TW: Conservative Catholic dogma had a big week. First they were by far the largest funder against gay marriage in Maine and prevailed in their quest to stop the "evil" of gay marriage. And now they (along with their allies from the Southern Baptists amongst others) wield their power to help keep abortion funding out of the public option. It is a free country so they have every right to do so. Does not mean I have to like it. If one is wealthy, like in so many other ways, one has many choices. If one is amidst the working poor and middle class, one succumbs to the whims of others.
From Ezra Klein:
"The final compromises before a bill comes to the floor are never very pretty. This one, however, is worse than I anticipated. Opposition from anti-abortion Democrats, driven in large part by aggressive activism from the Catholic Church, forced Democratic leadership to allow a vote on Bart Stupak's amendment limiting elective abortion coverage from both private and public insurers on the exchange. It reads:
The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure.
Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.
The amendment is expected to pass with relative ease. Republicans will join with anti-choice Democrats to push it over the finish line. Once the amendment passes, the bill is cleared for a vote, and all parties expect that vote to succeed. Today looks likely to end with a historic, and important, vote. A vote that is a first step towards helping more than 30 million people secure health-care coverage, and making sure hundreds of millions are better protected from the vagaries of the insurance industry. But Stupak's amendment is a bitter start. It is, however, not the end. Even if it muscles into the House bill, it will also have to pass in the Senate, and then survive conference, before it becomes law."
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Human Animal Hybrid...Scary? Not So Much
TW: This is one of those issues that superficially sounds concerning but when peeled back a bit is not. Conservatives are pushing to ban "human-animal" hybrid research. Why would anyone want to blend the two? Upon review there are legitimate reasons- to accelerate research to save human lives, not to build Frankensteins.
Not surprisingly I suppose the same conservatives who oppose abortions and things like stem cell research in almost all circumstances are continuing their self-defined pursuit of "human dignity" to seek the abolition of hybrid research in the U.S.
From The Hill:
" Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to ban the creation of human-animal hybrids.
Led by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), 19 Republicans and 1 Democrat introduced a bill yesterday that would prevent U.S. researchers from developing embryos that use both human and animal material, a controversial practice underway in the UK.
..."What was once only science fiction is now becoming a reality, and we need to ensure that experimentation and subsequent ramifications do not outpace ethical discussion and societal decisions," Brown said last year when he introduced similar legislation. "History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person."
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/10/republicans-introduce-bill-to-ban-human-animal-hybrids/
From Science Daily:
"Two research groups in the United Kingdom have been given permission to use hybrid human-animal embryos in research which aims to lead to the development of new therapies for debilitating human conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and stroke.
... We initially applied for approval to use cow eggs as a means to understand the way they can convert skin cells into embryonic stem cells. Finding better ways to make human embryonic stem cells is the long term objective of our work and understanding reprogramming is central to this."
"Cow eggs seem to be every bit as good at doing this job as human eggs so it makes sense to use them since they are much more readily available but it is important to stress that we will only use them as a scientific tool and we need not worry about cells derived from them ever being used to treat human diseases," he said.
Until now, work on the development of therapeutic cloning has used human eggs from consenting IVF patients but these are in short supply. Animal eggs are considered to be a viable alternative for research to understand more about how cells behave..."
Not surprisingly I suppose the same conservatives who oppose abortions and things like stem cell research in almost all circumstances are continuing their self-defined pursuit of "human dignity" to seek the abolition of hybrid research in the U.S.
From The Hill:
" Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to ban the creation of human-animal hybrids.
Led by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), 19 Republicans and 1 Democrat introduced a bill yesterday that would prevent U.S. researchers from developing embryos that use both human and animal material, a controversial practice underway in the UK.
..."What was once only science fiction is now becoming a reality, and we need to ensure that experimentation and subsequent ramifications do not outpace ethical discussion and societal decisions," Brown said last year when he introduced similar legislation. "History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person."
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/10/republicans-introduce-bill-to-ban-human-animal-hybrids/
From Science Daily:
"Two research groups in the United Kingdom have been given permission to use hybrid human-animal embryos in research which aims to lead to the development of new therapies for debilitating human conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and stroke.
