Less Than Zero

So a woman goes into an abortion clinic and delivers a baby who is then killed. And the consequences? Well, the doctor may have his license revoked and will need another doctor around when he does this kind of thing in the future. Anyone else feeling a little sick? How would this story end if it started...So a woman goes into a mall and delivers a baby who is then killed. I'm thinking it wouldn't end with just having the mall manager suffer a shadow day with another more responsible mall manager. But then what do I know? I actually think human beings count for something...even if they're unfortunate enough to be caught in a Florida doctor's office.

Andrew Sullivan On My Mind

Reading Andrew Sullivan's blog, I came across this entry about an initiative in Colorado put forth by a group called Colorado for Equal Rights to amend the Constitution to state that,

The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization.

In the post, Mr Sullivan attacks the initiative saying,

Do they have any idea how many such persons die of natural causes in one fertile woman in a year?

Normally I find Mr Sullivan to be very bright and reasonable. And I also get that the very nature of a blog is "real time" so ideas and sentences don't always match up (I can vouch for this personally, every so often I'll reread posts and think, "That's not at all what I was trying to say), so I'm inclined to work with Mr Sullivan here.

However, I humbly submit that I would like to die of natural causes, and I also like having my rights as a person. I'm not really sure why Mr Sullivan holds these ideas as mutually exclusive. There are many ways to debate the merits of this particular bill, but Mr Sullivan badly misses the mark here. I think we can all agree that Mr Sullivan is right, many fetuses die in the womb, no one argues otherwise. I believe this bill is an attempt to stop the artificial ending of a life in the womb. Just like many people die of natural causes everyday, but we still have a law against murder. No one shrugs and says, "Look, people die of natural causes everyday, so a law against murder is just silly. Ha ha, silly people trying to save lives." Not only is his argument bad, it's also aimed at nothing.

Varnished

Saw JUNO a couple of days ago. Did the critics?

"She goes to the local abortion clinic but finds the place disgustingly casual (they hand out flavored condoms), and she decides to carry the baby to term."

"Antenna aquiver for false notes, she checks in at the abortion clinic and doesn't like its casually clinical attitude. So she checks out the alternative press and finds an ad placed by a couple seeking adoption."

"Juno thought about getting an abortion, but couldn't do it—the clinic was too drab, its patients too hopeless, its receptionist too thoughtless . . . she just can't be bothered to stick it out in the most depressing waiting room on earth."

" . . . for reasons that aren't clear to anyone . . . Juno can't terminate the pregnancy."

I'm 100 percent for abortion rights, but the reasons all are clearly in the movie.

When One Head is Better Than 50

Continuing my trek through the Bizzaro World that is the modern two party system, I stumbled upon this quote from allegedly Republican President George Bush regarding how the US should deal with greenhouse gasses.

The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?

Funny, I thought Republican's believed that the Great American Experiment was having 50 states trying 50 things and seeing what works best. Yes, yes McGinty you're probably right. W was trying to help the GOP distance itself from that well known disgrace Ronald Reagan who famously catered to the KKK when he made a speech referencing "States Rights." Whew. Now that the GOP is in danger of losing the White House, I guess it makes sense to try to out Democrat (another slur) the Democrats and get as far as possible from the RR (Granted, some might say that W already took the long walk off that short pier). Talk about two hearts living in just one mind. Just one mind, just one mind. Good to know that the Republic is dead, long live whoever holds the keys to the Federal Offices. Well, unless you're not quite born, then its all about giving the States the right to choose (see below).

Honestly, I have no idea what's the right thing to do with these gasses. For all I know, maybe we need more of them. I mean, isn't everyone always complaining about the lack of gas in America? Maybe W has a crazy solution to both problems. However, if the good people of California want to ignore the mad genius that is W and desire a tougher standard than the national one, I say let 'em. Then we can all see how it works out for them.

Now for some irresistible quick hits.

One, hearing W talk sincerely about the need for effective strategy is like hearing Brittney Spears talk sincerely about the need for effective family values.

Two, isn't W the same guy who says that the best way to handle the abortion issue is to let each state decide what's best for its citizens? Sooooooo, if you're keeping track at home (and if you're reading this blog you probably are, heck right now I'm in my jammies), that means that according to W, the need to protect the environment demands a sound national strategy, while the need to protect unborn children specifically doesn't require a sound national strategy. And I thought Gore was the one who was over the top on Global Warming. Poor Stalin. What to do when your hero W tries to out Gore Gore. Now that's...gory (ohhhhhhh, even I'm embarrassed by that one).

