Pink Floyd, "When the Tigers Broke Free"

This Is How It's Done

What follows is an exchange I had last year with haystack at hickpolitics. The subject was haystack's post, "How Much Would *You* Pay, Per Dead Baby, To Get Healthcare Passed?"

Haystack and I had to agree to disagree, but notice that we had an actual discussion from which I think we both benefited and we made a genuine attempt to try to understand each other. I don't agree with haystack at all, and I still think that he sounds a bit paranoid in this exchange, but I do respect him, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for a lot of right wing blogger types out there, who just seem determined to be complete assholes.

Φ on March 24, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Your arithmetic checks out. The problem is that the health care bill does not use Federal tax dollars for abortion.

As Timothy Noah explains (http://www.slate.com/id/2246905/), any plan available through the health exchange set up by the bill cannot use Federal tax dollars to fund abortions.

The exchanges may have insurance plans available that cover abortion, if the state where the exchange is located allows it. But money used to pay for those abortions must be collected from policyholders and kept separate from any Federal funds.

If you don’t want to contribute to funding abortions, you simply choose an insurance plan in the exchange that does not cover abortion. As Noah points out, “Under the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan.”

It wouldn’t surprise me if Stupak wanted something in exchange for his “Yea” votes. But he’s not sacrificing the unborn to get it.

haystack on March 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm

We disagree. Tax increases charged to all of us will go into the general coffers. Where Fed money is used to offset coverage for folks that don’t have enough (including abortion), we will collectively be paying…ostensibly through having allowed this bill to become law.

Whatever plans we may opt in to or not…the tax money will get redistributed wherever the heck the Fed wants to redistribute it. It’s not as simple as just “opting out” my friend.

Φ on March 24, 2010 at 2:24 pm

All right, fair enough. But perhaps I am missing something. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Federal money will subsidize the purchase of insurance plans that cover abortion. But that’s not the same as subsidizing abortions. As I understand the law, all the money used to cover abortion will be segregated from Federal dollars. Money used to fund abortions must come from the policyholders themselves, not the Federal government.

Now, you seem to believe that the law will be violated and that “the tax money will get redistributed wherever the heck the Fed wants to redistribute it.” Well, why should I believe that? Do we have reason to think that that will happen, especially given the long-established ban on Federal funding of abortion, and the seriousness with which Americans approach this issue? I’m afraid I’m not buying it.

haystack on March 24, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Not sure how you can say this:

“Federal money will subsidize the purchase of insurance plans that cover abortion. But that’s not the same as subsidizing abortions”

Of course is’s the same thing. And separation of dollars? You have much more faith than I about restraint and fiscal management from the Feds. As I said, where policyholders need assistance from the Fed to PAY for their policies, fed dollars-indirectly or not-will be going to pay for those abortions. MY money and yours and everyone else’s will make up those funds for the folks that need our help. I don’t have time to research the numbers for you, but the most likely people to actually HAVE an abortion are the very same folks in the demographic that will be unable to pay for their policies without Federal help-poor are much higher abortion buyers than rich…I think you are aware of that.

I enjoy this exchange…it has made me take a little time and look a few things up in greater detail. I thank you for keeping me honest.

I think one thing we CAN agree on here is that there is something amiss about whether, where, and to what extent the Fed is getting involved in abortion in this context…if that weren’t true, the Stupak amendment would have been put in place, kept in place, and none of this discussion would have been necessary. Here’s the pointer to the text of the Stupak amendment:

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#document/p5

If everything you say is true, this amendment should NEVER have been pulled…after all, as you say here:

“Do we have reason to think that that will happen, especially given the long-established ban on Federal funding of abortion, and the seriousness with which Americans approach this issue?”

Given what we know now about Stupak…I absolutely DO believe Fed. funding of abortion (directly or indirectly) is buried in this mess somewhere. The Executive order, which is not legally binding OR superior to the legislation passed through Congress, will do nothing to prevent it either.

kx59 on March 24, 2010 at 7:06 pm

“If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Federal money will subsidize the purchase of insurance plans that cover abortion. But that’s not the same as subsidizing abortions.”