... We initially applied for approval to use cow eggs as a means to understand the way they can convert skin cells into embryonic stem cells. Finding better ways to make human embryonic stem cells is the long term objective of our work and understanding reprogramming is central to this."
"Cow eggs seem to be every bit as good at doing this job as human eggs so it makes sense to use them since they are much more readily available but it is important to stress that we will only use them as a scientific tool and we need not worry about cells derived from them ever being used to treat human diseases," he said.
Until now, work on the development of therapeutic cloning has used human eggs from consenting IVF patients but these are in short supply. Animal eggs are considered to be a viable alternative for research to understand more about how cells behave..."
Please Keep Abortion Out Of Health Care Reform
TW: This is an issue about which I had not thought at all. But I suspect it will become a real problem for health care reform (as if more were needed). Abortion funding- to include it or not. The solution I would think would be to let current funding parameters in place. Unfortunately it appears continuing the "status quo" will be technically challenging and I strongly suspect anti-choice interests will seek to use health care reform as a means by which to further restrict funding. I hate the abortion issue it is a cancer upon American society.
From Karen Tumulty at Time:
"Should government-subsidized health coverage pay for abortion procedures? For more than three decades, that question had seemed pretty much settled. The Hyde Amendment, passed by the House on Sept., 30, 1976, forbade Medicaid — a program for poor people, jointly administered by Washington and the states, which had, up till then, paid for about 300,000 abortions a year — from using any federal money to pay for the procedure. All but 17 states followed suit, banning use of their own funds as well; with a few modifications, the ban has stood up ever since.
The prospect of sweeping health reform, however, has reopened the issue. While current versions of the legislation do not address the abortion issue at all, late last month, 19 antiabortion Democrats in the House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning that they "cannot support any health-care-reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health-insurance plan."
...Indeed, the abortion question is just one of a myriad of tricky questions that will emerge from the fine print as the health debate moves forward. Democratic leaders say, for example, that they are already prepared to accede to Republican demands that illegal immigrants be excluded from the plan. But other issues, such as abortion, are going to be far more difficult to navigate.
If an explicit ban on abortion coverage were imposed, say sources involved in writing the legislation on Capitol Hill, it could have much further-reaching implications than the Hyde Amendment ever did. It could, in fact, have the effect of denying abortion coverage to women who now receive it under their private insurance plans. Nearly 90% of insurers cover abortion procedures, according to a 2002 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization whose statistics are relied upon by both sides of the abortion debate.
Under the legislation being worked on by three committees in the House, Americans earning up to 400% of the poverty level — $43,000 for an individual; $88,000 for a family of four — would be eligible for government subsidies to help them purchase coverage. But if the antiabortion legislators get their way, those subsidies would have a big string attached; they could not be used to purchase a policy that has abortion coverage. For many women, that would mean giving up a benefit they now have under their private insurance policies. And it would raise all sorts of other questions if insurers were allowed to discriminate among their customers based on whether or not they are using federal dollars to pay for their policies.
Abortion-rights advocacy groups are pushing back. On July 6, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) released a poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted by the Mellman Group indicating that 71% favor including reproductive services such as birth control and abortion as part of health reform. The poll also found that 75% believe an independent commission should determine what medical services are covered among the basic benefits offered under health reform. (Congress is also considering giving that power to the Health and Human Services Secretary.) Said NWLC vice president Judy Waxman: "Congress should refrain from practicing medicine and instead let medical professionals determine what health-care services will be included in a benefits package."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1909178,00.html
From Karen Tumulty at Time:
"Should government-subsidized health coverage pay for abortion procedures? For more than three decades, that question had seemed pretty much settled. The Hyde Amendment, passed by the House on Sept., 30, 1976, forbade Medicaid — a program for poor people, jointly administered by Washington and the states, which had, up till then, paid for about 300,000 abortions a year — from using any federal money to pay for the procedure. All but 17 states followed suit, banning use of their own funds as well; with a few modifications, the ban has stood up ever since.
