The Alternative?

So, I've been mulling this over for a bit and while its not the hot button topic at the moment, it will be again soon.

The Republicans want to pull all funding for Planned Parenthood (even though none of the Federal dollars go to providing abortions, which account for approximately 3-7% of provided services). However, since PP's services are directed mostly at the poor, what is the Republican plan to step up services for those who would be effected by this change?

PP gets ~1/3 of its funding from the Federal gov't. Any group losing 1/3 of its funding would necessarily have to cut back services significantly. And who would this affect? The same people that are normally affected whenever social services are cut, the poor.

Now, if we had an actual national health insurance system (not this abomination that we ended up with) I wouldn't be as upset by this. The poor would still be covered with insurance that would be accepted at any clinic (oh yeah, didn't you realize not everyone accepts Medicaid? And lets not get into the quality of care....).

But, we don't have that and nothing like that is suggested in any way shape or form.

I'm sure this is coming across as I'm "pro-abortion." I'm not. I'm ideally pro-life, but am realistic that life isn't as simple as I'd like it to be. I'd love to get the number of abortions lowered. However, I don't see how this would happen by essentially cutting back by 1/3 an organization that helps PREVENT many surprise pregnancies by giving out low cost contraception.

The gist of my argument comes back to this. Outside of a couple of radical ideas (attempting to cut trillions off in one year..good luck with that) the Republican budget ideas have essentially been attacks on social services. Those are not what are bleeding us dry as a nation and the handful of billions saved are truly meaningless as anything except "moral" victories. Which is what the Republicans are back to trying to do: legislate their version of morality.

Funny how it doesn't apply to how corporations act, how banks act, how our nation acts in respect to military spending. In their interesting view of correct morality, well, those darn gays and abortion rights people are the lowest of low. Odd.

Babykillers, Lies, & Love

Bart Stupak, the Democratic, Pro-Life, Congressman from Michigan is retiring. After initially raising concerns that the new health bill provided room for federally funded abortions, he was ridiculed, called a baby-killer, and other things after eventually voting for the bill. He was assured the bill was not opening that door and decided that the good of the bill outweighed the negatives.

Being a politician of faith is not simple. Faith tends to call us to be uncompromising in our convictions while politics is a continual call for compromise.

Rep. Stupak's choices could not have been easy.

However, I want to direct this towards those who in the name of "life" called him a baby-killer or anything else.

I have never understood some of the more militant stands "pro-lifers" take.

I also don't understand how so many pro-life proponents (of who I am one in principle, life is very seldom as simple as black and white however) can be against EVER allowing an abortion to occur, but have no problems with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the numerous smaller conflicts the US has been involved in since the "pro-life" movement really got moving in the 1980s.

What it leads me to believe, and I hope I'm wrong, is that too many pro-lifers have a very narrow view of the lives they want to save. They want to save American babies lives. That's nice. That's good. But what about other countries children? (And not just children but all who live in wartorn lands.)

Do they not deserve a life free of American cluster bombs, landmines and machinegun fire? Should they live in fear that kicking a soccerball in an empty field one day will set off a long dormant weapon, scarring and maiming them for life? (I could write another blog on my view of the usage of cluster bombs & land mines. Maybe I will sometime.)

Or even, taking the "-life" idea further, beyond children, what of the lives of those on death row?

Thanks to the vagaries of the justice system, they disproportionately black and poor. Also, since death is final, even one mistake of convicting and sentencing an innocent man results in another innocent life being taken.

Is this right? Is that being "pro-life?"

Finally, taking it beyond the realm of simple life, where is the love? Yelling hateful, spiteful words, even in pursuit of good, is never, ever right. Was Christ sometimes harsh and honest? Yes, but most often against those in his own religious community.

And there is a difference between harsh honesty and poisonous words that can only cause division.

The tragic consequences of abortion on demand in our nation call for a loving, caring discourse. Creating more pain and strife is not the answer.

Nor do I believe it's what Christ wants for us.

This is love?

Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country who would perform late-term abortions was shot and killed over the weekend at the church he attends. Yes, you read all of that correctly.

Abortion is horrible. It is. You can't get around it. It takes a life and far more often then the abortion on demand crowd wants to admit it severely effects the life of the mother. That said, I'm not for 100% bans. Just making it really really really difficult to get one.

However, the words said by the anti-abortion wackjob Randall Terry here show that there is a reason why sensible talk on abortion never gets anywhere.

Now, don't get me wrong, groups like NOW and NARAL are so misguided and single-minded on this you can't negotiate with them.

But, thankfully, they don't make the laws. And when anti-abortion groups like Terry's allow people like him to take a frontal stance, well, that's a problem.

His statements are ludicrous. A recent Gallup poll found Americans are "pro-life" than "pro-choice." So his statements on the the anti-abortion movement are flawed. Why? Because they only look at his extreme end of the movement.

I can be "pro-life" yet I don't make that my only criteria in choosing elected officials. To me, pro-life also means I am against the death penalty as it is a flawed system.

I digress. Getting back to some of the statements Mr. Terry makes. Mr. Terry has lost his "war" on abortion (my term) because he is fighting a war. Jesus didn't wage wars. Wars have a winner and a loser. Following Christ is a different model. Its not an earthly "us against them" battle.

Its a battle against the evil forces and powers that afflict this world, powers of which things like Dr. Tiller and abortion are only symptoms. Honestly, I fear for Mr. Terry's soul as much as Dr. Tiller's because Mr. Terry seems so full of hatred on this issue.

Murder is never ok. Its simply not. I understand it isn't a long logical step from some of Bonhoeffer's ideas to this. But it is a step. And a massive one.

While Terry clearly stated that he does not condone the act, he made it sound like it was justified. That is scary. And wrong. When we say things like that, Christ weeps.

A couple quick things

Short post today. Taking certification posts for work. Got these links from Brian McLaren's blog.

Pro-life and Obama? It can be!

Again, do I think Obama is the nation's savior? No. He still may not get my vote. I do know McCain/Palin will NOT be getting my vote.

Evangelical Christians desperately need to look past simplistic voting on issues such as abortion and gay marriage to the whole picture. Please. You might still come to the conclusion that the Republican platform is right. (I agree with them on some things.) I even more sincerely hope you come to the conclusion that the current system is broken and want to work to change it.