The Economics of Abortion

 It didn't take long for the politicians and media to politicize the leak of the draft of the Supreme Court opinion on whether or not the Mississippi law on abortion which asks if the right to an abortion is a Constitutional issue.

First, the outrage should be over the idea that someone on a Justice's staff had the insolence to leak anything.

Second, the rush to point accusatory fingers is purely subjective along ideological lines and should have been held back until more details of what the draft actually says are known.

All that being said, I will be the first to admit I have very mixed feelings over the abortion argument that will never be put to rest until there is a definitive truth as to just when life actually begins. I've heard the arguments from every angle you can imagine, but to date, they are no more than opinions.

I do have some very strong opinions, myself, on aspects after the fetus is proven viable. But there is a portion of this whole situation that is never discussed and needs to be. 

Who gets an abortion and why? The why's range from just not wanting a child to not wanting to bring forth a life conceived during a rape. Okay.  No argument there. Where do the economics come in?

If abortion was outlawed millions of children would be brought into the world. If the mothers did not want or were not able to keep these children and raise them and educate them what would become of them? Some would be adopted. Yes.  But by no means all.  More orphanages? Most likely. Is there a plan for that?  Is there funding? Consider what all that involves. Feeding, clothing, and education are not cheap. And what about those born with mental deficiencies?  Add another layer of expense. 

There is no easy answer, but this is an aspect of it I never, ever hear discussed.  

Abortion, the right to life, a woman's right to choose. Sloganeering at best. I don't envy the justices on the court having to deal with this issue, especially in today's political climate. I also don't envy them for having to deal with the firestorm this leak of an unrendered opinion has created. 

I hope whoever did the leaking is caught and faces severe consequences for breaking a trust. If this era of the powerful and their minions getting a pass for egregious actions without consequence continues, we'll have the entire contents of the Constitution relegated to the out stack of a disgruntled few. There will be consequences, however.  For all the rest of us and we'll have no court to sort it out.

Never Miss An Opportunity To Miss An Opportunity

It never ceases to amaze me that the Republicans continue to earn the title of this post.  Judge Scalia hadn't even gotten cold before they were informing the President no replacement would be considered until we have a new president.

It shows me several things about those nit wits.  The most serious is that no matter how hard we try to show them we're not happy even with a new House Speaker, they just don't get it.

They have no respect for the dearly departed or else they wouldn't have turned Scalia's demise into a political hot potato.  Disgusting.  This goes for the candidates too.

They are still ensnarled in partisan politics.  Sure, Obama would no doubt nominate a left leaning candidate but it is his right to do so and their obligation to do a non-partisan vetting.  Just bear in mind Scalia had very high praise for Justice Kagan.

Then too, the way they have been behaving, there is no guarantee they will win the White House.  They had best consider who they would rather have put forward a nominee - Obama, Clinton or Sanders.  Of course it would be helpful if Obama would be impartial but we know that won't happen!

I have a couple of long time readers who are diametrically opposed to me when it comes to politics, but in deference to them I will say this.  I understand why Obama has taken the executive order road.
Congress is so tied up with their own partisanship ways nothing ever gets accomplished.

Still wondering why Trump is doing so well considering his faults?  He isn't a part of the political process.  Should he be elected he'll need some political guidance to be sure but it will be a presidency such as we've never before seen.  I think the same scenario applies to Sanders and even though he is a sitting Senator he fits no mold other than his own.

What does it take to wake these people up?

My Thoughts On Gay Marriage And The Court

Now that Gays have the right to marry according to the Supreme Court it's time to put that part of the Gay agenda to rest.  There is no mention of what constitutes a marriage in the Constitution so in essence the Court has made law but it's not unprecedented.

Consider back in the days when it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry.  The Court also changed that. Hopefully somewhere within that decision they will be afforded the same rights as traditional married couples.

Hopefully too, those religions that vigorously disagree will not be forced into preforming marriages for same sex couples. The rights have to be a two way street with respect for truths on both sides.

Obviously I haven't read the decision.  I'm just "musing" about the subject..

Over the years I've found a number of friends who have gay family members and in my circle all have embraced them and their relationships. Why not? You would embrace them if you didn't know their preferences.

I'm sure the LGBT community has other issues that need resolving though I don't know what they are.  Perhaps, though, this Court decision will make it easier for them.

