in his highly recommended diary, Booman23 writes
his just reminds me how pathetically conservative my country is, even with 60 Democratic senators and 258 members of the House.
But it not your country that is conservative. It is that too many members of the Democratic caucus are either more conservative than the nation (and in many cases their districts) or are simply too cowardly to step up and lead.
And I am talking about abortion rights. It depends upon how the question is asked. If phrased as allowing abortion to be legal in cases of rape or in the HEALTH of the woman is in jeopardy, there is strong support for abortion across the country. And if the argument were presented in that fashion by people willing to step up and LEAD, the case could readily be made for including payment for abortion probably even under publicly financed health care.
Which raises a serious issue:
Since passage of the Hyde amendment, we have had increasingly a situation that abortion for any reason is available only to those who are wealthier, or who are fortunate enough to have an employee or union-funded health care plan which would cover the procedure. Even if the current Supreme Court might disagree (and it would, as so often, come down to Anthony Kennedy), one can make the case that such discrimination is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
I think the case is easier to make than most people realize. Except many people might be afraid of the possible blowback against women in the military. But phrase it this way:
If a uniformed soldier/sailor/airman/marine were to be captured and raped by an enemy - and remember, rape has been a tool of oppression used by many militaries - would we insist on her carrying that foetus to term, and if not, should not the termination of that pregnancy be covered by her military health care? Once we can get agreement on that point, it is the nose of the camel under the tent, and the start of undercutting the Hyde amendment.
Put it as bluntly as possible. Perhaps it is a variant of the Bernie Shaw question to Michael Dukakis in the 1988 debate. YOUR daughter or wife is raped and is pregnant. Will you allow an abortion? What if you or she cannot afford it out of pocket?
Health should include mental health, not separating it from physical health. If a woman has been violated, why should she be required to continue to suffer injury and damage for the next 9+ months?
Acknowledge that there are always cases of rights in conflict. We have that in deciding when speech can be restricted, for example.
And also point out that the great religions are not uniform in their approach. In the 20th Century the Catholic Church took the position that the foetus must be saved even at the cost of the life of the mother, while Judaism took the viewpoint that until some part of the baby had come out of the womb the life of the mother took priority. And historically, at the time of the Constitution - for those who want to argue original intent, there were few if any restrictions on abortion, and the early laws, starting in the 1820s, only began forbidding abortions after the 4th month.
Yes, it is true that bh the beginning of the 20th century, the nation had moved very much in the direction of eliminating all abortions, led in large part by the American Medical Association. Yet that organization no longer supports a total ban.
Women's health has too often been demeaned - we saw that such is still the case in th remarks by Pete Sessions. The vast majority of women want access to abortion, even as they would seek to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Which is also why the vast majority of women want open access to contraception, something some so-called "conservatives" and "family values" types oppose.
I am not suggesting that this should be the primary issue before us at all times. I am suggesting that when properly presented, this is an issue on which there is strong support from women and more than majority support around the nation.
Sometimes political figures need to lead. They need to reach out and educate and motivate the people.
I apologize for the rambling nature of this. But I do not accept the frame that Martin offered: this country is NOT that conservative. We have seen that all summer in polling on the public option. We have seen it in the desire of people to have the government intervene to save the economy, in the strong desire to have regulation and even retribution on the financial (mis)management by major banks and financial firms. Those are not conservative attitudes.
And most people want the government to butt out of their private lives. Republicans try to manipulate this with talk about so-called "death panels" and trying to convince the public that the health care bill will put the government between you and your doctor, even as unregulated insurance companies are already far more intrusive.
This nation is a center to center-left nation, when people are willing to speak up for the issues that matter to people. We saw that in 2008, very clearly.
Speaking up on issues that matter. That includes the health of women. Which has to include birth control and ending dangerous (mentally as well as physically) and forced pregnancies.
I felt that I must respond after reading that line in Booman's diary.
Do with this what you will.
Peace.