There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.

The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats’ concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House’s version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.

The goal is to limit women’s access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn’t have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.

At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself…but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I’m starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this…and I’m also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak’s logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.

It’s Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we’re done here it’s entirely possible that you’ll see Stupak’s logic in a whole new light. So let’s go back a moment and reconsider what Stupak wants: his religious beliefs are offended by the concept of abortion, and he is taking steps to ensure that the government is not using his taxpayer dollars to pay for the procedure.

This precedent is fascinating—and what I’m inviting you to do today is to consider, for a moment, what our government might look like if we take his logic and…extend it a bit.

“…In the game of life, the house edge is called Time. In whatever we do, Nature charges us for doing it in the currency of time…”
--Bob Stupak, Yes, You Can Win!

I always try to find common ground with those I oppose, and the most logical place to start would be to consider the fact that Stupak and I are both morally offended by the idea that we use taxpayer dollars to go around killing people.

So where do we differ?

For starters, I find it morally offensive that my taxpayer dollars are used, on a daily basis, to fund the actual killing of actual, living, people by my Government…so, Congressman Stupak, in the name of finding common ground, how about if the same day your Amendment goes into effect we also stop funding any military activities that might reasonably be expected to, as I hear people say, “stop a beating heart”, so as to prevent offending my religious sensibilities?

John Allen Muhammad, the so-called “Washington Sniper”, is scheduled to be executed today. Are you prepared to support legislation, Congressman Stupak, which will prevent his “post-term abortion” and the potential abortions of all those other human lives on Death Rows around this country if those state-sponsored abortions are as much of an affront to my religious beliefs as they should be to yours?

During the more or less four months worth of slow-walking and stalling that we have seen so far in this process 15,000 Americans have died…or, if you prefer, five 9/11s…simply because they have no health insurance—and unless your religion is a lot more bloodthirsty than mine, the abortions of 15,000 people because of the…what’s the word I’m looking for here…let’s see…could it be…sloth…of your colleagues should be an act as reprehensible as the greatest of blasphemies ever recorded in The Bible.

With that in mind, are you prepared to join me in cutting off the use of my taxpayer dollars to fund the salaries, the “public option” health care, and the office operations of those legislators who are behind these killings?

What else do we do that’s aborting lives on a daily basis that I’m sure Congressman Stupak would be glad to allow me, as a result of the offense to my conscience (and, presumably, his), to “negatively fund with extreme prejudice”?

There’s that Drug War, of course, and whatever we're doing in those secret prisons—and public ones—and subsidies for those who clear mountains and poison lands…not to mention the tax dollars I’ve been providing for a company who did electrical work that’s aborting soldiers.

So whaddaya think, Congressman Stupak?

Since you’re so proud of your pro-life credentials, are you ready to stand up with me and defend the principle that all human lives deserve to be protected, and that we have the right to withhold funding for all those activities that are morally repugnant…or are you just another one of those “enablers” who helped kill 15,000 people this past few months?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Share/Save
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not comparable


It is absurd to compare an abortion to an execution of a convicted criminal. You are saying let's kill the innocent, but save the guilty. The aborted human did nothing to deserve the death penalty. The convicted murderer did commit a crime and deserves to be punished.
When it comes to the three exceptions in the ban on abortion funding, rape, incest, or the life of the mother, has anyone ever heard of the rapist being caught or the incestuous person being charged accordingly? When it comes to the life of the mother, do you really trust an abortion doctor to be ethical when it comes to claiming the mother's life was in danger. Her life is more in danger just having the procedure. There are botched abortions going on now.

Not guilty


Ed, the point is "all life"

The fact is the killing of guilty people by the state offends MY religious sensibilities. I do not make a convenient distinction that suits my politics. Let's get down with a nation that is prodded by money (or the shortage of money) to find solutions other than death. I find it difficult to feel anything is settled with Stupak's partial solution; I want it all.

i'll say the same thing...


...i said in an earlier comment: even if you are able to find a justification for killing "the guilty", we're seeing an additional problem with capital punishment...we're killing not just the guilty--but the innocent as well, as we are learning from newly available dna testing.

i have no problem with making a compromise with death penalty supporters that allows executions in cases where there is absolutely no possibility of doubt, but there's no way that i can continue to support a system that occasionally kills those who did nothing wrong--and that's the system we have today.

 

 

actually...


...the comparison is entirely apt.

if it is your belief that all life is worthy of protection, then that means all life, including the lives of those that, i gather, you do not hold as dear as "all lives are sacred" would suggest.

executions most assuredly stop beating hearts, and the idea that the taking of some lives is ok, but not others, is really where the reasoning behind the anti-choice movement begins to fall flat for me.

you have suggested that there is some secret cabal of abortion doctors who sit around and falsify medical charts so as to enable their butchery, or something similar.

really?

do you have some sort of evidence that might back that up?

now i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure that if authorities in kansas, or oklahoma, or some other states i can think of could prove such things, they would be doing it, as quickly as possible, even if it required wiretapping or some sort of "sting" operation.

as for whose life is in danger during what procedures...the national institutes of health reports that the odds of dying during:

--a surgical abortion are one in a million,

--a drug-induced abortion, one in 100,000,

--full-term childbirth, one in 10,000.

in other words, you are up to 100 times more likely to die giving birth than ending a pregnancy through abortion.

here's the source:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1785176/

while we're on the subject, there is also the problem of botched births...and the problem of what happens to women who have so safe way to get abortions.

in tanzania, roughly one in 1,000 die in childbirth--and the cause of a significant number of those deaths is the fact that safe abortions aren't available, as they are in developed countries.

here's the source for that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/health/24birth.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

so let's sum up where we are so far...