One last thing would make it a triumph for that community.  If somewhere along the line research would find the gene or lack thereof that controls one's sexuality.  That would eliminate the issue of deviancy.  I know from my own cousin who is gay that he knew it at a very early age.  At the age when a young man's fancy would turn to girls or girl's to boys. There was no deviancy - just difference.

You discover you aren't the same as your friends and instinct tells you to keep it to yourself.  That has changed a lot since I was that age.  More and more young people are "coming out" and being honest about their feelings. More importantly more and more families, friends and many in the broader community are accepting.

It will be nice when people no longer have to "come out".  You just are what you are.  It would also be nice if the narrow and traditional definition of marriage would change to encompass anyone who loves another and wants to share a commitment and a life.  A just God, it seems to me, would not frown on a spiritual bond either.

Considering attitudes are changing and acceptance is more wide spread it seems to me the Court has just eliminated the long slog toward equality.  I personally believe it was inevitable. Just let everyone live with love, commitment and happiness regardless of gender.

It shouldn't be political.  It should be just.  And now it is.  

ACA And The Court

So the Supreme Court once again has sided with the administration.  I have mixed feelings because it's setting a precedent with which I'm uncomfortable.

The idea of providing affordable care to the less than affluent is worthy to be sure.  I'm not sure it should have taken a 2000 page bill to accomplish same especially since there are still nuts and bolts clunking around within it.

That said and the fact it is now law is it.  Things should and no doubt will be tweaked over time.  It should not be political but rather what's best for those purchasing their insurance, those providing it and the medical community.

Also, if one state gets government subsidies so should all of them no matter who set up their system.

So what's the problem?  The idea that the way the law was written is now being deferred to intent.  I'd like to think legislators would be more careful of their language in bills of the future but I fear they will not knowing a good lawyer will be able to argue intent over substance.

That would make all legislation tentative until a court rules.  I think it's a dangerous precedent but it's over and done.  It bears watching in the future.

Under a less liberal administration I would like to see legislation that requires laws to be obeyed as written.  Otherwise they will ultimately be useless.  The President has showed us how easy it is to bypass legislation when it has suited his purpose the Supreme Court has given him a pass.  The next step is dictatorship. Caution.  Please.

The Supremes Join The Rest Of The Government In Baffling Me

There was a time when I thought the Supreme Court was to decide on the Constitutionality of an issue. It was always a mixed bag of opinions hammered out in private to reach a consensus.  They had nothing to fear because their appointments to the Court were for life.

Maybe it's the new think of younger generations that have me baffled.  For instance I don't see how they can reason that a corporation, no matter the size, equates with a person.  Corporations  are run by people to be sure, but as an entity have no life, no ability to think or reason, no feeling or any of the other senses, in a nutshell no life.  But I'm told they are the same.

It seems to me Obamacare has caused the problem on the pill issue but not for the reasons given.  When I was working, the company and indeed the insurance companies had a variety of policies from which I could choose.  There was actually a time when I didn't have to pay for child birth coverage after a hysterectomy or Viagra.  No more.  State insurance commissioners made such nonsense mandatory.  ACA regulators have carried on a bad practice.

The reporting on the Hobby Lobby issue is wrongly reported as being about contraception.  It's about abortion and the pills that cause it if in fact something actually happened! So it's really about abortion.  I understand the religion based feelings of the company owners but I see the need for definition and separation of personal beliefs and corporate necessity.

Having said that, what exactly does the SC decision mean?  Does it apply to only the abortion pills or contraceptives across the board should other 'closely' held corporations ask?  Maybe it was made clear but I haven't seen it.

As for the Illinois case on home care workers suddenly being considered a public sector dues paying employee when forced into caring for a family member who is aided by public funds shows the greediness of the public sector unions.  I'd rather they get rid of all unions.  But then I'm not a union fan on any level.  They are a perfect example of over reach.

Did the SC solve the problem of those who want to opt out of union membership in all cases or does it apply only to those specific home health workers?  Again, I'm confused.  I don't see a clear cut answer.  Perhaps if I dug deeper I'd find it but basing a blog on information readily available in the main stream media I find such information lacking.

The only thing that seems clear is when the President tries to do something on his own and suddenly everyone in Congress is calling foul. Where were they beforehand?  Worrying about re-election so they can do more of nothing and collect fat salaries to boot. I don't always agree with his decisions and feel his problems stem from his attitude but I understand where he's coming from.

