Posted with the kind permission of Kevin Moore. Click on the cartoon to see it bigger, and to see Kevin’s commentary and links.
In addition to Kevin’s comments, I’d point out this post by Ezra, pointing out that (by the weird definition of “subsidize” conservatives are suddenly using), Stupak “did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.”
And read as well this piece, pointing out that by the Bishop’s definition of federal funding, the enormous support the Federal government pays to Catholic hospitals and charities must be a subsidization of religion, and is presumably unconstitutional.
I really like this cartoon.
Really good work, Kevin.
I don’t get the point of the cartoon. Does Kevin think that everyone who wants an abortion is a slut?
Edit:
I looked at his commentary.
They’re not. Neither the wording nor the meaning of any law regarding the right of a woman to have an abortion is changed by this legislation.
“Lizard brain of patriarchy”? There’s a fascinating image. Pure fantasy, of course.
Abortion is primarily a choice, not a medical necessity. Absent a threat to the mother’s health the desire for an abortion is based on economic and social reasons. I hope you won’t dispute that a pregnancy CAN result from irresponsible behavior. Of course, it can also result even if the couple involved took all reasonable precautions with regards to birth control. But regardless of whether it was due to irresponsible behavior or not it generally results from voluntary behavior. I can’t see any reason why people who wish to exercise a right (either to have sex or to have an abortion) are entitled to have someone else pay for it.
the enormous support the Federal government pays to Catholic hospitals and charities must be a subsidization of religion, and is presumably unconstitutional.
The Constitution forbids the State from creating an established religion – from making one particular religion the official State religion. If the subsidy is available to all religions I don’t see how it’s unconstitutional. There are hospitals run by the Lutherans, etc., and I suppose they get federal support as well.
If public support to all religious organizations irregardless of denomination or religion was unconstitutional I should suppose that by now someone would have successfully challenged the exemption from State and local property taxes that they hold.
RonF – as all xtians know if you need an abortion – U R a Slut!!! They know that because it says so righttttt…. well actually it does really say that here but we all know it!!!! ;-}
Anyone who thinks we are NOT a JCI-nation (Jew-Christian-Islamic) try running for office as an atheist!!! No need to wish you luck – cuz you will lose!!
Rather then use all the nasty descriptors I use for the JCIs I’ll just say they do a good job making morons look intelligent. Since the buyBull does not forbid abortion and documents thousands of forced abortions, it is just they hatred and self-hatred of women sex that makes them put these restrictions into any rules they can. It is only when power is protected somewhat by the lack of voting, i.e. supreme court judge, that someone of intelligence can get opposing views into law – Roe vs Wade.
So long as the decisions are voted on or pressured by voters the JCI will usually win.
As far as ‘belief’ is concerned there is no fundamental differences in the JCI- (Jew-Christian-Islamic) religions as they are all based on the old testament. Thus a bunch of self-hating bigots, who take it out on everyone.
CybrgnX, please don’t use ablest terms like “morons.”
And I know a lot of religious people — including folks in the “big 3” — who aren’t “self-hating bigots.” (Including some who post comments here on “Alas,” who I’d prefer you treat with respect).
In general, please try to be nicer and use a less broad brush when participating in the “Alas” comments. Thanks.
Thanks, Barry!
RonF: If it’s a right, then we shouldn’t prevent people from exercising it. Denying the financial means to procure a medical service (necessary or not, that tends to be up the woman to decide) in effect denies the exercise of that right for millions of poor women. And puts basic rights (it pertaining to their bodies, reproductive rights are pretty basic for women) on a caste system basis.
As for the “responsibility” argument – people make mistakes, and yes, have to pay for them one way or the other. There is nothing lighthearted or nonchalant about having an abortion. I don’t see the need to be punitively parsimonious about it.
I can’t see any reason why people who wish to exercise a right (either to have sex or to have an abortion) are entitled to have someone else pay for it.
I understand that you’re opposed to this whole health care scheme, but would you actually apply this logic to any other medical decision? I go skiing and break my leg. Why should someone else pay for it? I made the decision to go skiing. I smoke and I get lung cancer. Why should someone else pay for it? Your answer might well be no, they shouldn’t, but again, why single out abortion as the one thing that is so beyond the pale we shouldn’t pay for it through the same means we are going to use to pay for every other medical need, regardless of what actions led up to it. As long as abortion is a legal medical procedure, why should it be treated differently?
Absent a threat to the mother’s health the desire for an abortion is based on economic and social reasons.
Or desire not to have a baby. Or not to have a baby right now.
But regardless of whether it was due to irresponsible behavior or not it generally results from voluntary behavior.