The prospect of sweeping health reform, however, has reopened the issue. While current versions of the legislation do not address the abortion issue at all, late last month, 19 antiabortion Democrats in the House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning that they "cannot support any health-care-reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health-insurance plan."
...Indeed, the abortion question is just one of a myriad of tricky questions that will emerge from the fine print as the health debate moves forward. Democratic leaders say, for example, that they are already prepared to accede to Republican demands that illegal immigrants be excluded from the plan. But other issues, such as abortion, are going to be far more difficult to navigate.
If an explicit ban on abortion coverage were imposed, say sources involved in writing the legislation on Capitol Hill, it could have much further-reaching implications than the Hyde Amendment ever did. It could, in fact, have the effect of denying abortion coverage to women who now receive it under their private insurance plans. Nearly 90% of insurers cover abortion procedures, according to a 2002 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization whose statistics are relied upon by both sides of the abortion debate.
Under the legislation being worked on by three committees in the House, Americans earning up to 400% of the poverty level — $43,000 for an individual; $88,000 for a family of four — would be eligible for government subsidies to help them purchase coverage. But if the antiabortion legislators get their way, those subsidies would have a big string attached; they could not be used to purchase a policy that has abortion coverage. For many women, that would mean giving up a benefit they now have under their private insurance policies. And it would raise all sorts of other questions if insurers were allowed to discriminate among their customers based on whether or not they are using federal dollars to pay for their policies.
Abortion-rights advocacy groups are pushing back. On July 6, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) released a poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted by the Mellman Group indicating that 71% favor including reproductive services such as birth control and abortion as part of health reform. The poll also found that 75% believe an independent commission should determine what medical services are covered among the basic benefits offered under health reform. (Congress is also considering giving that power to the Health and Human Services Secretary.) Said NWLC vice president Judy Waxman: "Congress should refrain from practicing medicine and instead let medical professionals determine what health-care services will be included in a benefits package."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1909178,00.html
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Reproductive Social Issue Continuum
TW: Abortion is a divisive issue, no doubt, with no clear majorities and no readily reconcilable solutions. Issues like stem cell research are controversial but a majority supports the research. Issues like the use of contraceptives and sex education beyond gaga land abstinence propaganda enjoy clear majority support even though loud minorities oppose them on religious grounds.
The challenge for the Republicans is differentiating between the former and the latter. There is a continuum of reproductive and science issues. The Republicans still cannot break loose from some of their core constituents in order to adopt more centrist positions. Folks complained for years about Dems being hamstrung by special interests, the shoe is on the other foot with these issues.
From US News & World Report:
"As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.
Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.
But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan -- even though they support the abortion reduction part -- because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills."
The challenge for the Republicans is differentiating between the former and the latter. There is a continuum of reproductive and science issues. The Republicans still cannot break loose from some of their core constituents in order to adopt more centrist positions. Folks complained for years about Dems being hamstrung by special interests, the shoe is on the other foot with these issues.
From US News & World Report:
"As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.
Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.
But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan -- even though they support the abortion reduction part -- because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills."
Sunday, April 26, 2009
When Mullahs And Bishops Dictate
TW: As you know, I am big on separation of church and state. I am also skeptical of dogmatic moral absolutes and those who seek to impose them on others. I am not sufficiently articulate in religion to get too specific on scriptures etc. but from my view there was a time when a more vanilla, bigger tent form of religion pre-dominated whereby the literal believers and the less confident believers co-existed more or less harmoniously.
The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.
Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".
From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.
...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.
In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.
Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".
From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.
...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.
In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
When "Big Government" Really Intrudes
TW: Anti-abortion groups constantly seek ever greater restrictions on abortion. In this piece, we see Kansans seeking to open the door for doctors to be prosecuted even when they are seeking to protect the life of the mother. To me this is "big" government, where the state is inserting itself in place of the judgment of a doctor. Presumably the anti-abortion groups would argue the state would merely be acting on behalf of the unborn. Therein lies a crux, the mother has rights, the doctor is exerting judgment and rights and the unborn has certain rights or interests as well. The state adjudicates but regardless of the outcome the state is involved.