No wonder the country is in such haphazard condition.  It follows the trickle down theory doesn't it?  It seeps down from the top until the entire country is saturated with confusion. Why is the country seemingly frozen in its tracks?  Could this be why?

To Be Or Not To Be - Gay

I've been watching the media agonizing over Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan's sexual preferences. Is she or isn't she? The same has been asked, without the fervor, of Janet Napolitano and Janet Reno. None have decided to say so everyone assumes they are. What does all this mean?

For one thing it dispels the myth that gays or lesbians are less able than the straight world! Heck, with the positions these three hold (or held) you might even say they are more able! I know, that's too much of a generalization. I also know it will be argued Ms. Kagan's sexual identity could influence her opinions on gay marriage and "don't ask, don't tell". Sure it will, just like Justice Sotomayor's ethnic background may influence her thinking on issues pertaining to Latinos. Or women's issues. Let's face it, who we are has a lot to do with how we think concerning just about everything. So why the big deal on sexuality?

It seems to me one's sexual preferences should be a most private matter unless the person wishes it known. It should not be a litmus test for anything. I've often felt the gay community would be a lot better off if they'd lay off the semantics and settle for substance but that doesn't seem to be their agenda. Equality at all cost. It's really all in a word.

I don't think even the "marriage is between a man and a woman" mantra holds the weight it once did when you have churches elevating gay clergy to high positions. The Episcopalians just ordained their first lesbian bishop!

Actually having gays and lesbians form marriage-like relationships isn't all bad. With the state of over population in the world, they are more likely to adopt than father or mother their own. Two mother and two father families takes a little getting used to, but if it's a loving family unit why not? It's happening so why not support it as you would an interracial family? The obstacles the children will face are not unalike!

Slowly the tide is turning and I expect it will continue to do so. What would be of great help is with all the DNA research that's being conducted, they would come up with a marker that identifies a homosexual gene. That would put the argument as to whether or not one is born "that way" to rest.

I happen to believe you are. I won't even begin to argue with anyone who disagrees. Until such a marker is found, either could be correct. In the meantime, why don't we just live and let live. It matters not if you're a potential Supreme Court Justice or the kid next door trying to figure it all out.

What In The Name Of GOD??

I hadn't quite finished my coffee this morning so I picked up the current issue of Arizona Highways. Hub said, "Inside the back cover." I turned to the story; a memorial to a young soldier who had written to the magazine asking if they would send copies to his unit to give them something to read and remind them of home.

The staff was so taken by the young soldier's humility and concern for his friends they sent far more then magazines and soon they had a special bond - plus an inside perspective of what war was like in Afghanistan. He was killed January 10, 2010. I was wiping my eyes by the time I finished reading. They were grieving because they would now never meet this young man to say a heart felt "thank you", not only for serving his country but what he gave them.

It reminded me of my own GI who picked up one of many Christmas cards I had sent to his unit, several years ago now. You know, one of those special requests that come around the holidays. He was serving in Iraq. We too have a special bond, a warmth that embraces me, even though we've never met.

The stories of these soldiers brought to mind the story of the father of a young Marine who is suing a group of protesters that invaded the privacy of his son's funeral.

We know people protest any and everything these days. There is something so ugly about this, however, I'm finding it difficult to articulate how I feel. This group is claiming first amendment freedom as they spew their hate. The Supreme Court is going to hear the case. Chief Justice John Roberts has shown in recent days, due to his flap with the President from the State of the Union incident, that he understands the frustration of humiliation.

Beyond the legalities of these actions, is the vileness of them done in the name of God. These people claim to be Baptists and most are relatives of the founder, one Fred W. Phelps, Sr. A crotchety old man who is reveling in the publicity for his cause - spreading hate.

It's hard to grasp how deep this hatred for Catholics and Gays, and who knows what else, runs! How twisted are minds that think the war is "divine retribution" for America's sins!

It's will be a fine line for the Supreme Court to deal with. In the meantime, it seems to me the Baptist Church should denounce this congregation at the very least or forbid them to claim the Baptist Church before it is diminished by their actions.

Short of that they should all be placed under psychiatric observation. No one that hates so deeply they use the funerals of fallen servicemen, those who have died serving their country, to get their message front and center can be considered sane.

It is beneath contempt.