Really? ‘splain to me how that’s not the same. Does the money somehow become sanitized?

Φ on March 25, 2010 at 10:20 am

As I understand it, policyholders who have insurance plans that cover abortion will all pay $1 per month out of their own pocket to the private insurance company. The company will pool all of this money, and all money that is used to reimburse abortion providers for abortions will be drawn from this pool. It is thought that even the poorest among us can afford $12 per year. That’s how you can subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion without subsidizing abortion.

I also appreciate this exchange, because now you’ve got me thinking. Under this new law, there would be no direct Federal funding of abortion. You haven’t convinced me otherwise. But would taxpayers be funding them indirectly, as you suggest? After all, a person without insurance might not get an abortion. But if taxpayers subsidize their premiums, they might. So, while taxpayers wouldn’t be paying for abortions, they would be making them indirectly possible through the subsidy.

On the other hand, there is reason to believe that making insurance affordable might actually reduce the number of abortions, since pregnant women wouldn’t need to worry about being able to afford medical care for their future child. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html.)

This is a complex issue.

I worry about your argument that the bill will use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, regardless of what it says. Suppose that the Senate had attached a Stupak amendment to it (which they couldn’t since the reconciliation process wouldn’t allow it, but just suppose). Why would that give us any more reason to think that taxpayers wouldn’t be paying for abortions? Both the Senate bill’s language and the Stupak language ban federal funding of abortion. If the bill as it is wouldn’t reassure us, why would the Stupak Amendment? You do say that Federal funding of abortion is buried in there somewhere, so Stupak’s language would be reassuring. But I can’t believe that it’s buried in there until someone shows me the language. The Senate bill has been around since December, so you’d think that someone would have found it by now.

I think that the Senate bill language was the result of politics. They needed to get pro-choice senators on board to pass this thing, and they just couldn’t stomach any Stupaking. but the pro-life Dems couldn’t stomach Federal funding of abortion. So they made a truce and reached a compromise. As it is, the ban on Federal funding of abortion, the Hyde Amendment, is not permanent. It has to be renewed annually. If it is not, then the Senate bill would allow the Federal funding of abortion. By deferring to the Hyde Amendment, they said that they would not fight over abortion in the health care bill. The legality of Federal funding of abortion would be determined by the fate of the Hyde Amendment, not health care reform. I admit that I am speculating a bit here; I don’t have a source. But that’s my guess.

haystack on March 25, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Sheesh-I replied a little while ago and now it’s gone!

I have had the opportunity to finally visit your website, and given what I’ve read there I happily extend a hand of “we disagree, fundamentally, but we can have civil discourse all the same” friendship…it’s nice to see ideological differences aired constructively and without all the shouting and sophmoric namecalling-I respect you for that.

Now, to your latest comment:

You may be right about the Senate bill…I haven’t finished reading it, having given up until the final final final version is released after tonight’s house vote (there are at least 12 iterations out there on Thomas). Until then I will give you a “maybe you are right” but no more…and this is because as the Senate bill was originally debated, pro-choicers were the ones appeased…THEY were against Stupak, and their wishes were granted in the Senate version. There is no ambiguity here on that point. Senate version was pro-choice in its funding schemes, contribution framework, and subsidization infrastructure. Stupak was summarily dismissed in the Senate version sent back to, and forced down the throats of, the House. Granted, that does not automatically mean fed funding is in there…but Stupak was summarily defeated in the Senate version…we just don’t know what the final text was/is.

And, admittedly, this is my recollection of the news stories of the day-I have not gone back to the December headlines to find links to back this up. Either way, though, we both agree the Fed should NOT pay (directly or indirectly) for abortion. At the very least, those of us who are against the practice should not be compelled by Federal law to subsidize it for someone else against our will…I think we agree on this point.