Three, I was trying to find a way to work C&C Music Factory's "Things That Make You Go Hmmm" into this post. But I was honestly embarrassed by the opening verse.

I was at the crib, sittin' by the fireplace
Drinkin' cocoa on the bear skin rug.

This is a rap song mind you, and this guy is boasting about sitting by the fireplace drinking hot chocolate on a bear skin rug. And you thought Barry Manilow songs were gay.

ESPN jumps into Abortion debate.

On vacation but couldn't let this go.

ESPN Anchorman and Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick has introduced legislation that would pay women $500 to not have an abortion and put the baby up for adoption.

First off, I understand Rep Patrick's intentions and motivations. $500 is nothing to save a life. It also puts the onus on the pro-lifers, kind of a put-up or shut-up moment. I don't think there's anything underhanded going on, or that he's trying to be overly clever. If anything, its up-front and straight forward. Well, unless the $500 is meant to be a "gateway" to banning abortion all together. Sort of a "abortion is illegal, but you get $500" plan in the future. I'm just not there yet that that's the plan.

Anyway, I don't like it.

1. It sends a very weird message, and, in essence "values" life at $500. Some lawyer will figure this out and use it in court, either for medical malpractice, product liability, child support, abuse, etc. I'm not saying it will work, but anytime the government sets a "price" standard, it has ripple effects, I'm just trying to figure out what they might be.
   
2. It does touch on the whole "people trade" issue. Only here, the government is the broker. Again, weird.
3. Hugely, hugely expensive, which shouldn't matter, but we talk about money when it comes to health care and education so clearly, "money is no object" isn't the...objective. There's the $500 a pop, but also the cost associated with what to do with the kids next. Bluntly, white babies will go like hot cakes, but minority babies are much harder to place. I didn't see anywhere in Rep Patrick's bill for additional funding for foster care, funds to adoption agencies, or health care.
4. Which leads to, what if you know you're baby will have major medical issues or special needs? You can give the baby up for adoption, get your $500 but the state has a new ward.
   
5. Also on health care, anyone who's ever had a baby will tell you that it costs a whole lot more that $500 to have said baby. Will the state cover all cost's associated with delivery and post partum?
6. I'm sorry, but this bill just isn't very well thought out.
   

Which is why I'm nearly positive this bill was introduced to spur conversation, and not a serious attempt to pass legislation. Call it "discussion legislation." But just in case, I wanted to arm our readers with the above handy guide so they can rule the dinner debate.

CO Abortion Update

Tough day for CO pro-lifers, and I find myself conflicted. While it may surprise most of the H-Blogs readers (that would be two out our three) I'm Pro-Life. As such, I support most laws looking to restrict abortion. Once such bill (Senate bill 143) failed today in the CO senate Judiciary Committee meeting, 4-3 (no big surprise, no way this bill was going to pass, honestly I didn't even bother researching it).

What I did like was that Senate Bill 60, which requires hospitals to inform rape victims of all their options passed unanimously (yes, including abortion). This is somewhat controversial in CO but I strongly support the bill for two reasons. One, every abortion bill contains the "rape or incest" clause, even the "restrictive" one that just failed. Two, and more importantly, abortion is, in fact, legal today. Since it is, I cannot support any measure that would hide a legal remedy from a citizen. So while I'm personally opposed to abortion I support disclosing it as an option to anyone and everyone. I don't like playing games with legal rights and issues. I'm also very against smoking, but I'm also against the advertising ban. Legal products have the right to advertise. These "soft" bans are damaging. Legal is legal. Deal with it or make a strong stand and clearly change the law.

The pharmacist issue briefly mentioned at the end of the article is another one. If you're a pharmacist and your company sells "abortion" drugs, you should have to distribute them. If you don't like it, start your own company or work for one that shares your views. This is like a sales clerk refusing to sell tobacco or alcohol. No dice. If you don't like it, don't take the job.

To summarize, I'm pro-life, but I'm against all these soft measures that create a pseudo pro-life environment. I'm an enigma.