From National Review Online:
The Great Quandary
Enough.
What was good was that the resources of the entire nation, so it seemed, could be aroused with only the end in mind of sparing — more accurately, prolonging — a single life. It was left only to mobilize the Seventh Fleet to level a thousand guns on the doctors engaged in removing the tubes from Terri Schiavo. Not since 6-year old Elian Gonzalez was ordered by the courts to return to Cuba, there to submit to a lifetime of servitude under Fidel Castro Inc., had there been such a mobilization of public sentiment.
What broke the back of the Free Elian movement was a social convention: deferral to the wishes of the father. He wanted Elian home, and traveled to Florida to pick him up after an eristic judicial storm — which ended with the simple daybreak that the future of a child is to be decided by his parents.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, orderly thought would have led us to believe that her treatment was the next of kin's to decide. But human concern for Mrs. Schiavo interposed qualifiers: The husband had attached himself to another woman, by whom another family had begun. This suggested a diluted moral, though not legal, authority of the husband. Then the father and the mother of the stricken girl argued to keep her alive — to keep her pulse beating. Terri is not, repeat not, brain dead, though she is unable to communicate. Meanwhile the courts of Florida were guided, or seemed to be, by precedents which treated as relevant only the absence of a living will by Mrs. Schiavo, and the legal recognition of her husband as head of the family. The two considerations estopped any movement by the courts to assume authority, as though she belonged to them.
Those many who pleaded to continue the patient's life emphasized the theoretical possibility of a cure, or a rehabilitation of sorts. On this point her parents argued most tenaciously. They released, over the weekend, tapes made of their afflicted daughter, which could be interpreted as showing Terri to be responding to stimuli of various kinds.
But the world was looking at a woman whose immobilizing heart attack happened fifteen years ago. An anonymous doctor declared flatly that she had a flat EEG — electroencephalogram, the brain wave test.
But the political impulse was heartening, even if the hopes voiced were falsetto science. What caused the political commotion was the sense that we were presiding over an execution. Terri Schiavo remained "alive," until we stopped feeding her. Then she began a fall through a trapdoor descending toward death. She was being committed to a death of an agonizing kind, surely? One that began with the removal of the tubes, and would continue until starvation and dehydration brought on the end of the heartbeat.
Some years ago, in a forum on euthanasia, my guest was the Reverend Robert L. Barry, who had studied the subject extensively. Father Barry argued that the deprivation of food and water brings on physical pain whatever else the human condition.
Was the court system in Florida, then, acquiescing in death by pain for Mrs. Schiavo? A doctor consulted by one television analyst brushed aside the question, in language not readily transcribed by a layman. He seemed to be saying that Mrs. Schiavo would not suffer pain as the term is commonly understood.
But that question was not directly accosted by the judge, who said only that Terri's rights had not been abrogated. It was unseemly for critics to compare her end with that of victims of the Nazi regime. There was never a more industrious inquiry, than in the Schiavo case, into the matter of rights formal and inchoate. It is simply wrong, whatever is felt about the eventual abandonment of her by her husband, to use the killing language. She was kept alive for fifteen years, underwent a hundred medical ministrations, all of them in service of an abstraction, which was that she wanted to stay alive. There are laws against force-feeding, and no one will know whether, if she had had the means to convey her will in the matter, she too would have said, Enough.
The Republican party is not made of up conservatives... The fiscal policies of the party in it's current for are by and large diametrically opposed to those of the deficit hawks like Barry Goldwater.
The social side of the party has been taken over by the evangelical movement, who seem to insist apon placing their view of God over any institution of government.
The Republican claimed under Bill Clinton that the federal government had become tyranical... Bill and Hillary Clinton were called communists.
There was the outrage of Waco... "The federal government was trying to take away our guns," cried the right.
There was the assalt weapons ban... "They've come for our guns!"
There was the Health Care reform... "They want to socialize medicine! There are limits to what the governemnt can and should do," cried those on the right.
There was the intervention in Bosnia... "Wag the Dog, Wag the Dog! Don't you know we cannot be the world's policeman," cried those on the right.
Big government is fine to the new Republican Party, as long it is serving what they want it to serve.
There was the time when Clinton attempted to kill Osama Bin Laden... "Wag the Dog! Wag the Dog! He's trying to take attention away from his immorality... Monica Lewinski! Monika Lewinski!"
The Patriot Act... Who could imagine that those who cried tyrrany after Waco, would be so supportive of the patriot act?
Who thought that the party which we hear so often complain about the federal court's activism and their tyranny, would be so quick to grandstand in such a dispicable way, intervening in a single case by passing legislation to change the jurisdiction from state court to federal court, all the while doing nothing to actually protect the life of the person about whom they claim to be so concerned.
The Evangelical Christians in this country are the sword that is swung by the republicans when engaged in electoral combat. The politicians who wished to climb the political ladder and gain power and influence for themseleves have learned what they need to say to make sure evangelicals will get out to the ballot box.
Abortion is trumpet that is blown to make sure that Republican voters show to the polls, from the most local office all the way to the White House.
But, in reality, the Republican Party has been playing a game with the believers. What they fail to tell their voters in every campaign, is the truth on these issues.