So, I grant that you might be right (until I can read the bill in its entirety) that the Senate would not use Fed. funds for policyholders purchasing an abortion needing to be subsidized by our tax dollars…your own last para, though, should give you as much pause as it does me-if you are even the least bit suspicious, cynical, and doubtful of the Federal Government’s overall intentions:

As it is, the ban on Federal funding of abortion, the Hyde Amendment, is not permanent. It has to be renewed annually. If it is not, then the Senate bill would allow the Federal funding of abortion. By deferring to the Hyde Amendment, they said that they would not fight over abortion in the health care bill. The legality of Federal funding of abortion would be determined by the fate of the Hyde Amendment, not health care reform.

I do not have enough trust in our Political heroes (from either side of the aisle) that, with all these 2000 plus page bills that none of them ever fully read, sooner or later (if not already as we have been discussing) this Hyde thing won’t just disappear and we find ourselves doing the very thing we should not be MADE to do by law.

Don’t forget-GWB, by EO, guaranteed no federal funding of expanded stem cell lines…and EO overturned it almost as soon as he was sworn in.

No trust, my friend…NO trust.

Why Do I Even Bother?

What follows is an exchange I had with ant, one of Lori Ziganto's disciples, at Ziganto's blog. Our comments can be found at the end of "Kermit Gosnell and Roe v. Wade: Something Evil This Way Came." Ant was responding to another intelligent comment written by Molten. And no, Molten and I are not the same person.

I am not proud of how I ended this exchange, but the careful reader will conclude, as I did, that ant is either an idiot or a dick. Since I am charitable, I prefer to think that ant is a dick. An unusually annoying one.

ant January 26, 2011 10:51 pm

Figured you would catch on to sarcasm. You didn’t. According to the femiogynists it is consequence free sex because abortion is not, in their policy, a consequence, merely a hassle, like blowing your nose or having a wart removed.

Nameless January 28, 2011 1:48 am

If completing a pregnancy is “merely a hassle,” then why do some women choose to abort and (allegedly) risk post-abortion syndrome?

ant January 28, 2011 6:32 am

????? Again,work on the reading comprehension skills.

Nameless January 28, 2011 11:42 am

I will charitably interpret your refusal to answer the question as an indication that you are thoughtfully considering it.

ant January 28, 2011 5:45 pm

I said nowhere that pregnancy is merely a hassle. I’m saying pro-choice feminists consider abortion nothing more than an out-patient procedure to remove a parasite, just a hassle, as far as they’re concerned, with no negative consequences.

Nameless January 28, 2011 7:27 pm

I have no idea why you would think that I’m attributing a pro-choice view to you. But I’m willing to try this again, and hopefully you won’t be able to misinterpret me this time.

If women who have abortions consider completing a pregnancy to be “merely a hassle,” then why do they choose to abort and (allegedly) risk post-abortion syndrome, which would presumably be more than a hassle?

If your answer is, “They don’t don’t believe that post-abortion syndrome exists,” then you are conveniently underestimating the reach and effectiveness of the pro-life propaganda machine.

ant January 28, 2011 8:22 pm

I’m still looking for the part where I called “completing a pregnancy” a hassle. BTW, that’s a good joke about the reach and effectiveness of the pro-life propaganda machine. I guess that explains why so many networks ran that March For Life story. Oh, wait a minute…they didn’t.

BTW, people can “complete” a book report, a pregnancy will complete itself without any effort from another, excepting medical procedures.

Nameless January 29, 2011 12:59 am

“I’m still looking for the part where I called ‘completing a pregnancy’ a hassle.”

Are you a woman who has had an abortion?

You’re not interested in a discussion. You’re just an asshole. I apologize for wasting your time.

