Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Abortion and Health Care

by BooMan
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 08:55:38 AM EST

Hotline has a helpful whip count on House members' position on health care reform. The math sure looks complicated. We have a lot of scaredy-cat Democrats and not a few who take their marching orders from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Let me tell you something. If you are to the right of Ben Nelson on abortion rights, you really ought to reconsider your party affiliation. In my opinion, a small coterie of anti-choice House Democrats is holding the president's number one priority item hostage to make access to abortion even more restrictive than it is currently. At least Ben Nelson recognized that the reforms need to pass and struck a deal that would probably sabotage the effort to have abortion services available in exchange plans while not explicitly doing so. [Side note: to demonstrate how radical this is, RomneyCare has abortion coverage even for subsidized plans].

Bart Stupak says he is more optimistic about reaching a deal than he was a week ago.

"I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago," Stupak told The Associated Press between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district, including a crowded town hall gathering where opinions on health care and the abortion issue were plentiful and varied.
"The president says he doesn't want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I," Stupak said. "That's never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points — we don't restrict, we don't expand abortion rights? I think we can get there."

But where would that language be incorporated? It almost definitely cannot be part of the the sidebar reconciliation bill since it wouldn't have a significant impact of the budget. Because the Senate bill must be passed in the House as is, that means any changes in the abortion language cannot be incorporated in either of the two bills that will be voted on.

At this point, I am putting the primary blame on the Bishops. They may want something a bit stronger than what Ben Nelson was able to get them, but the difference between Nelson's language and Stupak's language is so small that many people cannot even see any practical difference. Weighing that against health care access for 30 million Americans, it shouldn't be a hard choice. We've all made compromises in this process, some of which involve serious moral concerns. Secondly, I blame the Catholic Democrats in Stupak's camp who seem to have abdicated their autonomy to a body of Bishops who are unaccountable to the American people. If the Bishops make unreasonable demands that harm your constituents, you first responsibility is to exercise your own judgment and do what's right.

If Pelosi solves this, she'll deserve a medal, a statue, and that a congressional office building be named after her.

Abortion and Health Care | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Heh, so the anti-Papists were right after all, 50 years later?

________
The Raptor of Spain: A Webserial
From Muslim Prince to Christian King (Updated Nov. 24)

by MNPundit on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:04:42 AM EST

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Yes. The bishops have broken the Kennedy arrangement and decided to directly use the credulity of their adherents to influence politics -- as many at the time predicted was inevitable. Turns out it was not bigotry, but realism, to question the priorities of Catholic and other secular-dominated politicians.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 02:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SHHHH! (none / 1)

i don't understand why catholics give a shit what the bishops want anyway.
It's not like it's a secret that, to make one example, rank and file catholics use birth control in large numbers despite the Church's stance.

And for that matter, haven't the Bishops thoroughly discredited themselves as a credible source on morals, given their longstanding policy of not only protecting, but ENABLING, child rapists?

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:18:01 AM EST

Re: SHHHH! (none / 1)

Here is what they fear. They are running for election against a Republican who is a loudmouth pro-lifer.

A priest, on instructions from their Bishop, now on instructions from Pope Benedict, refuses them communion.

They lose the election.

As for the Bishops and their morals, apparently not. They are further down the road toward eliminating the separation of church and state today than they were when only one Bishop made noises about denying John Kerry communion.

Oh, it doesn't apply to all Catholics; just to Catholic politicians. (And Mormons might be pulling the same strings.)

But you see it's progressives who will be responsible for killing healthcare because Dennis Kucinich won't vote for it. The narrative is already beginning.

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

by TarheelDem on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SHHHH! (none / 0)

don't let Dennis off the hook. I'm so tired of his bullshit. I wouldn't be surprised if he's taking his marching orders from the bishops, too.