Like for instance, when Harry Ried became Senate minority leader, the GOP put out a list of talking points about him that included the following:
Reid’s Mixed Messages On Abortion:
Reid: “[I] Clearly Oppose Abortion.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/5/04)
“Sen. Harry M. Reid (D), A Poker-Faced Lawyer And Former Lieutenant Governor Of Nevada, Has Strong Feelings About The District Of Columbia. The City’s Abortion Policy Was Too Liberal, Says Reid, A Mormon, And Its Gay Rights Law Is Too Radical.” (Eric Pianin, “District Budget Squall May Signal Winds Of Change On Capitol Hill,” The Washington Post, 10/9/88)
“Reid Hasn’t Been Exactly Full-Throated In Opposition To Abortion. His Press Secretary, Tessa Hafen, Says He ‘Has Spoken Out’ Often, But She Cites Only His December 5 Appearance On Meet The Press.” (Fred Barnes, Op-Ed, “When Harry Met Roe,” The Weekly Standard, 12/27/04)
When Discussing Abortion, Reid Proudly Boasted Of His Relationship With Pro-Abortion Leader Barbara Boxer (D-CA). “Oddly, while talking about abortion, Reid said Senator Barbara Boxer of California is the closest thing he’s ever had to a sister. Boxer is passionately pro-abortion. I think the only fair verdict on Reid as a pro-life spokesman is that he isn’t one.” (Fred Barnes, Op-Ed, “When Harry Met Roe,” The Weekly Standard, 12/27/04)
Reid Proud Of Working Relationship With Former NARAL President Kate Michelman. “‘One of the calls I had today was from someone I care a great deal about, [former NARAL president] Kate Michelman,’ [Reid] said. ‘We worked well together and she is someone I have a great deal of affection for. Kate Michelman is not worried, so I don’t think anyone else should,’ he said.” (Mark Preston and Paul Kane, “Republicans Revel In Historic Gains,” Roll Call, 11/4/04)
Reid Voted Initially For A Substitute Bill That Would Have “Gutted” The Partial Birth Abortion Ban. (Fred Barnes, Op-Ed, “When Harry Met Roe,” The Weekly Standard, 12/27/04; S. 1692, CQ Vote #335: Motion Agreed To 61-38: R 50-3; D 10-35; I 1-0, 10/20/99, Reid Voted Nay; S. 3, CQ Vote #46: Approved 60-38: R 47-4; D 12-34; I 1-0, 3/12/03, Reid Voted Nay)
Reid Supported Legislation Watering Down The Laci Peterson Law. (H.R. 1997, CQ Vote #61: Rejected 49-50: R 4-47; D 44-3; I 1-0, 3/25/04, Reid Voted Yea)
Reid Voted To Overturn Reinstatement Of Mexico City Policy, Which Bars Funds From Being Given To Overseas Organizations That Perform Or Promote Abortions. (S. 925, CQ Vote #267: Rejected 43-53: R 42-9; D 1-43; I 0-1, 7/9/03, Reid Voted Nay)
“When Reid Ran For Democratic Leader, Neither NARAL Nor Planned Parenthood Voiced A Peep Of Opposition. And WeNews, An Online Publication For Women, Concluded Reid’s Ascension Wouldn’t Affect The Strong Pro-Abortion Position Of Senate Democrats.” (Fred Barnes, Op-Ed, “When Harry Met Roe,” The Weekly Standard, 12/27/04)
Reid Sponsored NARAL-Favored Legislation. “Prior to the March for Women’s Lives, U.S. Senator Harry Reid co-sponsored and introduced the ‘Putting Prevention First Act’ – bi-partisan legislation aimed at increasing federal spending on women’s health, family planning, and contraception.” (NARAL Website, www.prochoiceamerica.org , Accessed 1/24/05)
National Right To Life (NRLC) Legislative Director Douglas Johnson Highlighted Reid’s Pro-Choice Views. “The news media has labeled Reid as pro-life, but for years he has usually voted against the pro-life side on the most important votes … Indeed, in recent years Reid has played a key role in obstructing both pro-life legislation and judicial nominees, and I expect he will attempt to continue doing so.” (National Right To Life Committee, “Pro-Life Movement Faces Opportunities, Challenges In New Congress,” Press Release, 1/3/05)
There are only 2 possibilities for the Culture of Life they have been promising since Reagan ran in 1980:
Option 1:
Republican politicians simply do not have the power, the authority, or the mechanism to end abortion. They have been infering a promise they are simply unable to honor. Abortion is here to stay and any move to make it otherwise is futile..
If this is correct, then the GOP is simply manipulating the religious beliefs of an entire section of our population. The Republican party is making people believe that with enough hope and enough rallies, then the horror of abortion will be erradicated. This if this scenario is true, than the abortion debate is merely a willful distraction for the masses. Religion is the opiate of the people indeed.
Option 2:
The Republican Party is more than capabale of legislating an end to abortion, but do not have an interest in doing so.
Why would they risk the loss of the singular issue that has made so many people loyal Republicans. Do you think that the voters are republicans because they favor an economic model that favors the rich? Do you think it's because they believe in cuts to Medicade and Medicare? Do you think its because they believe interests of Big Oil, the Pharmacutical industry, the Insurance Companies, and Wall Street should all come before abortion?
The only legislation of any signifigance in the last 25 years related to abortion was the ban on so called "Partial Birth Abortion." They managed to ban a procedure that is almost never performed anyway. That's the way to go after it guys!
The Republican Party would not end abortion if they could, because they need the issue to drive people of faith to the polls.
What is it that people of faith are getting in return for maintaing a Republican majority in the House and Senate over the last 12 years? What have they recieved for ensurinng 8 years of a Bush presidency?
They have seen themselves losing their health care. They have seen themselves have to pay over 2 dollars for a gallon of gas. They have seen the cost of medication skyrocket. They have seen the largest expansion of government ever. They have seen the largest deficits ever. They have seen the economy get harder for the working poor and easier for the ultra wealthy.
But don't fret, guys. They will get around to abortion someday.
-The Oklahoma Hippy
No comments:
Post a Comment