For Your Further Enlightenment IX

• Ezra Klein: "FCIC final report: 'Financial crisis was avoidable'"
• Eliot Spitzer, Slate: "The Republicans' Bogus Budget Plan: The GOP's budget proposal is a preposterous, dangerous fantasy"
• Skeptoid: "Scientology: The real facts behind the most notorious religion on Earth and its space opera backstory"
• Think Progress: "Boehner Attacks Obama For Supposedly Ignoring American Exceptionalism In State Of The Union"
• Associated Press: "Ugandan Gay Activist Slain After Photo Published" ("'David's death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S evangelicals in 2009,' said Val Kalende, a Ugandan gay rights activist. 'The Ugandan government and the so-called U.S evangelicals must take responsibility for David's blood.'")
• The Washington Examiner: "A detailed look at the Rand Paul spending bill" (So long, Corporation for Public Broadcasting!) 
• Think Progress: "After Complaining That ‘Obamacare’ Cuts Medicare, Hensarling Wants Huge Cuts And Privatization"
• William Saletan, Slate: "The Viability Question: Is it OK to abort a viable fetus? Six pro-choice writers answer the question" 
• Slate: "Dads Get Blue, Too: The problem of postpartum depression in fathers" 
• Think Progress: "Gov. Kasich To Black Lawmaker: ‘I Don’t Need Your People’" (When you simply assume that everyone on the "best possible team" is going to be white, what you get is affirmative action—for white people.)
• Space.com: "Mysterious Night-Shining Clouds Getting Brighter"
• Space.com: "For Fully Mature Black Holes, Time Stands Still" 

Source: Extreme Instability

Lori Ziganto's Pro-Choice Argument

According to a study that was just released, "Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does," writes the Associated Press.

According to NPR,

Robert Blum, an expert on reproductive health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, did not work on the study, but he has worked in the field for decades.

"This is an extremely, extremely well done study," he said. "There is no evidence that abortion predisposes a woman to psychiatric and mental health problems." 

"There is no post-abortion trauma, post-abortion syndrome, or anything of the like," he said.

NPR reports in the same story that "[a]s many as 25 percent of new mothers experience post-partum depression."

Lori Ziganto has argued again and again that the alleged existence of post-abortion syndrome makes abortion morally problematic. For example, Ziganto writes:

While feminists sneer at the idea of post-abortion syndrome, it does exist. And if they actually cared about women, they’d admit that fact and would stop encouraging women to have abortions without disclosing the trauma that can occur to the woman.

It’s clear that they don’t care about the dead babies, but they also need to stop insisting that they are For Women ™ , when they most obviously are not. You see, feminists, an unborn baby is not just a clump of cells. Many women who abort their babies, therefore, suffer intense pain and immense guilt. Their entire lives. 

Clearly, Ziganto believes that abortion is wrong, and one reason why it is wrong is the damage it allegedly does to women. Therefore, Ziganto can be interpreted as supporting the following argument:

1. It is prima facie wrong to do anything that puts the mental health of women at significant risk. 
2. Abortion puts the mental health of women at significant risk. 
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong. 

Now I think we are all justified in saying that (2) is very probably false. So much for that argument. But there is another argument that Ziganto would endorse, I'm sure, since she cares so much about the welfare of women and thus asserts (1):

1. It is prima facie wrong to do anything that puts the mental health of women at significant risk. 
2. Childbirth puts the mental health of women at significant risk (by putting them at risk of post-partum depression). 
3. Therefore, completing a pregnancy is morally wrong. 

Nice work, Ziganto. Are you and Marcotte bff's now?

Update: Surely Lori Ziganto's concern for mental health extends to men. So think about your significant others, ladies:

In a 2006 study, James Paulson, a psychologist at Eastern Virginia Medical School, assessed the parents of 5,089 infants and found that 14 percent of the mothers had signs of moderate to severe depression. And so did 10 percent of the fathers. Compare that with the 3 percent to 5 percent of men in the general population who are depressed (as well as the 8 percent or 9 percent of women). 

Abort for the men in your life, won't you? (You want to be careful. That there's dripping with sarcasm, and you wouldn't want to get any of that on you.)

