Time.com reports on a new bi-partisan abortion bill working its way
through Washington. Although I would theoretically support finding
any common ground on the issue, I can't say I am anything more than
lukewarm on the bill at hand. Does this indicate that there really
isn't much common ground to occupy?
Anyway, Time's summary on the details of the bill: "Aside from its
support for contraception, none of the new or expanded initiatives it
contains are terribly controversial: A national campaign to teach
parents how to talk to their kids about sex. Efforts to educate the
public about adoption. Home nurse visits for low-income mothers.
Expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage."
A large portion of contraceptives are also abortifacients which would,
in those instances, merely switch the abortion from a reported,
surgical abortion to an unreported, non-surgical one. The expanded
Medicaid coverage might help to tip the balance in favor of life in a
small number of cases, but home visits from nurses? Do elected
representatives really think that there are people out there thinking
they would gladly have a child if only the nurses would come to their
house for a couple of post-natal visits? We have home-visits here in
the UK after birth and I can assure you it's the last thing I thought
about when I first heard the rabbit was late in wonderland.
And then there is the "national campaign to teach parents how to talk
to their kids about sex". It's really a shame that Fed-Ex can't
overnight a letter to the eighteenth century. Wouldn't it be
enlightening to hear what the Founding Fathers would have to say about
that idea? Hmm, should a campaign to teach parents how to talk to
their kids about sex be a federal or a state issue?
"The volume in the abortion debate has been stuck at "rancorous
screaming" for so long that when it gets turned down, it's
disorienting, like walking outside after a rock concert and trying to
hear again. … But regardless of whether their bill succeeds or fails,
the broad array of supporters behind it represents a dramatic break
from nearly four decades of post-Roe politics."
The debate has been stuck at "rancorous screaming" largely because the
Supreme Court decided to curtail the normal democratic process back in
1973. Until that is reversed and the laws brought back into line with
the desires of the population, the debate will largely proceed as it