--if you believe that all life is precious in the eyes of the lord...well, life is life, and that includes the lives of both the innocent--and the guilty.

--there is no evidence that i'm aware of that would support your contention that doctors are committing some sort of abortion fraud, and i invite you to offer any substantiation for this that you might have.

--giving birth is far more dangerous than any abortion procedure...and not having access to abortions is even more dangerous than that.

...and then let's end with a final thought.

i get the impression that you are informed on this question by your religious beliefs, which is fine for you, and, thanks to the constitution, just as american as can be.

but i, and millions of others in this country, don't share your religious feelings, which is also just as american as can be--which leads to the obvious two questions:

isn't the government supposed to be free of religious influence?

why do the rest of us have to be guided by your religious beliefs if we don't want to be?

 

Really?


You need to figure out if you are being smart-alecky or serious here. If you're serious, then you have to take abortion rights opponents' position seriously, and while you're right that the most honest pro-life position would protect all life, guilty or innocent, from destruction, it nevertheless is not inconsistent to say you support the protection of "innocent" life, which in many abortion opponents' view doen not include the life of a convicted serial murderer. (Why then do you use that example, when our tax dollars obviously fund the killing of many truly innocent lives around the world every day? Conviction on murder charges is a legitimate reason, given the right moral outlook, to say that a particular life doesn't deserve protection, as much as we may disagree with that view. Simply not being an American cannot be. So why not point to the innocent Afghans and Pakistanis our tax dollars kill rather than a convicted murderer? Odd.)

So then we have to think about what policy agreement we would have to demand under an agreement that no tax dollars go to destroy "innocent" life. Well, in the case of innocent deaths in war, we would essentially have to enlist the support of supporters of Stupak/Hyde approaches to abortion non-funding in a comittment to end U.S. prosecution of war, period (as all war involves the killing of innocent life using taxpayer dollars.) Fair enough, so we enlist those supporters in that agreement in exchange for our support of the Stupak amendment and similar efforts in the future. then we have to ask ourselves, given the numbers of those whose support for these propositions (no war in exchange for pro-Stupak) we have gained, how likely that each of these policie are actually enacted. If I am not mistaken, the agreement would result in a certainty that the Stupak amendment would become law, while I'd hazard that those whose health-care votes depend on Stupak language being present would not tip the U.S. Congress into passing a law outlawing the waging of war using taxpayer dollars.

So I ask again, are you being serious or merely cute? You would really make a deal allowing Stupak to become law in exchange for a commitment by Stupak supporters to outlaw war, which could and would be vetoed by the president?

Rather than entertaining increasingly fanciful notions about making deals to trade away the protection of the full range of women's vital health care options, rather, if we support that imperative, we simply need to stand up and say at this time that the restriction of access to those options for women who can least afford such government intervention into the relationship between them and their doctors cannot be part of a health bill in the 21st century.

so here's the thing...


...i was being smart-alecky when i wrote the original posting, which is why i used the "snark", "humor", and "satire" tags when putting the story together.

now as to the question of...

"So why not point to the innocent Afghans and Pakistanis our tax dollars kill rather than a convicted murderer? Odd."

...you may recall this, from the original story:

"For starters, I find it morally offensive that my taxpayer dollars are used, on a daily basis, to fund the actual killing of actual, living, people by my Government…so, Congressman Stupak, in the name of finding common ground, how about if the same day your Amendment goes into effect we also stop funding any military activities that might reasonably be expected to, as I hear people say, “stop a beating heart”, so as to prevent offending my religious sensibilities?"

but that said, ed did make serious points, which did deserve a serious answer.

he (and you) have cited, in a positive way, the concept of killing the guilty while sparing the innocent, but i do not subscribe to such a concept--unless, of course, we really are defending ourselves, which is obviously not the case in iraq, and probably no longer the case in afghanistan.

now we could have an entire conversation about how life without parole is a better choice than the death penalty, which i did in june; but to put it simply, with the number of errors in the criminal justice system (read: the innocence project) i'm simply not enthused with the idea with trusting our governments, state and federal, to make decisions about whom to kill based on who might be innocent or guilty.

so there you go: i was being smart-alecky, but since ed had real questions i wanted to offer him real answers, and i am not at all enthusiastic about killing people "in my name", for any reason.

 

Stupak goes to far


I have long been willing to accept a health care reform bill would not cover abortion, in exchange for real health care reform. The federal government hasn't been able to fund abortions since the 70's, and I wasn't expecting that to change. However, the Stupak amendment goes way too far in restricting abortion in PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS.

This link explains a little better than I can, in bullet point number 1. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/09/stupak-amendment-jessica/

the moralist in me agrees with you...


...the pragmatist in me will be ok if this thing disappears in committee...and the cynic in me will be impressed if this was all intended to create sufficient public anger so as to guarantee that abortion rights, in the end, are protected.

we have to keep the pressure on...


...and asking the congressman a few embarrassing questions would be a good way to do that.

Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Kachingle!

Regular Reader? - Support Uppity Wisconsin and other sites with Kachingle! Spend $5/month across your favorite web sites, including Uppity Wisconsin. Mouse over above to find out more.

Uppity Fund
Tom Barrett (WI-Gov) $
Russ Feingold (WI-Sen) $
Paulette Garin (WI-01) $
Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) $
Gwen Moore (WI-04) $
David Obey (WI-07) $
Steve Kagen (WI-08) $
Pat Kreitlow (WI-SD-23) $
Kathleen Vinehout (WI-SD-31) $
Kristen Dexter (WI-HD-68) $
Jeff Smith (WI-HD-93) $
Recent comments