In the Ohio state Senate, Kucinich voted to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1996, while running for U.S. House, the former "boy-mayor" of Cleveland said, "I believe that life begins at conception." When Kucinich was coming to Washington, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy counted the former mayor as one of a handful of "anti-choice" Democratic newcomers.
Upon arriving in our nation's capital, the Cleveland Catholic lived up to his billing. In the 105th Congress, Kucinich -- no conservative -- earned a 90 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. His only heresies in the eyes of these abortion foes being his support of the Shays-Meehan campaign-finance bill.
That's correct: This left-wing congressmen voted with the National Right to Life Committee on every single abortion vote in his first two years. That was more pro-life than three Ohio Republicans that year. The votes included sticking up for a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting to thwart President Clinton's plan to give foreign aid to overseas agencies that perform and counsel abortion.
For the next two years, the story was the same. Kucinich voted again to ban partial-birth abortion, block aid to International Planned Parenthood, and prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions in federal prisons. His score in the 106th Congress with the National Right to Life Committee was 95 percent -- again, only voting against them on Shays-Meehan.
The 10th district Democrat even towed the pro-life line during the first year of the Bush administration. In April, Kucinich supported the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which criminalized harming a fetus in a crime, and he opposed the Democratic substitute that would have defused the fetus-is-a-life parts of the bill.
In May, 2001, Kucinich again voted against funding International Planned Parenthood. Two months later he voted to block federal funding of prison abortions. On the cloning ban, the congressman voted the straight pro-life line, supporting the bill and opposing his party's efforts to soften the ban.
On September 25, 2001, Kucinich helped kill a measure by California Democrat Loretta Sanchez that would have allowed for federal funding of abortions in overseas U.S. military bases.
But then something happened.

He decided to run for president.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

"I believe that life begins at conception."

So do I. That is not an argument against abortion. It's an argument to treat abortion as more serious than shaving or toe-nail clipping. I certainly respect those women who have made the sad and momentous decision to terminate the life of their baby for the good of the rest of their family, which I believe in some sense covers most abortion decisions. The popular right wing narrative of women casually aborting because they can't be bothered to use other birth control is as far from reality as .. well, I can't think of any other right wing talking point as divorced from reality. Such women exist, to be sure, but their numbers are almost vanishingly small.

On the subject, why do conservatives always insist on parental permission, implicitly or explicitly the father's? I'll bet they would balk at a bill that said you must get permission only from your mother or grandmother.

by The Voice In The Wilderness on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (4.00 / 2)

Anyone who says that life does not begin at conception is a liar, and an ignorant person who knows nothing of biology.

Of course life starts at conception. Pro-choice people do themselves a disservice to lie like this, as if they cannot defend their position without lying.

In any case:

I'll bet they would balk at a bill that said you must get permission only from your mother or grandmother.

Bingo. It's not about life, it's not about "a baby;" it's about right-wing misogynists who want to make a woman's decision for her when it comes to controlling her own body.

I don't even frame this issue as being about life anymore, no, that's accepting the right-wingers' turf for battle. This is about fundamental human rights of controlling your own body.

Abortion is a perfectly moral decision that no woman takes lightly. Anyone who says otherwise, in my opinion, is a misogynist.

by seabe on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:31:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

More than controlling ones body. That is saying that the fetus is not a separate (but dependent) organism.

It's about who makes the decisions about your familiy's future. You? The State? Some preacher?

China's one child policy with forced abortion was wrong too.

"pro-Choice" is good because it puts the right issue on the table. Not should there be or not be an abortion, but who gets to make the choice.

by The Voice In The Wilderness on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:50:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

you take an extremely difficult philosophical question and attempt to answer is decisively through blunt force. It doesn't work that way.

A mother and fetus have a kind of symbiotic relationship (not exactly, because they mother doesn't need the fetus to survive), and so the mother must use her body, her blood, minerals, vitamins, and hormones to sustain the fetus. I don't like the word because it is undignified, but there is a parasitical relationship. So, you can call something alive in one sense, in that it is undergoing a dynamic process of cell division and metabolism, and so forth. But, in another sense two are joined as one in a single life.

At what point could you argue that the fetus has a life of its own, so to speak? At what point, does one life have equal claim to the other? The law basically says it is at the point of viability, where the fetus can survive outside the womb. That isn't a completely illogical conclusion and it certainly isn't a baseless way of deciding things.