For Your Further Enlightenment VIII

• Associated Press: "Study: No Higher Mental Health Risk after Abortion"
• NPR: "Inside Loughner's Mind: What His Writings Reveal" (So much for the theory that Loughner's rampage was incited by leftist rhetoric.)
• Skepticblog: "Is the Moon Too Close?" (Another creationist attempts to do science.)
• Talking Points Memo: "McConnell: If Obama Acts Like A Republican, We Can Negotiate With Him"
• Think Progress: "Insurance Company Drops Cancer Patient And Veteran Because He Accidentally Underpaid By Two Cents"
• The Paris Review: "Totaling the Ferrari: Ferris Bueller Revisited"
• William Saletan, Slate: "The Baby Butcher, Revisited: Is it OK to abort a viable fetus? An answer to pro-choicers on Kermit Gosnell"

Meet Pinback

From Autumn of the Seraphs:



From Summer in Abaddon:



From Blue Screen Life:



From Pinback:

The Man-On-Dog Expert Weighs In

Man-on-dog expert Rick Santorum has weighed in on the issue of abortion.

In an interview with CNSNews.com's Terry Jeffrey, Santorum scolded President Obama for his remarks about abortion during Rick Warren's Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum in 2008. Yahoo's Holly Bailey writes:

"The question is -- and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer: Is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no," Santorum says in the interview, which was first picked up by CBN's David Brody. "Well if that person, human life is not a person, then, I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

Santorum was referring to Obama's comments at a 2008 forum with Pastor Rick Warren in which he said the question of whether a baby should have human rights was "above my pay grade." Obama later said his remark was too flip, but "I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

Santorum took Obama to task for his position.

"Just about everything else in the world he's willing to do -- have the government do -- but he can't answer that basic question which is not a debatable issue at all," Santorum told Jeffrey. "I don't think you'll find a biologist in the world who will say that is not a human life."

According to The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta (and others), Santorum's comment is "consistent with the internal narratives of the contemporary abortion rights opposition movement":

Opponents of abortion in recent years have compared the status of fertilized eggs, even pre-implantation, to that of pre-Civil War slaves who were not considered fully human. For example, materials from the Illinois Right to Life Committee argue that "The court decisions on slavery vs abortion demonstrate an equivalent denial of personhood for two different categories of human beings, slaves and unborn children."

That's why a black man is supposed to share Santorum's view of abortion, I suppose. (Since Obama's mother was white, does that mean that Obama should be only 50% pro-life? Just curious.)

Let's take a closer look at Santorum's comments. In the first paragraph I quoted from Bailey's story, Santorum claims to be surprised that a black man would deny that a human fetus is a person under the Constitution. But in the fourth paragraph, he expresses surprise that Obama doesn't agree that a human fetus is a human life. Every biologist would agree, after all, so it's not even debatable. But the following statements are not synonymous:

1. The human fetus is not a human life
2. The human fetus is not a person under the Constitution

I agree with Santorum on one thing: (1) is obviously false. But is (2) obviously false? If it were, then why do so many intelligent people assert it? They're not all morons, are they? What about unborn human entities conceived in, say, Peru by Peruvian parents?

I'm not a Constitutional law scholar like Barack Obama, so I have no real expertise in this area. But I know enough to know that asserting (2) is not stupid. And I do know what is stupid: thinking that (1) and (2) amount to the very same thing. They don't, and that is "not even debatable." Now, I'm not ready to say that Santorum is stupid. He may have simply realized that the shift from (2) to (1) would help him politically. He attributes (2) to Obama, but then shifts to attributing (1) to Obama. While Santorum may not be a moron, he may be a bit of a prick. That's right: another good Christian prick. Does Christianity really allow twisting the truth and being unfair to one's opponent when it's politically expedient to do so? Just wondering.

