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.

Musings on the GOP

Disclosure: I am not overly high on the GOP right now. I'm not on the Democratic party either. But the GOP has been receiving most of my ire lately.

So, in the past week, two prominent members of the GOP have come out admitting to affairs. John Ensign of Nevada and Mark Sanford of S. Carolina have both admitted to being unfaithful.

Why is this a big deal? Well, the issue is that the GOP, and John Ensign for certain, champion "morality." Apparently being "moral" means not being a homosexual. Oh wait, what about Senator Larry Craig? Oh, yes, he isn't homosexual, he merely has a "wide stance."

See, politicians are human. They have failings. But when a party attempts to make one of its platforms as being the party of "conventional morality" this becomes a problem.

Also, in the case of Governor Sanford, he lied to his aids, his security team, and didn't transfer executive control of the state as he headed off to Argentina to break off an affair. He and his wife are apparently pretty much separated and she knew about it.

Still, it was a terribly irresponsible thing to do since his state would've been in chaos if something had happened to him.

Look, I'm not saying people need to be perfect. I'm not saying this is something that is only the problem of the GOP. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton anyone?)

I'm merely saying, if you want to attempt to champion a "moral America" then you'd better live your life that way. I'm not saying perfect. But, its pretty easy NOT to have an affair. Really. It is. Just don't.