Yet, as far as the law goes, it goes well beyond what is right and wrong, to what makes sense from an enforcement point of view and how individuals' privacy and dignity relates to the state's interest in protecting life.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

I know it doesn't work that way for most people, but it's how I feel. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything; I can defend my position when asked, on the grounds that we're discussing life as well. However, that's all I seek to do, to defend. If you were asking me to convince someone, you're looking at the wrong guy. I like Obama's speech that he gave at Notre Dame regarding the convincing of people, but I still think he ceded too much ground. I see most fully born mammals as more of a person than fetuses, no matter what stage in development.

Your response is similar to what my own response would be on those grounds. I don't even feel that a fully born baby is a person yet, it's still a potential person. However, it is given the rights of a person because it is no longer interfering with a woman controlling her own body. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person.

by seabe on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:06:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Well, it doesn't really matter how you view animals or what you consider consciousness. The point is that it is a bit simplistic to say that life begins at conception. Certainly from one point of view that is indisputable. It's like saying that Pac-Man began the second the computer code was completed and uploaded. On the other hand, I could argue that Pac-Man began the first time someone plunked down a quarter into an actual box that contained the code and started to play the game. It depends on what you're talking about and why you think it matters.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Meh, I view everything from a logical standpoint, so I guess that's where there's an area of disagreement. Cells are dividing, they're alive. I see what you're saying, but can't view it any other way.

by seabe on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:22:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Okay, let's be logical.

Let's say that you have a tumor growing in your abdomen. It originated with a single-cell whose programming was disrupted, shutting down both its auto-destruct function and it's limit on cell division function. You have cancer.

It is growing an ever larger mass in your body, and it is certainly alive by your definition. Yet, it is going to kill you.

Using your logic alone, there is no distinction between this mass and the mass growing in the womb.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 12:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Ironically, I make the same argument against people who are against abortion:

"Why should we treat skin cancer? It was the woman's own stupid fault for walking in the sun."

Cancer is indeed, alive.

by seabe on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

That's a really good answer, and how I feel as well. Of course, as soon as there is fertilization and cells begin to divide, there is "life". Is it "a life"? Not to me.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

It's an argument to treat abortion as more serious than shaving or toe-nail clipping.

This is the crux of the argument. Conception is the only point where a baby becomes a human being, and killing a human being is murder - homicide. There are certainly situations where homicide is justified and we have laws that outline those situations, the Pro Life position is - or at least ought to be - that those laws apply uniformly to all human beings.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

that is plowing over the same old ground. Someone could argue that a human being has certain recognizable qualities, among which is the ability to survive as an autonomous being, not reliant on placenta or a womb. All conception does is determine the genetic code that will design a person. The fertilized egg still needs to implant and begin to grow, something I personally have seen go wrong more times than I care to talk about.

But all of that is beside the point. The most significant problem with banning abortion is enforcement and its relationship to personal dignity and respect for the legitimate loss of pregnancy.

Oklahoma passed a law recently that would allow the collection of information on every abortion provided in the state. Do you know how many abortions are performed on already dead embryos and fetuses? Do you know how that feels for the parents? Can you imagine having to explain yourself to your state government? Being pro-choice isn't a simple matter of approving or disapproving of the decision to have an abortion under whatever circumstances. It's a matter of the state's relationship to the individual.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:34:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

My wife had several miscarriages as we tried to have a second child. Having the documents refer to "incomplete abortion" made her extremely angry.

by The Voice In The Wilderness on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:45:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

I'd agree that it is a matter of the state's relationship to the individual, but we have to acknowledge that there is more than one individual involved in the issue of abortion - mother AND baby. And father. While the mother is obviously primary in this deal, acknowledging the rights of the baby and even the father is a must, unless we're saying that fathers have no responsibility for the children that they father.

Enforcement is non-issue - we can't stop people from committing infanticide but we still have laws against it.