Those who wish to draw an analogy between human fetuses and American slaves claim that human fetuses are legally and perhaps morally on a par with adult human beings. If Santorum intended to say that this claim isn't debatable, then he is almost certainly wrong. Judging from their responses to the candidate's responses to the same question, the folks at the Saddleback Forum would probably agree with Santorum. Many folks want a simple, unequivocal response to the question whether the human fetus has moral or legal rights. That is exactly the answer John McCain gave them: the unborn human entity has rights at the moment of conception. But as William Saletan points out, if we actually seriously believed this, the thought of women of child-bearing age using birth control, nursing their young, drinking coffee, and even exercising would horrify us. That's the consequence of having a simple approach to a complicated problem.

Even if we agree with McCain and (presumably) Santorum, the inference to the truth of the extreme pro-life position is hardly automatic. For what those who embrace the extreme pro-life position either forget or simply neglect to point out is that a living, breathing person usually carries the human fetus, and that woman is a human life and also most certainly a person under the Constitution (assuming that she is an American citizen, of course). Is the pro-life position "not even debatable" when this truth is acknowledged?

I grant that the right to life is fundamental, and I can even grant that the fetus has such a right at the moment of conception. But the woman carrying that fetus also has a full set of rights, and the right to bodily integrity is perhaps just as fundamental as the right to life. If we don't even own our own bodies, then we are nothing. Any attempt to make women the legal or moral equivalent of livestock must be regarded with skepticism.

In this conflict between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the human being that carries it, what reason do we have to think that the fetus always wins? I am willing to bet that Rick Santorum is not able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question. Like it or not, the fetus and is neither morally nor legally nor factually equivalent to an adult human being, and we should stop trying to pretend that it is.

However strong the woman's rights are, neither she nor anyone else has a right to kill her child once it is born, and therefore no one has the right to abort a viable fetus. That much seems perfectly clear, to me at least. Those who claim that pro-choicers have no moral qualms about the abattoir in Philadelphia are as guilty of oversimplifying the position of their opponents as Santorum is of his.

For Your Further Enlightenment VII

• Think Progress: "NOAA: 2010 Is The Hottest, Wettest Year On Record"
• Leiter Reports: "Why the Right is beside itself about being called out about the Arizona shootings"
• Slate: "The Chinese Eco-Disaster: Why the green revolution in China has barely begun"
• Ezra Klein: "There's no 'job-killing health-care law'"
• Andrew Sullivan: "Quitting the Philosophy of Religion"
• David Frum: "Huckabee Wins the Palin Interview"
• Andrew Sullivan: "The Big Lie, Ctd"
• ThinkProgress: "VIDEO: House Republicans Explain Why They Won’t Give Up Their Own Government-Sponsored Health Care"
• William Saletan, Slate: "The Baby Butcher: Pro-choice absolutism and the grisly abortion scandal in Philadelphia" 
• Andrew Sullivan: "The Triumph of Libertarianism?"
• "RSC Spending Reduction Act - Two Page Summary"
• Slate: "Gym Etiquette Flowchart"

Mitch McConnell Wants Ideas

From NPR, "McConnell Says He'll Be A Force In Senate," an interview with Melissa Block:

BLOCK: You've got another vote there pending in Congress before March on whether to raise the debt ceiling, and I know Congress heard this week from the Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, warning about catastrophic consequences if that limit is not raised.

You have said that you see this as an opportunity to get the fiscal house in order. I wonder how you would do that and what it would take for you to be a yes vote on raising the debt limit.

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, it is an opportunity. I mean, we all know that the country is drowning in a sea of debt, and nothing underscores that like the decision to raise the debt limit. So it's an opportunity for us to work together and see if we can make some significant progress on spending and debt. So I think both parties ought to welcome that opportunity.

BLOCK: Would you be willing to risk, say, a government shutdown if there is no consensus?

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, we're not talking about that. What we're talking about is taking advantage of this opportunity to do something important to reduce spending and debt, and what better time to do it than when you're voting on raising the debt ceiling?

BLOCK: And what would your ideas be on ways to get there?

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, we'll be happy to discuss that with you at the appropriate time. But what is a better time to talk about addressing spending and debt when you're called upon to vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling? I think it's the perfect opportunity for both sides to come together and do something significant.