That depends on what you mean by “generally” and “voluntary.” Greater than 50% of abortions probably occur because of birth control failure (including failure to use) during consentual sex. However, a significant minority are the result of rape or incest. And I seem to remember Amp posting about a study demonstrating that abusive men sometimes sabatoge their partners’ birth control in order to control them. So the sex might have been consentual but deceptive conditions set (i.e. the woman assumed that her partner didn’t poke a hole in the condom before putting it on or replace her birth control pills with sugar pills, etc.)
If it’s a right, then we shouldn’t prevent people from exercising it. Denying the financial means to procure a medical service (necessary or not, that tends to be up the woman to decide) in effect denies the exercise of that right for millions of poor women.
For most rights we expect people to pay for themselves. You have a right to bear arms, but not a right to a government-paid gun.
We often decide that for whatever reason a right is so important as to require fostering by subsidy from the rest of us. We think the right to counsel is so important that we’ll pay for it, even for people we think committed terrible crimes. There are probably other examples, that’s the one that leaps to mind. I suspect that many abortion rights supporters feel abortion is such an issue as well, but for most Americans, abortion does not seem like the kind of thing that should be subsidized.
Most Americans are at least somewhat pro-choice, in that they want abortion to be legal and an available choice, but they are also mostly at least somewhat pro-life, in that they want abortion to be the last choice made.
Erections are a choice, not a medical necessity. But I can only imagine the howling that would ensue if we went after the infamous blue pill.
What is darkly ironic to me is that all the people I’ve heard wringing their hands about “subsidized abortions” are the same people who raised the spectre of the dreaded “welfare mother”. This hasn’t come up for any other elective medical procedure. It’s just hatred against women.
Look, let’s just cut straight to the chase:
Let’s punish sick people.
And, I note, at no time did I get to say “I disagree with the war in Iraq, the bailout of Bear Sterns, all the money paid to Halliburton ever, GitMo, and the enormous salary G.W.B. drew just for standing around remembering to breathe through his nose 80% of the time while other people ran this country into the ground, so my money can’t go to any of those things.”
There is no line item veto for how your tax dollars are spent. Except, apparently, when it comes to abortion.
First, I don’t get why everyone is in an uproar over the Stupak Amendment – to the best of my knowlege, the federal government has always refused to pay for abortions, so this is a continuation of a policy that has been in place since Roe v Wade.
Secondly, as for funding to religious-based hospitals, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not a violation of church and state, since the hospitals accept patients of any, all or no relgion.
We’re not.
No. Not true. My refusal to provide you with the means to exercise a right is not equivalent to denying you the exercise of that right. YOU are responsible for obtaining the resources YOU need to exercise a right. Nobody else.
The minute you take money from me to do something I have a right to be involved in the decision as to what you’re using it for and why. You want to be able to compel me to give you money on a “no strings attached” basis. No way. If you want my nose out of your decisions then don’t try to take the money from me to fund them. How does the Federal govenment compel the States to do things? By threatening to cut off Federal funds unless they do them.
Castes are classifications imposed by a social structure that are based on your ancestry and that you cannot change. A person’s rights in America are not based on birth – all are created equal. The fact that one is poor does not create an entitlement to someone else’s money. There’s lots of goods and services that only people with money can afford. That doesn’t mean people are entitled to them.
Reproductive rights are pretty basic for everyone, not just women. And so are property rights.
A broken leg or a cancerous lung is a medical problem. In those instances where an abortion truly is a medical decision – where the mother’s life is endangered if she attempts to give birth – then the usual issues that surround how medical procedures are paid for should apply. But if the decision to give birth or not is not a medical decision but is being based on financial, emotional, societial or other factors (with the exception of pregnancy as a result of rape) then no – I see no reason why anyone else should be compelled to pay for it.
Abortion requires the services of a physician to perform it safely. But that doesn’t mean that it’s a medical problem. Breast augmentation requires the services of a physician to perform safely as well, but I wouldn’t call it a medical problem.
And don’t forget – to a great many people’s minds abortion doesn’t just involve a given woman’s body. It also involves the body of what would more than likely become another living human being. So this is not something that you can compare to a broken leg or a cancerous lung – or even a breast whose size it’s owner finds unsatisfactory.
A line item veto is when the legislature passes a law and the executive authority gets to modify it by vetoing parts of the law while signing off on other parts. That’s not what’s going on here. The decision to deny federal payment for abortions was made by the legislature, not the executive.
Sure you did. But you got outvoted. And here you got to say “I think that the Federal government should use taxpayers’ money to pay for abortions.” But, once again, you got outvoted.
the enormous salary G.W.B drew
Are you kidding? $400,000 for being President of the United States is enormous? Sorry, but in my view it’s ridiculously low.
So if the broken leg isn’t endangering a life, according to your logic, the public should pay no part of the procedure to repair it.