As for Oklahoma, I may be confused about this but I didn't think that they convened an abortion tribunal where people have to come before the state and explain why they had an abortion. I thought that those who provide abortions simply have to file some additional paperwork, but maybe I missed something.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Technically correct:

The measure requires physicians to provide detailed information to the Oklahoma State Department of Health about the abortions they perform.
Information to be reported includes the age, marital status and education level of the woman; the number of previous pregnancies; a reason for the abortion; the method of the abortion and method of payment; the cost of the abortion; the type of medical health insurance; whether an ultrasound was given; and the nature of the mother's relationship with the father.

But, this is merely a snapshot. This law would have been in effect under a system of legal abortion. It shows you what it would be like to get an abortion for legally accepted reasons under a ban. There is no compatibility with human dignity here.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:08:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

You lost me there - how does this infringe on human dignity?

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:12:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Also, we can't stop people from reading the paper on the toilet, but we can have laws against it. But, why would we? Passing laws that can't be enforced is bad policy.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Can't be enforced? I'm pretty sure we had them enforced before Roe v. Wade, they can be enforced now. We already have laws relating to how parents have to interact with their children - this is no different, just extended.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 1)

I mean that they can't be enforced in a way that is consistent with human dignity. We certainly did not have a way of doing that prior to Roe v. Wade.

Oscar, let me give you an example.

You and your wife discover that you are pregnant. You are happy so you tell your neighbors. Or, maybe they just notice that your wife is showing a bit. Or maybe they see you hauling in baby-related stuff from the car. In any case, they know you are pregnant. And then, nothing happens. Your wife is no longer showing. There is no baby. Your neighbors have no idea what happened. You were pregnant, now you're not. You may have committed a crime ('murder', as you put it). That's rather serious. Should your neighbors tell the authorities? Do they not have to at least consider their moral obligation to report a potential violation of the law?

So, say that they do report this to the authorities. What is their responsibility? How do they investigate? What if they have a policy of not investigating these kinds of reports? What does that mean for the law? Is it enforceable?

Now, consider that your wife actually had a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or that she needed an abortion procedure to remove a fetus that had died in utero, or that you discovered the baby would die either later on in pregnancy or shortly after delivery? Imagine having to answer to investigators or authorize your physician to do so.

If you have been through any of those scenarios, you know the answer. It is imperative that no one be put in such a situation. And if you can't devise a law that can cull those cases from the purely elective abortion, you can't devise a law that is consistent with human dignity. And this all assumes that the state has a clear interest in protecting life before independent viability, which is not something I concede. But even if I did concede it, I'd still be pro-choice on the grounds I have laid out.

Unenforceable laws are bad laws.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:30:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

OK, let's take it a step further. Say we did all of that but instead we bring the child home. Then the neighbors never see the child again. We may have committed a crime - murder. Should our neighbors tell the authorities? Maybe it was a case of SIDS or the baby suddenly got sick and died - would that not be as traumatic as any of the situations that you describe? Yet the answer is equally obvious - the authorities have to be notified.

Again, my position isn't necessarily to ban all abortions, but that the laws that pertain to the killing of human beings be applied equally. If it's a question of viability then deliver the baby as a ward of the state, and if he/she can't survive in an incubator then so be it, but you don't offer them one of the most torturous deaths known to mankind - an acid bath or being ripped apart limb by limb.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Note: a fetus cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation. It simply lacks the neural pathways needed to experience pain.

There is a clear standard of responsibility toward a living, already born child - hence if a child suddenly disappears from your neighbor's house, you have a moral responsibility to investigate.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 12:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

In that case, you produce the child, proving that you did not murder it, and there is no offense to your human dignity. Or, you produce a death certificate which should have already been provided to the authorities.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 12:17:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

You get a death certificate by going before the authorities, so the authorities are involved in this traumatic event.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 12:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

you are effectively asking parents to obtain a death certificate for every lost pregnancy when you know as many as 40% of pregnancies occur and end so early that mothers may not even be aware of them.

