"Having an abortion" is wrong. Using this terminology to describe the premature evacuation or ejection of fetal tissue trivializes a gut-wrenching experience by comparing it to "having a manicure" or a "face lift" or even a "tummy tuck." While it would be more appropriate to classify "having an abortion" with "having a migraine headache," or even "having a heart attack," recognizing the seriousness of an event which is not only potentially fatal, but equally demanding of expert medical assistance, it's unlikely to silence the call for legislative regulation of this life-critical condition.
In part that's because passing laws to regulate situations over which the law has no control presents legislators with the opportunity to claim to exercise powers which have no practical significance.
Which is why I would suggest that any candidate for public office who answers the question "should abortion be made legal or illegal" with a "yes" or a "no" should be immediately disqualified from further consideration, not just by progressives, but by anyone who expects public officials to be honest.
But, there's another reason. Even though abortion, a natural spontaneous process, is outside the legislative purview, whether or not women are going to be provided with adequate and appropriate medical support for all aspects of the reproductive process, including the premature termination of a pregnancy by means of medical and/or surgical intervention, without interference by the judicial system, it is not only liable to legal restrictions, but the widespread propensity to impose such restriction jeopardizes the possibility of setting up a transportable, effective medical provider system (TEMPS) for the nation.
Even though an apparently large number of people (who reliably support Republican candidates) do not seem to mind having government officials stick their nose into their most intimate and private relationships, most people are reluctant to rely on government bureaucrats to determine which life-critical medical services and procedures they require. So, any effort to legislate the relationship between doctor and patient undermines our efforts to put a national health care system in place. Which is not to say that any medical or surgical intervention that isn't supported by the informed consent of the patient or his/her legal surrogates (in an emergency situation) should be exempt from legal review--a particularly important issue in regard to the providers of medical services to minors.
Particularly in reference to the latter, we have some specific experience to draw on as regards the provision of "mental health services" to minor children in the mid 1980s. At that time, because of an expansion of mental health coverage, including residential "treatment," both in private medical insurance contracts and the Medicaid program, there was a sudden surge in the building of juvenile mental health treatment facilities, the efficacy of whose services tended to be defined by when the insurance payment for "treatment" ran out. Since most of these programs seem to have little if any lasting benefit, except for relieving stressed out parents of the charge of recalcitranct adolescents for a while, the elimination of treatment programs designed by psychologists and social workers, should definitely be considered in setting up a medically based national life-care system.
In any event, it's going to be necessary to make some careful choices if we are going to achieve a transportable, efficient medical provider system (TEMPS). an important progressive goal. Arguing whether abortion should be legal or illegal will definitely keep us from getting there.
One hopes that Harriet Miers' failure to recognize that point signaled to everyone that she is not a fit candidate for the Supreme Court.
******
Halloween--
Now there's a new nominee, Sam Alito
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are so many reasons not to waste a lot of time and energy on this nomination to the Supreme Court, I don't even know where to begin.
First, it has been and continues to be a mistake to try to affect the law by focusing on those who are supposed to interpret the law, rather than on those who make the law. Of course, the various legislative bodies, made up of people who prefer promoting the business deals of their cronies to actually doing the hard work of drafting legislation that serves the best interests of the whole society, rather than special interests, have been quite happy to pass sloppy legislation and "let the courts straighten it out."
Also, it's a lot easier to oppose one or two people nominated to be judges than to select, support and vote for a slate of competent representatives every two years--every year on the local level. It's also a lot easier to let business persons who run for local office to promote the interests of their "associates" than selecting people with a broader constituency for these entry-level positions. If we don't want business cronies running our towns and cities and if we don't want the local Chamber of Commerce staffing community committees, then we're going to have to step up to the plate and take an active part.
Also, Democrats have already wasted too much time and energy on a faux nomination, Harriet Miers, to let themselves be diverted from their real work for much longer. If the laws were well written and consistent with the Constitution, there would be almost nothing for the Supreme Court to do.
So, let's make the Supreme Court irrelevant.
Finally, anybody that promises anybody that abortion is going to be declared illegal and suggests that this is going to have any practical effect is either stupid or lying. They might just as well promise declaring defecation illegal. And that's the point we need to make. And then we have to follow up with the position that medical procedures should NEVER be a subject of legislation by anyone who's not trained in the profession.
This last is an important principle because until we get government out of the doctor/patient relationship we are never going to have an efficient, effective national health coverage program that's fully transportable. Even state efforts to regulate medical procedures through the legal system work against getting a comprehensive transportable program. Just imagine what would happen if you could get flu shots in Maine but not in Missouri. If the issue is presented in that way to the elderly, they'll get it.
Posted by Hannah at October 31, 2005 08:12 AM