Here is what I don’t understand: Why all the crying about “having to subsidize” abortions when subsidizing pregnancies, pregnancy-related complications and childbirths will be so much more expensive? You aren’t paying for my abortion? Great, now pay for 9 months of prenatal care, childbirth, postnatal care, and of course, my child’s medical expenses. Sometimes I am left wondering if anti-choicers actually know how pregnancy works.
The amendment also suffers from a problem of definitions. Is a D&C performed after a miscarriage occurs an “abortion” within the meaning of the amendment? The dead fetus may, of course, be allowed to “pass” out of the woman’s body on its own, but the presence of dead tissue in the womb for several weeks and the constant bleeding create the risk of a serious infection, which may result in very severe complications. Does that satisfy the “threat to life” exception under the amendment. You CAN die from an infection, you know. Must the woman be denied surgical intervention and just be given antibiotics? Why? In hopes that the dead fetus will spring back to life or to punish the woman for being pregnant in the first place? Anyone with a passing knowledge of medicine knows such a course of treatment makes no sense (you have to remove the source of the infection, duh), and in the case of ANY infection, the physician must do BOTH — remove the source and administer a course of antibiotics. Should the dead fetus be left festering in the woman’s body until serious complications actually develop? How does that make any medical sense or save taxpayers money? What about all the medical malpractice litigation that this will generate? Once again, we have the problem of policy being made by people who (1) have never been pregnant; (2) did not bother to seek the opinion of anyone who HAS been pregnant; (3) did not bother to seek the opinion of anyone who regularly performs medical services for people who are pregnant. And these folks legislate medicine.
In those instances where an abortion truly is a medical decision – where the mother’s life is endangered if she attempts to give birth – then the usual issues that surround how medical procedures are paid for should apply.
Is it? And who decides whether the pregnancy is endangering the mother’s life enough? Any pregnancy is life threatening: completing the average pregnancy results in death 14 times in 100,000. Doesn’t sound like much, but that’s the average risk. What about someone with a risk of 10X average? Does 140 in 100,000 (0.14%) “justify” a federally funded abortion? A 1% risk? 10%? Guaranteed death only?
BTW: Personal experience: having to tell a woman that the desperately wanted pregnancy she is carrying is likely to kill her sucks big time. But not as bad as telling a partner or husband that his partner or wife died from the pregnancy he caused.
So if the broken leg isn’t endangering a life, according to your logic, the public should pay no part of the procedure to repair it.
Good point. Relatively few broken legs are actually life threatening. Especially in an environment where we don’t need to run from predators so often. So the patient limps for the rest of his/her life. Why should my taxes pay for that? Exceptions made for open fractures which may result in sepsis, of course.
To take Ron’s logic further, there should be no public subsidies for any medical care except that which immediately or in the very near future saves a life. As a result, Medicare & Medicaid need to stop paying for PCP (I love that acronym so, so much) visits, vaccinations, physical therapy and most prescription drugs.
Abortion is always a medical decision.
Carrying a baby to term increases the chance of maternal death nearly 10 times over aborting it. And that’s just death. We’re not talking about the myriad other health issues pregnancy raises.
Lol (or, rather, lolsob) at “emotional” being put in opposition to “medical” as types-of-reasons-to-decide-to-abort-or-not.
We all know emotions and medicine don’t have anything to do with each other! After all, emotions aren’t related to chemicals physically present in your body, which is why there’s no such field as psychiatry, and within this non-existent psychiatry, there’s especially no such things as mood disorders, or emotional triggers for mental illness, or reasons why stress is bad for you, oh, and also why I don’t know anybody who’s been institutionalized twice, first for nervous breakdown and then postpartum delusions, after being coerced into giving birth.
Except, y’know, that there is and I do.
Cynicalromantic: The reason “medical” and “emotional” are put into opposition are because men don’t have emotions. Since men are the default “psychiatry” is not a real branch of medicine. (Pure snark here, sorry.) Of course that’s the main reason we’re having this discussion. If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn’t be an issue.
If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn’t be an issue.
Maybe…I suspect that what you’d get if men could become pregnant is a lot of rhetoric from the post-menopausal (men and women) about how irresponsible young people are and how they need to just keep their legs closed if they don’t want babies.
My goodness, I had no idea.
And here I thought I was using a metaphor.
Dianne, somehow, I doubt it. After all, men are supposed to be be fruitful and multiply..
After all, men are supposed to be be fruitful and multiply.
Yeah, because being fruitful and multiplying has no negative health consequences for men. Traditionally, it has a 10% or more chance (pre pregnancy) of killing women and even now in first world societies is still a significant risk. If men also died frequently during reproduction (say, due to orgasms gone bad or something) then they’d be considered “weak” and “emotional” (you get emotional when you’re living on the edge) and all sorts of other “womanly” things too.
Just linking to another blog where folks are concerned with these things -http://www.agonist.org/.
Pingback: Stopping by to say hi « Mom’s Tinfoil Hat