And if the state's outcome should lead to the rights of the mother and private doctor being subsumed to a state mandated right on the behalf of the unborn, the state will have truly exerted profound power.
Conservatives argue that they are for "small" government but in this case they are advocating a very aggressive intrusion of the state or government into the lives of the mother and patient. We can define big government in many ways but those on the right who claim the mantle of "small" government are from my view wearing blinders when it comes to this and numerous other social and cultural matters.
From LA Times:
"When Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius this week vetoed another in the seemingly unending series of restrictive abortion bills her state's Legislature churns out, it guaranteed that her confirmation as secretary of Health and Human Services would become a battleground in the increasingly nasty campaign being waged against officeholders who are both Catholic and Democratic.
Politics in Kansas has long been poisoned by extremism on both sides of the abortion question. This latest bill is one of a number that Sebelius, who is not a lawyer, has been advised to veto as unconstitutional. The measure would have amended an existing statute on late-term abortions, which Kansas permits after the 21st week of pregnancy only if the mother is at risk of death or severe physical or mental injury. The amendment would have required far more detailed reporting by physicians and would have allowed prosecutors who disagreed with the doctor's judgment to file criminal charges. Husbands who objected to the abortion would have been allowed to file civil suits.
"A physician acting in good faith to save a pregnant woman's life, and using his or her best medical judgment, should not be subject to later criminal prosecution," said Sebelius, explaining why she vetoed the bill. She is a practicing Catholic who personally opposes abortion. She argues, however, that such opposition does not relieve her of a legal obligation to veto legislation she thinks is unconstitutional.
In 2006, Sebelius said: "My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation." The governor contends that other approaches, particularly adoption incentives and better public health programs, are more effective, and she frequently notes that the number of abortions in Kansas has declined 10% during her six years in office..."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
And if the state's outcome should lead to the rights of the mother and private doctor being subsumed to a state mandated right on the behalf of the unborn, the state will have truly exerted profound power.
Conservatives argue that they are for "small" government but in this case they are advocating a very aggressive intrusion of the state or government into the lives of the mother and patient. We can define big government in many ways but those on the right who claim the mantle of "small" government are from my view wearing blinders when it comes to this and numerous other social and cultural matters.
From LA Times:
"When Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius this week vetoed another in the seemingly unending series of restrictive abortion bills her state's Legislature churns out, it guaranteed that her confirmation as secretary of Health and Human Services would become a battleground in the increasingly nasty campaign being waged against officeholders who are both Catholic and Democratic.
Politics in Kansas has long been poisoned by extremism on both sides of the abortion question. This latest bill is one of a number that Sebelius, who is not a lawyer, has been advised to veto as unconstitutional. The measure would have amended an existing statute on late-term abortions, which Kansas permits after the 21st week of pregnancy only if the mother is at risk of death or severe physical or mental injury. The amendment would have required far more detailed reporting by physicians and would have allowed prosecutors who disagreed with the doctor's judgment to file criminal charges. Husbands who objected to the abortion would have been allowed to file civil suits.
"A physician acting in good faith to save a pregnant woman's life, and using his or her best medical judgment, should not be subject to later criminal prosecution," said Sebelius, explaining why she vetoed the bill. She is a practicing Catholic who personally opposes abortion. She argues, however, that such opposition does not relieve her of a legal obligation to veto legislation she thinks is unconstitutional.
In 2006, Sebelius said: "My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation." The governor contends that other approaches, particularly adoption incentives and better public health programs, are more effective, and she frequently notes that the number of abortions in Kansas has declined 10% during her six years in office..."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
That Tenuous Middle Ground On Abortion
TW: No doubt abortion is polarizing. What should not be polarizing are efforts to work toward minimizing abortions. Those of us on the left do so whilst retaining the women's freedom to choose, those on the right not; but minimizing abortions can remain a common goal. I remain convinced that there should be enough common ground between the two groups for significant progress. Both sides "culture war industries" impede the progress, those abiding moral absolutes as well.