If you want to have a debate about dignified enforcement, I'm willing to have it, but you have to give me something to work with.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 12:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

I'm saying that we have to treat human beings like human beings. I don't claim that enforcement/regulation is a simple matter - it's an incredibly complex matter - but that does not license us to treat human beings like property. As of right now there is a sub-class of human beings that is treated as disposable waste, and that is unacceptable. I'm certainly open to possible solutions, but the inhumane treatment of human beings is the root problem from my POV.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Even if I shared your point of view, I would not think it a greater good to pursue a policy of attempting to discern the cause and intent of every pregnancy that doesn't result in a live birth. Those messy consequences are also about treating people without dignity or value. And in much greater proportion.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 03:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

so then you agree that women who have abortions should, in most cases except for rape and incest, be sent to prison for first degree, premeditated murder. And anyone who helps them get an abortion should be sentenced for accessory to murder.

If you really believe that abortion is murder and that life begins at conception and fetuses have rights, then you have to believe all of that too, since it's not like bands of rogue doctors go prowling the streets searching for women whose pregnancies they can forcibly abort.

so, what kind of sentencing do you recommend? here in PA, first degree, premeditated murder is the death penalty or life in prison.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

The only pertinent question in this regard is if they murdered a human being - if the answer is yes then rest follows, and if not then there's nothing to consider. I believe that a human being is, indeed, murdered in abortion, therefore the rest follows, no different than if they had killed their toddler or teenager.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

well, at least you're honest about it.
fior the record, that policy hasn't worked out so well in nicaragua or el salvador.

and what happens to the children the woman chose to have previously? orphanage? ward of the state?

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Ward of the state - much like the no-ask drop offs at fire stations today. Elections haven't worked out so well in Nicaragua or El Salvador either, so that may or may not apply here - although our black box elections are quickly approaching a laughable of credibility...

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

and what of the people who aid the woman? say her sister drives her to the clinic: that's accessory to murder, right?

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

The same laws apply across the board - say her sister drove her to the lake to drown her teenager. That would be accessory, yes.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Oh, for pete's sake Oscar. Wards of the state?? I work with kids in foster care. We're swamped. No one wants these kids as it is. Now you're going to add thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands more?

That's unworkable and you know it. So you'd be willing to make thousands of kids essentially orphans rather than give their mothers autonomy over their own bodies.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Are you suggesting that we kill each of those unwanted kids in foster care?

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Yes, exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Geez.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

That, ultimately, is the point: it seems barbaric to even mention the thought of killing kids in foster care - and it is barbaric - but it is no less barbaric to kill kids in utero.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Unless you don't consider fetuses under a certain gestational age to be kids. Which many of us don't. That's the whole point.

And if you're going to outright ban abortion, at least have the intellectual honestly to admit there are consequences that have tremendous impact to already living individuals that make it as bad or worse than the ending of an early pregnancy could ever be.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 02:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Maybe this resonates with me because it wasn't too long ago that a lot of people didn't consider those who look like me to be fully human either. I have no problem admitting that there are downstream consequences to eliminating abortion - that's one reason why I'm a Democrat, I believe we have a responsibility to address these issues collectively - but those consequences do not justify us treating human beings like property.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 02:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Oh, you meant what happens to her other children if she gets sent to prison. They would be accounted for the same way that the children of any woman who gets sent to prison are cared for - nearest relative or foster care.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

So how far would you take your belief? If a woman smokes or does dope or exercises the wrong way should she be prosecuted for child abuse? If a fetus dies after a couple weeks and that spontaneous abortion can be theorized to connect with less than optimal behavior by the mother, is she prosecuted for murder or negligent homicide? Should it be illegal to use fetal cells for research without their permission -- is stem cell research the same as what happened at Tuskegee?

All of that and more follows from your basic premise. Which, sorry, but I find ridiculous. The bitter division it promotes ends up trivializing profound questions about the nature of life and reducing them to brainless slogans.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 02:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

Flip each of those questions: if a woman blows her child shotguns would she be prosecuted for child abuse? If the child dies and turns out to be malnourished or vitamin deficient, even if that wasn't the proximate cause of the death, would that mother be charged? Can you use a child's cells without their (parents') consent? Is human experimentation ethical?

