“Abortion should be legal but rare and a woman's body is her own.” The “legal but rare” talking point is just that – a nice slogan leftover from former President Clinton. The question is: How do we make them rare? I brought up some common ground, i.e. focus on contraception, but you seem uninterested in pursuing that common ground. As long as there's money to be made abortions, people will fight any further restrictions tooth-and-nail. Follow the money…
If the Jehovah's Witnesses convince enough people of the rightness of their point-of-view, using our democratic processes, more power to them.
When should abortion be allowed? Kathy has told a heart-breaking personal story of the circumstances of her abortion. I believe there needs to be enough flexibility in the law to allow for such exceptional cases. Many think that rape and incest would qualify. Of course, most abortions done are simply because a child is unwanted, either by the would-be father or the would-be mother, or both, or parents of a young girl who bring pressure to bear, etc. As a culture, we've become so hyper-individualistic that life has been cheapened, and abortion has become birth control. Everyone loses — we lose our soul as a nation bit-by-bit because we make no room for the unwanted, and of course, the unborn child is snuffed out. President Bush was right: We need a culture of life, and little-by-little, we're heading in that direction. Look for Roe v Wade to be overturned, and this issue to go back to the states, where it should have stayed all along.