I'm pleased to bring you a new voice today in the form of The Daily Blank's first guest blogger. The post below was written by Ken Whitaker (know to many of you as KGWhit). Given the passage of the health care reform bill last night, it is very timely.
d'blank
********************************************
T. R. Reid has an interesting column in the March 14 Washington Post. Of the industrialized nations, the United States is by far the most religious. The number of regular church goers dwarfs the western European Nations.
Yet despite our religious zeal, we have a higher abortion rate than any of the rich democracies. The reason for the lower abortion rates is attributed to universal health coverage. In those countries if a girl is sexually active, she can go to see a physician at no or little cost and get birth control at no cost. She can, if she chooses, carry the baby to term and not worry about the cost. Many young women in the US almost never see a Doctor because they can’t afford it. It is also cheaper to obtain an abortion than to deliver a baby.
You would think with the strong anti-abortion movement in many of the churches in this country that there would be an outcry for universal health care. You want to lower the abortion rate, provide cost free health care to young women. Yet the evangelical churches and the anti-choice movement have been almost silent on the health care debate except for a demand that there be no funding of abortions.
The logical question is why? Germany has only 37% of the abortions per thousand women as the US. Why, if universal health care helps to lower the number of abortions, are the right to life movement and the churches not actively campaigning to create a universal health care system here?
There is no doubt that most of the people who are against legal abortion are so from a heartfelt believe that it is wrong. Yet the leaders of that movement seem to either have turned a blind eye to the impact on abortions of universal health coverage or have only a political agenda.
It is easy to think that the leaders of the right to life movement are more concerned about the politics of abortion than actually lowering the abortion rate. Could it be that because a Godless Socialist is advocating a change in health care that the knee jerk reaction is to be against it or are they just ignorant of the facts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Like most everything in politics, there are many sides to issues, some of which are true. Duplicity is the essence of politics.
A few years ago I had a patient who told me she worked for a private company which compiled medical statistics for NYC. I asked her about abortions and birth rates. She told me that the number of abortions performed in NYC exceeded the birth rate. I concluded 2 things from this. A lot of people were having unsafe sex, indicating a failure of education. And, the politics of free abortions probably had to do with bartering for votes. Shameful.
Pretzel logic from T.R. Reid and mindless naivete from KGwhit. At $7.95 per dozen, Trojans are affordable to ANYONE.
If your concern is sincere, adopt an unwed mother and her offspring.
Too big a sacrifice?
Then STOP asking others to pay for your false charity.
The anti-abortion crowd continues to be played for suckers by the Republicans. They will never outlaw abortions because it will cost them too much politically. Most of you probably know people, as I do, who are firmly pro-life but more liberal in other areas, and who currently base their vote more often than not on the candidate's position on abortion.
The day that abortion is made illegal again is the day all those folks would be free to vote based on their other priorities. The Republicans can't afford to lose them, so it will never happen.
Talk about mindless!! I fail to see where T.R. Ried's and by extention KGwhit's logic is in any way pretzel-like.
A portion of the pro-life crowd has been described as "concerned with life from conception to birth" and not after. This is essentially true. The right wing in this country are more than willing to take federal subsidies of all types including farm subsidies, oil depletion allowances, and a myriad of tax credits -- not to mention medicare. But for some reason, bring up the notion of universal health care and words like "socialism", "market forces", and "government take over" start to percolate to the surface. What a bunch of hypocrits. It's high time they get exposed as the political opportunists they are.
Charity indeed!
Anon,
As a woman friend said to me at a party, if birth control were fool proof, we would be a family of four not five.
We don't have the highest infant mortality rate and the highest abortion rate because women have too much access to health care.
Congresswoman Kaptur of Ohio acknowledged that the bill would allow women without insurance to have their babies and help lower the number of abortions.
Then again, as a veteran, I don't need to worry...I have socialized medicine at the VA hospital if I need it.
Hell yeah, pretzel logic.
Health care and pregnancy are two separate issues. Statistics do not alter that truth.
Pregnancy - like obesity, alcoholism and drug dependance - is a choice.
Unprepared to raise a child? Easy fix. Don't have sex.
Those unable to control their appetites, sexual or otherwise, are not ill. What do they deserve?
"Concerned with life from conception to birth" -- yes, as the unborn are utterly defenseless.
Farm subsidies, oil depletion allowances and other myriad tax credits? For Conagra, Exxon. Please tell me where I can apply - I'd like some tax relief.
You statists stand on other men's legs. So indolent. Disgusting.
(I had to re-edit so I resubmitted this)
"Pregnancy - like obesity, alcoholism and drug dependance - is a choice." Just say no! That worked.
I think we all share some of your cynicism. This legislation is an attempt at heath insurance. It is not about health. Just because our government and large numbers of Americans are dysfunctional, special interests are pulling strings, and demagogues and populists are grinding axes/pushing their agenda, it doesn't preclude trying to solve some crucial problems which have not been addressed as well face the moral obligation in an attempt to be our brother's keeper.
This bill is only a start. It attempts to solve some problems but will create many, however, it will evolve in different directions. Unfortunately, it is an earthquake rather than a moving van. For now, there is a surfeit of fault and blame to go around. Hang on for the aftershocks, if in fact it passes.
Let us not lump everyone under one label. The congresswoman who insisted that no abortions be paid for is a democrat from PA, not a member of the GOP.
I am not sure what "prezel logic" means but it sounds true to me.
"Those unable to control their appetites, sexual or otherwise, are not ill. What do they deserve?"
Even if we could not care at all about the person who was so weak as to have sex when she couldn't afford to, should we also treat her baby the same way.
We can throw the irresponsible mother on the junk heap of life, but why do you jeapordize the life of the baby?
Abortion and health care are separate issues. Abortion looks like something other than health care when viewed from the fetus's perspective. Abortion rates are influenced by many factors other than the availability of health care. Religion, social customs, legal restrictions and availabilty of abortion facilities can affect rates. If a woman can find and afford an abortion clinic she should be able to do the same for a prenatal care clinic. Look at the abortion rates(% of pregnancies,2006) of these countries Cuba-34.1%, Sweden-25.4%, USA-22.6%, Canada-22.1% and Mexico-0.7%. The availability of universal health care cannnot be the reason for those rates. I am not opposed to abortion but I do not buy the argument that lack of universal health care is the main cause of high abortion rates. There must be other reasons why American women choose abortion.
Anonymous, you non-statists crack me up. Rugged individualists, don't need help from anybody. Made it all on your own. So you don't drive on the roads? Fly out of airports? Depend on inspectors to keep your food (relatively) safe? Living off the electrical grid?
Having the government keep the insurance companies from screwing us seems like a good idea to a lot of us. Don't think we need that. Here is a quote from a friend of mine:
"Cost of group health insurance when employed: $150/month Cost of private insurance with same insurer after COBRA runs out: DENIED due to pre-existing condition. Cost of health care reform - priceless."
This person was a software engineer at the same company for nearly 20 years before being let go. She has bicycled across the U.S. twice. After losing her job she has enrolled in nursing school. Nobody's idea of a slacker, but a great example of why we needed this bill as a start to guaranteeing health care for all.
Post a Comment