You're right, all of that does indeed follow from my premise that we are dealing with human beings. I refuse to get into slogans and platitudes because this is indeed a complex issue, but I do assert the full humanity of the unborn - there is no other point where they ontologically "become" human beings.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 03:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

And you refuse to answer a single question. Do you or do you not accept that the examples I gave follow inevitably from your premise? Are you willing to openly campaign for their enforcement or not?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Wed Mar 10th, 2010 at 02:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quote (none / 0)

I said yes, you're right, all of that does indeed follow from my premise that we are dealing with human beings. As for campaigning for their enforcement, I address that here.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Thu Mar 11th, 2010 at 06:05:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SHHHH! (none / 0)

And you think he's come full circle now?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:04:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SHHHH! (none / 0)

So holding out for single-payer waivers for states (other than Hawaii, which has it grandfathered in) is really cover for walking the Stupak line?

For these people, what is the problem with the Nelson amendment? Stupak has been absolutely lying about what his amendment does.

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

by TarheelDem on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SHHHH! (none / 0)

I don't believe anything that weasel says. He isn't holding out for anything. He's just grandstanding. I bet less than 20% of his supporters would agree with him casting the deciding vote against health care reform. Maybe a lot less.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SHHHH! (none / 0)

Catholics I know don't give a crap about what bishops think. If their parents get one of those weekly papers they look for the movies the church condemns and then go to them.

by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:16:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

I think the most likely way out of this conundrum is to whittle down the Stupak group to a smaller number, and persuade some recalcitrant Blue-Dogs and progressives to switch to "yes" votes.

But just for fun, consider this scenario:

Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al promise Stupack an up-down vote on a third bill just on abortion. Although Stupack could never get 60 votes in the Senate on a pure-abortion bill, he might be able to get 50; for the GOP would be hard-pressed to oppose that particular bill.

So, that raises the following questions:

(1) How many Democrats in the Senate would vote in favor of Stupack language in a stand-alone bill?
(2) Would any senators refuse to permit an up-down vote (i.e., no filibuster) on such a bill?

by gideon on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:26:43 AM EST

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

which Democratic senators would vote for a stand-alone Stupak Amendment? Nelson and Casey would, for sure. Lincoln and Landrieu are possibilities. It would certainly be filibustered.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Are we sure that it would be filibustered?

In ordinary times, I know there are at least a dozen Democrats who would do so, but aren't they the same people most interested in getting the health care bill passed?

Again, this is just an intellectual exercise; I'm sure the easier path is to flip some of the prior "no" votes in the House, without recourse to a complicated abortion-bill.

by gideon on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:51:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

I can't see unanimous support for Stupak in the Senate.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:10:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

i wouldn't bet on that from casey.
he's pro-life, but in response to whether he'd support the stupak amendment, he wasn't enthusiastic: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/13/casey-stupak/

Senator Casey has been a vocal supporter of health care reform and voted for the HELP Committee bill in July. He supports the public option to increase competition and reduce costs. And he is offering amendments to improve health care for children. Senator Casey thinks that health care reform should not be used to change longstanding policies regarding federal financing of abortion which has been in place since 1976.

nelson, on the other hand, is a member of the American taliban. you get the impression he'd be happier to keep the wimmenfolk from book-learnin'.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 01:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Single Issue Party (none / 0)

If you are to the right of Ben Nelson on abortion rights, you really ought to reconsider your party affiliation.

Really?

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 09:46:41 AM EST

Re: Single Issue Party (none / 0)

Oscar, I love you, but if you are willing to sink health care reform because the Nelson Amendment isn't good enough then, yeah, there are some compatibility problems.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cuts Both Ways (none / 0)

Sink health care? No. But considering abortion to be murder ("right of Ben Nelson...") being justification for expulsion from the party seems kind of silly to me. After all, you can flip it the other way - are you willing to sink health care reform because of a fidelity to your position on abortion? Would you be willing to compromise your position on abortion in order to get health care reform done?

