An Admirably Blunt Statement of Purpose
Regardless of how you feel about abortion as an issue, or the South Dakota law in particular, the bill’s main sponsor lays out his case here in language that is refreshingly blunt. My purpose is not to extol the bill’s virtues (my own position, as I’ve stated elsewhere, is that I think Roe is bad law, but that abortions should remain legal but heavily restricted), but rather to educate by pointing to the sponsor’s justification…
A letter writer to the New York Times today points out that South Dakota ranks very high in infant mortality and children living in poverty, and two thirds of fourth graders are below grade level in math and science. Given the expense and resources necessary to litigate this to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t it be wiser to devote those resources to real kids rather than what the lawsuit calls “unborn children?”
I’m not going to dignify that with an answer – your ‘real kids’ comment speaks volumes…
Why? This is the crux of the abortion debate. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an unborn child. Children are born on their birthday, and until then they are not children. It is like calling an egg an unmade omelette. A fetus is a fetus and a child is a child. Others, of course, disagree, and there is no way I can think of to find common ground. However, if the state of South Dakota wants to use the resources which could give kids proper education, medical care, etc., and instead spend it on litigation to pursue a case which will probably be unsuccessful, then I find it to be shameful. I would not want to be the one to explain to a mother who can’t feed her kids why the money for food stamps is being spent on lawyers instead.
[sigh] – okay, I hate arguing abortion – but let me handle one of your points. There’s not some magic pot of money in South Dakota that is saying spend me on one of two things – ‘real’ kids or ‘fake’ kids. The money that will presumably be spent defending the law – if passed – is not being taking from some earmarked kids health program.
Come on – you know better than that…it’s a spurious argument – and besides, if you believe in an issue, should you avoid legislation because it may be challenged in court? I hardly think so…
The state has finite resources and the allocation of those resources indicates what their priorities are. South Dakota chooses to underfund social programs, so the net result is a high number of kids living below the poverty line. They also choose to fund litigation to challenge Roe v. Wade. I think the legislature can fairly be judged on what (I consider to be) badly skewed priorities.
Re your second question: the legislation was passed precisely because it would be challenged in court, and the taxpayers necessarily have to pay the bill to support the litigation (whether they are for choice or against it). This is not passing a law such as setting a speed limit or building a bridge — it is an explicit attempt to shape national policy by overturning a Supreme Court decision. It is advocacy masquerading as law. As such, I think it is improper for the state to tax its citizens for the purpose of pursuing a political agendum which some will disagree with.
Then I know you have written Arnold asking for the dismissal of Rob Reiner (advocacy posing as law, you know)…
Also, are you advocating a system where people only pay for the programs they agree with? I’m against the smoking ban here in Austin, where do I get my refund? I have no kids, so these public schools are doing me no good – how much do I get back?
Come on, peter, ALL government is advocacy posing as law…
I completely agree about Rob Reiner — and I voted against a similar soak-the-rich proposition earlier this year –
Yes, you cannot pick and choose which government programs you want to pay for. If you oppose the war in Iraq, you can’t deduct a percentage of your income tax. But the question is not what the individual should pay for — rather, it is how the state should spend taxpayers’ money. In my opinion, it is wrong for a state to spend its tax revenue on ideological agenda. (In other words, the state should not do it, but if the state does do it, the individual is still obligated to pay for it, regardless of whether he agrees or not).
Well, see, we agree on something…
Rob Reiner – a uniter, not a divider!
(I never get tired of that joke, poor though it may be)…
We probably agree on a lot more than you realize. I voted for all of Arnold’s propositions last year. I voted to recall Democratic governor Gray Davis. I voted for Rudy Giuliani twice. I think Reagan had admirable qualities of leadership, and I think Bush I was a very decent man and a good President. I supported Gulf War I, the Afghan war, and I initially supported the invasion of Iraq (although I took what the administration said at face value). I believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the capitalist system.
But as for Bush and Cheney: I think they are without a doubt the worst leaders we have had in my lifetime, and possibly the worst leaders we have ever had.