From Newsweek:
"How does a democratic, pro-choice president avoid engaging in a culture war? ...White House officials say the president is as determined as ever to encourage the old warriors on all sides to lay down their swords. Forging common ground on reducing abortion and teen pregnancy and supporting maternal and child health is a top priority, says Melody Barnes, Obama's domestic-policy chief. This is why the president revoked the Mexico City rule—which prevented organizations that receive federal funds from providing abortions and abortion counseling abroad
...Since at least 2006, Obama has been talking about "abortion reduction," a holistic approach to pregnancy and parenthood that includes not just legal abortion, but also sex education; access to birth control; good prenatal care and postnatal support; and adoption services. The goal of reducing abortions is, in principle, embraced by many on both sides and is one of the four stated policy goals of the faith-based office.
...On the right, the old guard remains mostly unimpressed...He rescinded the Mexico City policy nicely—still, he rescinded it. He reversed President George W. Bush on stem cells. He initiated a revocation of the "conscience clause," the broad language Bush instated late in his second term that allows health-care workers to refuse to provide services, including abortions and birth-control prescriptions, because of a moral objection. His Health and Human Services pick, Kathleen Sebelius, is a pro-choice Catholic
...On the left, old-style women's groups remain wary of a conciliatory approach. "I tried a common-ground thing in 1979," says Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. It fell apart, she says, over the right's insistence on limiting access to birth control.
..."There's a culture-war industry on both sides," says Joshua DuBois, director of the faith-based office. "What's helpful to the president and to us is a lot of people are weary of that. People are looking for ways out."
...The White House says it is just getting started, and Rachel Laser, who works for the centrist group Third Way and is an advocate for abortion reduction, agrees. She is in regular touch with DuBois and believes a substantive initiative will come. "There's a gravity in this town that pulls people to extremes when they're governing," she says. "Given that gravity, we have to be patient. No one can work miracles." As the hopeful wait, you can almost hear the warriors sharpening their knives."
From Newsweek:
"How does a democratic, pro-choice president avoid engaging in a culture war? ...White House officials say the president is as determined as ever to encourage the old warriors on all sides to lay down their swords. Forging common ground on reducing abortion and teen pregnancy and supporting maternal and child health is a top priority, says Melody Barnes, Obama's domestic-policy chief. This is why the president revoked the Mexico City rule—which prevented organizations that receive federal funds from providing abortions and abortion counseling abroad
...Since at least 2006, Obama has been talking about "abortion reduction," a holistic approach to pregnancy and parenthood that includes not just legal abortion, but also sex education; access to birth control; good prenatal care and postnatal support; and adoption services. The goal of reducing abortions is, in principle, embraced by many on both sides and is one of the four stated policy goals of the faith-based office.
...On the right, the old guard remains mostly unimpressed...He rescinded the Mexico City policy nicely—still, he rescinded it. He reversed President George W. Bush on stem cells. He initiated a revocation of the "conscience clause," the broad language Bush instated late in his second term that allows health-care workers to refuse to provide services, including abortions and birth-control prescriptions, because of a moral objection. His Health and Human Services pick, Kathleen Sebelius, is a pro-choice Catholic
...On the left, old-style women's groups remain wary of a conciliatory approach. "I tried a common-ground thing in 1979," says Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. It fell apart, she says, over the right's insistence on limiting access to birth control.
..."There's a culture-war industry on both sides," says Joshua DuBois, director of the faith-based office. "What's helpful to the president and to us is a lot of people are weary of that. People are looking for ways out."
...The White House says it is just getting started, and Rachel Laser, who works for the centrist group Third Way and is an advocate for abortion reduction, agrees. She is in regular touch with DuBois and believes a substantive initiative will come. "There's a gravity in this town that pulls people to extremes when they're governing," she says. "Given that gravity, we have to be patient. No one can work miracles." As the hopeful wait, you can almost hear the warriors sharpening their knives."
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
TW: Not the most civil debate (O'Donnell tends to get excited) but some good perspectives nevertheless. I always find separation of church and state issues compelling (if one is ever faced with difficulty separating the two then I would say you have a problem as they should be quite separable). And those who seek moral absolutes tend to end up pretzelly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)