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cuts Both Ways (none / 1)

I'm surprised you even have to ask that. I am supporting the bill, am I not? Do you think the bill's abortion language (Nelson or Stupak) doesn't represent a deeply painful concession for me?

And I don't know if Nelson considers abortion to be murder exactly, but he thinks it ought to be against the law. He must have a reason for that.

by BooMan on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:24:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cuts Both Ways (none / 0)

That's all that I'm saying - there's going to be a diversity of opinion on abortion (and everything else) in the party.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cuts Both Ways (none / 0)

No, I don't have to support Democrats who don't support my rights.

by Rachel Q on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 02:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cuts Both Ways (none / 0)

You most certainly do not have to support all Democrats - we all have issues that are make or break for us - but you can't expel someone from the party because they don't conform to your position on one issue.

Well, actually, you can - it's just that the party will become relatively irrelevant rather quickly.

I'm finally getting married...

by Oscar In Louisville on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 03:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cuts Both Ways (none / 0)

Of course you can. You can expel followers of Fred Phelps, for example. At some point you have to put principle over short-term election tactics.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Wed Mar 10th, 2010 at 02:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Stupak can have a rhetorical victory by announcing that leadership has agreed that the govt won't be paying for abortions and that nothing in the bill makes it easier to get an abortion.

If he keeps pushing, start looking at Stupak's revenue streams. It'll mean he's killing the healthcare legislation and using his religion as a cover.

Detestable.

by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:18:50 AM EST

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Has the pro-life Democratic faction in congress given any thought to what happens if they are single handedly responsible for killing health care, the Democrats signature issue? What if we get all the Democrats on board, the progessives, and the blue dogs, and they kill it? I don't know about others in congress, but I would be angry. I would have no interest in compromising with them on anything, and would look for any opportunity to stick it to them, beginning with letting Hyde expire, using a filibuster if necessary.

by ricktaylor on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:12:14 AM EST

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Why hasn't anyone recruited a credible primary opponent against Stupak? That's one candidate I'd donate to.

by Rachel Q on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 02:19:17 PM EST

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

And there is! TPMDC reports that Connie Saltonstall, a former county commissioner, is in the process of collecting signatures.

Prior to Bush 43 I never paid attention to abortion and thought it was a settled issue. My attitude changed with the Supreme Court. :)

by Rachel Q on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 10:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Won't solve much. Here's my friend's take on this primary:

it won't work. There's a reason why Stupak was elected in the first place. He's perfect for his district, both stylistically and ideologically.
Primarying him won't solve the problem, anyway. The problem was never the Stupak amendment itself; it was how unexpected it was. Stupak is a Pro-life Catholic activist's best friend: He's a mainstream Democrat on every single issue...except abortion. In fact, he's a far-right lunatic on abortion. That's why he was so dangerous. We weren't ready for it. So a primary challenge won't solve the problem. C-Street will just find someone else: Zack Space, Marcy Kaptur, Stephen Lynch, the list goes on and on.
So the solution isn't primarying him. We just have to be better prepared for this in the future. You need to understand districts and their representatives well enough to see the problems that might arise in advance. Then you can take necessary action. It's hard, and I don't know exactly how something like that can be streamlined into an easy message for activists, but I think that will be the only way.

by seabe on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion and Health Care (none / 0)

Hard for me to see that someone trying to throw an abortion wrench into the health care debate was an unexpected development. It was going to happen. Stupak was the man who carried the water.

I don't know how his district lines up in terms of abortion opinion... if Democrats there are strongly pro-life then this won't go anywhere.

His opponent is going to have a lot of national support if she's credible, though.

by Rachel Q on Tue Mar 9th, 2010 at 11:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Abortion and Health Care | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

The roots of the bubble and the story of Wall Street's collapse can be told no clearer — nor with as much humor — as by Michael Lewis. If you read only one book that explains the current economic crisis, make it The Big Short.
:

"The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
by Michael Lewis

Check out the new biography of Barack Obama that is getting rave reviews:

The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama
David Remnick.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile