Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Pregnancy: a disease to be prevented

Previously, I authored a piece that was something of a plea to my fellow conservatives: Abortion and Same-sex Marriage: Give it up, already! In it, I wrote:
For no matter what anyone says, an abortion is a medical procedure and it can be justified. Is it a "good thing"? No. But it must be allowed though not encouraged.
And I stand that by that position, with the full understanding that many feel much differently, for very valid and justifiable reasons. But note that I explicitly state abortions are not something to be encouraged, and I mean this in regard to both the government and anyone else. Thus, while I feel that the issue of abortion--along with that of same-sex marriage--should not be front and center on a conservative platform, the idea that abortions might be tagged as some sort of "preventative" measure disturbs me greatly.

Right now, according to Kathleen Sebelius per Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard, "preventative measures" are officially defined so as to include contraceptives, the morning after pill, and actual sterilization. This is a direct consequence of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and there's no reason to suppose that this might be open for discussion.

And this is an idea that I find to be particularly noxious--that pregnancy has been lumped in with disease and sickness as something to be prevented. It's no way to either establish or maintain social cohesion; it would--in my opinion--only serve to fracture society, not benefit it, as it allows a very caustic view of life and living.

Given the fact that ObamaCare would also require almost all religious organizations (outside of small churches) to provide these "preventative measures" to all employees, the recognition of what Sebelius' definition would entail has sparked a great deal of outrage from various religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, as these rules would force the Church to ignore it's own precepts of faith.

Thus in my view, the situation raises distinct Constitutional issues, over and above moral ones that may not be shared by the entire populace. The Constitution--as much as it is intended to prevent religious authorities from exercising political power by virtue of their religious office--was written to insure that there would be freedom of religion, that people could feel confident in the belief that the Federal Government would not attempt to dictate religious practices.

In the back-and-forth of political discussion, common retorts to complaints about the current Administration is that Obama "isn't all the liberal," "certainly is no socialist," or even "is more like a moderate republican." This situation puts a lie to those claims, as Obama has backed Sebelius to the hilt. It reflects the overt goal of remaking the nation--the Constitution be damned--according to a blueprint envisioned by liberal intelligentsia, or as Thomas Sowell calls them, The Anointed. And their modus operandi remains unchanged, even though it was openly articulated by Rahm Emanuel when he said "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Ultimately, issues such as these are likely to be decided in the courts, of course. But when there is fix that will allow the courts to be avoided, it should be actively pursued. In this case, the fix is the repeal of the ObamaCare legislation. And in that respect, it's just more grist for the mill.

Cheers, all.

4 comments:

  1. While I agree that the Catholic Church should have the right to follow it's own precepts of faith, I think they lost the argument in 1887 with the passage of the Edmunds–Tucker Act.

    It's historically interesting, too, that Martin Niemöller mentioned the Catholics in his little missive, even though he was a Protestant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Strangely, the claims that Obama is a centrist come from people who are very decidedly left wing (even not just left of center). I think, it is pretty clear that Obama's first instincts are always those of a lefty. True, he bows down to reality sometimes and gets things through that can get throuhg, but the claim that he is trully a centrist is amusing, imo.
    As for the abortion issue, the claim that it is a "preventive measure" is a direct outgrowth of the whole debate. I am generally pro-choice (though I am not entirely opposed to things like councelling before an abortion), but the inability and unwillingness to understand the other side (and instead label them x, y or z) is simply amazing to me.I don't usually read much on the issue, but a couple of days ago I stumbled on a good piece on the subject
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/06/andrew-rosenthalsabortion-argument/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Edmunds-Tucker was repealed - it was not struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, however, and it was ruled as constitutional before repeal.

    ReplyDelete