About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

On Paying For Immoral Things, Or, Is Stupak On To Something?

by: fake consultant

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:20:12 AM EST


There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.

The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.

The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.

At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.

It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.

fake consultant :: On Paying For Immoral Things, Or, Is Stupak On To Something?
So let's go back a moment and reconsider what Stupak wants: his religious beliefs are offended by the concept of abortion, and he is taking steps to ensure that the government is not using his taxpayer dollars to pay for the procedure.

This precedent is fascinating-and what I'm inviting you to do today is to consider, for a moment, what our government might look like if we take his logic and...extend it a bit.

"...In the game of life, the house edge is called Time. In whatever we do, Nature charges us for doing it in the currency of time..."

--Bob Stupak, "Yes, You Can Win!"

I always try to find common ground with those I oppose, and the most logical place to start would be to consider the fact that Stupak and I are both morally offended by the idea that we use taxpayer dollars to go around killing people.

So where do we differ?

For starters, I find it morally offensive that my taxpayer dollars are used, on a daily basis, to fund the actual killing of actual, living, people by my Government...so, Congressman Stupak, in the name of finding common ground, how about if the same day your Amendment goes into effect we also stop funding any military activities that might reasonably be expected to, as I hear people say, "stop a beating heart", so as to prevent offending my religious sensibilities?

John Allen Muhammad, the so-called "Washington Sniper", is scheduled to be executed today. Are you prepared to support legislation, Congressman Stupak, which will prevent his "post-term abortion" and the potential abortions of all those other human lives on Death Rows around this country if those state-sponsored abortions are as much of an affront to my religious beliefs as they should be to yours?

During the more or less four months worth of slow-walking and stalling that we have seen so far in this process 15,000 Americans have died...or, if you prefer, five 9/11s...simply because they have no health insurance-and unless your religion is a lot more bloodthirsty than mine, the abortions of 15,000 people because of the...what's the word I'm looking for here...let's see...could it be...sloth...of your colleagues should be an act as reprehensible as the greatest of blasphemies ever recorded in The Bible.

With that in mind, are you prepared to join me in cutting off the use of my taxpayer dollars to fund the salaries, the "public option" health care, and the office operations of those legislators who are behind these killings?

What else do we do that's aborting lives on a daily basis that I'm sure Congressman Stupak would be glad to allow me, as a result of the offense to my conscience (and, presumably, his), to "negatively fund with extreme prejudice"?

There's that Drug War, of course, and whatever we're doing in those secret prisons-and public ones-and subsidies for those who clear mountains and poison lands...not to mention the tax dollars I've been providing for a company who did electrical work that's aborting soldiers.

So whaddaya think, Congressman Stupak?

Since you're so proud of your pro-life credentials, are you ready to stand up with me and defend the principle that all human lives deserve to be protected, and that we have the right to withhold funding for all those activities that are morally repugnant...or are you just another one of those "enablers" who helped kill 15,000 people this past few months?

Enquiring minds want to know.  

Poll
what would you defund?
a war or two
nuclear power
goat-staring subsidies
the terror-industrial complex
lieberman's "head up butt" program

Results

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
it's a bit snarky... (4.00 / 1)
...but someone had to say it.

--we are making enemies faster than we can kill them

we have a reader... (0.00 / 0)
...who will be attending stupak's town hall tonight, and he's looking for ideas for questions to ask the congressman.

swing by his diary, if you can, and let's see if we can help him out.

--we are making enemies faster than we can kill them


I like where you went with it, but one quibble (4.00 / 4)
is that the Stupak amendment went much further than just saying tax dollars couldn't go for abortion. That's an important distinction.

It's a huge distinction that President Obama gets (0.00 / 0)

when he said that we want to make sure that we are not sneaking in limitations on a woman's right to use private funds to obtain insurance under the guise of health care reform.

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo...

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  


[ Parent ]
in his mind... (0.00 / 0)
...even the money that supports the exchange is a subsidy for abortion--and even at this moment i'm listening to tweety make the same argument.

stupak's logic seems to be that if any money is spent on abortions, and the government subsidizes any part of health care, that's supporting abortions.

--we are making enemies faster than we can kill them


[ Parent ]
I thought: (4.00 / 1)
The public option would be funded with the money paid by the people who have it; not by the taxpayers in general.

Besides, what the stupak amendment really does is make abortions unable to be covered in any insurance plan in the insurance exchange.

So, under the guise of stopping taxpayer dollars from being spent on a legal medical procedure (which wasn't happening in the first place), the stupak amendment will make abortions uncovered in most Americans health insurance.


you seem to have... (0.00 / 0)
...exactly captured the stupak argument--except that the "stupak community" feels that any money spent, even on the venue where the abortion coverage can be obtained, is a subsidy for abortion.

it's kind of like saying that if taxpayer dollars went to provide the sidewalks surrounding the new york stock exchange, then taxpayers are subsidizing the activities inside.

it's a truly bizarre view of the world, but it seems to be where they're going.

--we are making enemies faster than we can kill them


[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox