Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law
As predicted by all reasonable people who knew that Obama’s executive order was disingenuous, elective abortion will now be paid for with your tax dollars. The Obama administration has just approved it. This is truly a “moral injustice of the first order.” Here are the details.
By the way, I don’t merely object to abortion because I’m now paying for it. Abortion is wrong no matter who pays for it. Tax-payer funding just adds another injustice.
UPDATE 7/19/2010: Perhaps due to pressure and the spotlight put on this issue, the Obama administration reversed itself. Click here for details. However, pro-lifers are calling for a law to be passed to prevent abortion funding because an executive order cannot overrule the health care law. A new congress seems the only hope for that.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Dr. Turek,
I cannot get the link to work properly. Can you please check and repost if necessary. (Is anyone else having a problem?) This is a great topic and I hope to write some comments later today or tomorrow.
Thanks,
Luke
July 14th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Thanks for the heads up Luke. Check the link now.
July 17th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Just an update on this, the evening of the day this blog entry was published, further news stories on this issue hit the press.
Below I will reproduce parts of a post on ABC news (all emphasis mine).
June 14, 2010: Obama Administration Clarifies Rules on Abortion Funding in Health Care Legislation by Jake Tapper
Facing questions from anti-abortion groups about whether a newly approved Pennsylvania health care plan would allow the use of federal funds for abortions, the Obama administration reiterated today that funding for President Obama’s health care legislation would only pay for abortions in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.
The issue was raised by Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), who noted that at the end of June the Obama administration had approved $160 million for Pennsylvania to set up a “high risk” pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions who had been uninsured for the previous six months.
The language in the Pennsylvania solicitation for that plan, however, seemed to suggest abortions could be covered.
While the solicitation said that “elective abortions are not covered,” it also stated the plan would include “only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements” of a number of Pennsylvania statutes — including one stating that abortions can be provided by physicians who determine in “his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary … in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.”
…
But Rosanne Placey of the Pennsylvania Insurance Department disputed that. Placey said the language in the solicitation was just “a placeholder” and that “the bottom line is we will abide by all federal regulations,” which means “someone couldn’t come in and get an abortion on demand.”
Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Jenny Backus said ”in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.”
July 17th, 2010 at 12:11 am
Dr. Turek,
I think this is a very interesting case (not Penn, just the idea of federal abortion funding).
I honestly don’t know what to think.
On the one hand, it seems right and just to not require people to pay for what they find morally abhorrent.
The problem is: a lot of people find a lot of things morally abhorrent.
Why should a pacifist pay for B1 bombers and nuclear warheads?
(And a pacifist will likely have a lot more tax money go to things with which he or she disagrees than someone who is pro-life.)
Why should someone who opposes vivisection have their tax dollars support it through millions and millions in grants?
I could go on and on with examples obviously, but you get the point.
So how do we decide who’s moral objections we respect as a government?
Is it simply a matter of numbers? Since enough people are opposed to abortion we should respect their wishes?
I think this would go against the 14th amendment: “equal protection under the law.”
Just because there are more people like you, you should not get more protection than a minority.
Should we just have an opt out system for everyone? Just check off your moral conviction and we’ll add $xx to your refund? I don’t think that would work.
Anyway, I don’t have a good answer for this.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Luke
July 17th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
I suppose we could offer up lots of hypothetical situations where we claim ‘a lot of people’ consider things morally abhorrent. In the example you gave, is building bombs and bombers what is morally abhorrent or is using them for the wrong reasons morally abhorrent?
Abortion is a clearly defined medical procedure that also clearly divides the country. To me it is not about providing federal funds for abortion as much as proving that abortions need to be funded in the first place. Of all the medical procedures out there now, why in the world do we even need to pay for abortions at all? What is the logic? Are we going to argue that if we can find a few people in a nation of 300 million who supposedly cannot pay for an abortion, then the government should pay for it? For that matter, I stated on the other thread that I reject the idea that tax money needs to be used to pay for health insurance in the first place.
When emotions are brought into the picture, hypothetically we could make a case for the government to fund almost anything and everything in the name of ‘compassion’. So where do we stop?
July 17th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Doesn’t surprise me at all. We already pay to make sure our inmates get the highest level of medical attention out of anyone in our country, so of course the next logical step is to pay to kill babies. Sad and ridiculous.
July 18th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
It’s ALL about the money.
Elevit – A Bayer company brand, spends money advertising to get women to use a product intended to benefit the life of their unborn child. They aren’t pro life – they are pro-money.
The “pro-choice” folk who say men have no right to comment on a woman’s “reproductive rights” NEVER advocate that paying for the cost of child raising is a women’s only affair.
Taxpayers fund the scientific research which has proven that the unborn child responds to external stimulus from at least as early as 6 weeks. (fetal heart rate changes)
Taxpayers fund the neo natal care in many hospitals for pre-term babies born, in some cases at 21 weeks while other 21 week old “embryos” are being “legally” aborted.
The choice to have an abortion is far and away most commonly influenced…not by rape, not by some congenital “defect” (such as being the wrong gender) – BUT BY MONEY!…money which someone prefers to spend on their other “discretionary spending”.
The lawyers who sue insurance companies for money because some obstetrician made a mistake aren’t in order to make some high moral case based on the “duty of care” anyone has for the unborn.
The politicians, like Mr Tony Abbott in Australia, who say they are strong Christians but would never let their Christian values interfere with their obligations as politicians (ie. to get elected) don’t care if the tax payers money gets spent paying doctors to carry out abortions.
Imagine that! A politician dubbed “religious fanatic” publicly disavowing his own Christianity like some on/off switch because it “might” affect his electoral appeal.
Of COURSE Barack Obama is going to put money and power first.
What a disgusting genuflection to mammon!
Lion (IRC)
July 18th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
^Yep, you’re right! It’s all just one huge conspiracy. Nobody could possibly ever have a different view than that. It’s all just Evul for the sake of Evul.
>:/
July 19th, 2010 at 2:45 am
Hi Tim D,
Yours appears to be the only post so far which takes a flippant approach to abortion and, for that matter….”evul”
Lion (IRC)
July 19th, 2010 at 5:56 am
^Well, of course! We’re all in on the “conspiracy,” remember? The conspiracy to abort fetuses and such for no other reason than For The Evuls.
:/
July 19th, 2010 at 10:12 am
We already pay to make sure our inmates get the highest level of medical attention out of anyone in our country…
Gee, I guess socialized medicine really works then, huh?
July 19th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Toby-
What?
July 19th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
You said inmates get the best medical attention . . . who do you think gives that to them, or at least pays for it?
July 19th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Right- the government gives that medical attention to them, and we pay for that with our tax dollars. That was my point. It is ridiculous that we do so, and it’s ridiculous that our taxes will also pay for abortions.
July 19th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Also, I respond with a “right.” We pay for it and according to you it’s so good, so then why don’t we do it for everyone?
And our tax dollars don’t pay for abortions. Our tax dollars subsidize insurance companies that will pay for abortions. Why don’t I see any of you getting mad at them instead of the government? I’m willing to bet that a good number of you and fellow conservatives have insurance from healthcare companies that will pay for abortions. So . . . where are the huge lines of protesters that are dropping their insurance companies?
July 19th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Agreed- if we are going to do it for inmates, it should be done for everyone. If one population is going to be covered so well, it should be the general public as opposed to those who are incarcerated.
Specifically, tax dollars subsidize insurance companies. I disagree with the government subsidizing the insurance companies, and I disagree with the insurance companies that will pay for the abortions. So now, to appease you, I’ll find a line to stand in and protest.
July 19th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
And our tax dollars don’t pay for abortions. Our tax dollars subsidize insurance companies that will pay for abortions. Why don’t I see any of you getting mad at them instead of the government? I’m willing to bet that a good number of you and fellow conservatives have insurance from healthcare companies that will pay for abortions. So . . . where are the huge lines of protesters that are dropping their insurance companies?
I’m more concerned with this partisan, second- and third-removed process of incessantly protesting every. Single. Thing. The president does. Somehow, “tax dollars subsidize insurance companies which may OR MAY NOT include abortion procedures in their coverage” becomes translated as “Obama supports killing babies!” The amount of spin and misrepresentation is disturbing….it’s almost like people *want* him to be evil or something. They just won’t see it any other way.
I like the way John Stewart put it when he said, “coming up next: should Puerto Ricans be allowed to drive down our property values?”
It’s like saying we shouldn’t allow blacks into the military because, *statistically,* blacks are more likely to have AIDS than whites. If you allow for enough steps removed, you can make a case for almost any act of discrimination. It’s just too loose of a way to think for me….I need something more binding. But whatever, I’m just a probe for the Liberal Conspiracy to Kill Babies For Teh Evuls (LCKBFTE, for short). So what do I know?
:/
July 19th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
My objection is the disregard for the constitution by the federal government in a growing number of instances. When I read the constitution, I do not see where it currently grants the federal government the power to subsidize or provide health care funding, either privately or corporately.
Tim, I understand your dismay with partisan protests. However, you seem to imply that those posting here are part of that movement. Do you really believe that? I am not accusing Obama of supporting the killing of babies. However, it does concern me that during the health care bill debate, this very issue we are discussing came up and Obama supposedly signed an executive order to prevent federal tax dollars from funding abortions. As I remember, several key votes were obtained by using this assurance of the executive order preventing such a thing from happening.
Now, it seems that even though the executive order was signed, it will either be ignored or not enforced. That type of duplicity should be a grave matter of concern when our national leaders will say or do anything to get legislation passed and then ignore or fail to enforce their word. All of us, regardless of our disagreements over religious/moral matters should demand a much higher level of integrity from our leaders than that.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Kyle said:Now, it seems that even though the executive order was signed, it will either be ignored or not enforced.
I just don’t know that I see that this is what happened here. From what I have read what basically happened is this:
A. Pennsylvania wrote a solicitation for their high-risk pool which specifically said ‘elective abortions are not covered.’
B. Some people said ‘well, even though it says that, one could interpret the law otherwise.’
C. Hours later the Obama administration reiterated that “in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.”
I just don’t see any conspiracy to not abide by the executive order. It’s not as if the administration came out and said “ha ha, suckers!” They basically said “no, the executive order will not be ignored and will be enforced.
I am not saying any of this is proof of a lack of conspiracy, but I am saying that I just don’t see or detect one.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Why do people here like to use the word ‘conspiracy’? I am just reading the news like the rest of you guys. I am not even suggesting that a conspiracy is going on.
Thanks for providing this updated information Luke. I have also read some stories from today (7/20) that seem to indicate there has been some movement to keep this type of funding from happening. I will ask you. Has the government been funding abortions previously for rape, incest, or the life of the women or does this represent a new policy? The reason I ask is I have always understood that no federal funds have been used to pay for any abortions at all. Also, does anyone here know exactly which executive order this is and what it specifically says?
July 20th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Kyle,
That’s a good question. The answer is, no, this is not new policy and the federal government has funded abortion in the rare cases you mentioned for a long time. This has been done through Medicaid, but also through things like Tricare which is the insurance program for the Armed Forces, which covers abortion in those cases.
The key thing to look at as far as law and policy is the Hyde Amendment. This is an amendment which is passed every year (and has been passed every year since Roe v Wade) as a part of other bills. It is a bit different every year, but has for a long time included exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.
When the president and other lawmakers talked about “no funding for abortion” (on both sides) what was really meant is that funding would fit the current federal rules and would not be expanded. If you read back over quotes and speeches, you will see Obama often talking about keeping the “status quo.” While the other formulation (no federal funding for abortion) was not as precise, I think politicos on both sides understood that it more referred to the status quo of very limited funding in rare and special cases.
Thanks,
Luke
ps I hope to write back on the issue of funding that we discussed earlier at some point; I am just very short on time.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Oh, the reason I used the word conspiracy is that I think the suggestion is made by many, either directly or indirectly.
A definition if conspiracy (dictionary.com)
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
The suggestion, at least by many, is that the executive order was never meant to be carried out. That there was always a plan (a secret plan since the President always insisted otherwise) to publicly fund elective abortions, something which many define as evil.
It just seems like the dictionary definition would fit.
Luke
July 20th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Thanks for the answers Luke. I am not in the conspiracy camp. In fact, Obama is governing exactly the way I expected him too. It is just I do not and will not support his method of governing. I actually have a lot of respect for the man. He is one of the few recent Presidents to serve during my lifetime that governs in a manner mostly consistent with his core beliefs (IMO).
My prayer is that I would get to vote for a candidate for President that has core beliefs similar to my own and is willing to govern in a manner mostly consistent with those core beliefs. I have yet to get such an opportunity.
One other thing. The executive order agreement with Obama to garner the votes needed to pass the health care legislation was very shallow. For an executive order does not over ride laws passed by the legislative branch. In other words, it is a rather empty gesture and not worth much. Just my opinion of course.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Kyle,
Here is a good illustration of why I used the word conspiracy.
This is a simple summary of what Dr. Turek wrote:
A. The Obama administration approved a solicitation stating — and I quote — “elective abortions are not covered.”
B. The Obama administration “reversed itself” by stating that elective abortions are not covered.
Perhaps this is logically possible without some conspiracy involved, but someone would have to share with me how.
The issue with the executive order is more complicated and I don’t think I have time to fully get into it. Have you read the text of the order? It very basically says that current federal law applies to HCR. It does not really purport to override any current federal law. (It’s almost as if it says “hey everybody, you know how we have those laws and stuff? we should, like, do what they say.”)
Thanks,
Luke
ps I have read Obama’s books and have followed him pretty closely over the last few years (since ‘04). I think his core beliefs when it comes to health care are for single payer, not a plan strongly resembling the Heritage Foundation(a very conservative think tank) health reform plan from the 90s). I think an argument can be made that he pursues policies as close to his core beliefs as are politically feasible. (Ask anyone on the left, and you might get some very strong disagreement.) I am not sure if you’re talking about policy, or about his method and approach to governance. I think in the latter you might be correct, but it’s complicated, especially given the partisan political dynamic we have seen lately.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:57 am
Hey Kyle,
Thanks for your response on the topic of whose moral outrage should be excluded from federal funding and whose should be included. Here are some of my thoughts.
Kyle said:I suppose we could offer up lots of hypothetical situations where we claim ‘a lot of people’ consider things morally abhorrent.
We can, but I don’t think they are hypothetical. A lot of people consider a wide variety of actions abhorrent and immoral according to their religious beliefs, and we, as a country, pursue many of those same things. This is not an imaginary scenario, but the way it is.
So…
How should we decide whose moral outrage we take into account, and whose we happily ignore?
Kyle said:In the example you gave, is building bombs and bombers what is morally abhorrent or is using them for the wrong reasons morally abhorrent?
If you think all violence is wrong, I don’t know if there are many right reasons for using bombs.
I also don’t think you can remove objects too far from their intended purpose. For example, you’ve said you don’t think the government should pay for abortion, but would you be okay with the government building abortion clinics, and buying the necessary medical equipment to put in them? Paying for the care nurses and the counselors, for most of the doctor’s salary, only excluding the few percent of his time he spends actually performing the life-ending part of an abortion procedure?
Kyle said:Of all the medical procedures out there now, why in the world do we even need to pay for abortions at all? What is the logic?
Well, basically now it’s fairly standard for insurance companies to cover abortion services. For example, my insurance that I pay for through work covers abortion. (I am sure many people with whom I work who fierce oppose any federal money going to insurance coverage which covers abortion, help pay for this coverage monthly without thinking twice.)
Insurance tends to pay for all medically accepted procedures. It’s not as if the government has had a debate to ask — ok, what’s the logic behind funding appendectomy? what’s the logic behind funding catheter ablation?
The scenario here isn’t that there will be a government office, where one can go, fill out a form, say “ooh, I really, really want this abortion” and walk out with a $100 to get it done.
The scenario is that the government will help people who can’t afford it buy insurance. However, they are telling the private insurance companies — look, here is what your coverage has to look like; you can do this, but you can’t do this. They are doing this based on the moral opposition of a large group of people. (At the same time, they ignore completely the moral outrage of other, smaller groups of people.)
To be fair to your question, I think you’d have to talk to someone who is less morally opposed to abortion to get a better answer to the logic question. It’s hard for me to provide a good one.
You’ve sort of flipped my question though. My question is what is the logic behind withholding government funding from activities which are perfectly legal, and very widely funded privately.
People are asking for a law to say “abortion can not be funded” not a law saying “myringotomy can be funded, RAST tests can be funded…”
I think your question is better suited to the second type of law, not the first.
Kyle said:Are we going to argue that if we can find a few people in a nation of 300 million who supposedly cannot pay for an abortion, then the government should pay for it?
Again the actual argument is about insurance coverage and what it covers, not a ‘give me $100 to have an abortion, mr. government bureaucrat’ scenario, but are we really comfortable with a class division forming here? With a society where rich people can exterminate their babies, but poor people live in a totally different world where they can’t? There is something that makes me uncomfortable with this idea.
Thanks,
Luke
July 21st, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Thanks for your replies Luke. What is clouding the discussion is the initial topic is about public money being used to pay for abortions but you are talking about public money being used to buy insurance which just happens to pay for abortions. I understand your point. However, I will just stick to my problem with the whole thing to keep it simple. Earlier I started an entry with these two statements.
My objection is the disregard for the constitution by the federal government in a growing number of instances. When I read the constitution, I do not see where it currently grants the federal government the power to subsidize or provide health care funding, either privately or corporately.
To be more specific. I understand we are talking about buying insurance in this case. Either way, I do not see how the constitution is currently being observed by subsidizing health insurance costs.
To answer one of your questions. No, I would not be in favor of the government buidling abortion clinics and paying for the equipment and staffing. An abortion, regardless of whether you find it morally wrong, is a medical procedure and as such should be treated as one. We do not have ‘appendix removal clinics’ as an example. My point is we only separate medical procedures into separate clinics based on patient demand, not the procedure being performed. I submit we do not have enough patient demand to require an ‘abortion clinic’ like we have heart or cancer centers for treatment.
I would favor research spending or even partially funding general hospital construction, but not staffing and equipment purchase. Those should be private sector supported.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Kyle said:What is clouding the discussion is the initial topic is about public money being used to pay for abortions but you are talking about public money being used to buy insurance which just happens to pay for abortions.
Well, the original topic was about an insurance plan, which will be setup to cover people with pre-existing conditions (who cannot now get insurance on their own) and would be paid for with 160 billion federal dollars. Of the thousands of things this insurance plan would cover, elective abortion — some believed — could be one.
The issue with the exchanges and the back and forth with Bart Stupak’s coalition dealt with what insurance plans would cover as well.
So starting with the original post by Dr. Turek, the topic has been insurance programs subsidized with federal funds which, among many other things, cover abortion.
I am certainly not trying to cloud the issue, just to be faithful to what is being discussed.
I understand your objection to HCR in general, that’s another topic altogether.
Thanks,
July 21st, 2010 at 5:26 pm
One thing is for sure, I have yet to get anyone to comment about the constitutionality of all this mess whether it is another topic altogether or not.
Let me just say that not only should the federal government not be funding abortions, the federal government should not be subsidizing any private medical procedures at all, whether it is through private insurance purchases or otherwise.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:42 pm
One thing is for sure, I have yet to get anyone to comment about the constitutionality of all this mess whether it is another topic altogether or not.
Let me just say that not only should the federal government not be funding abortions, the federal government should not be subsidizing any private medical procedures at all, whether it is through private insurance purchases or otherwise.
Spoken like a true libertarian
July 21st, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Kyle,
I would love to comment on it, but could not faithfully do so without a good deal of research.
What specifically would you like someone to comment on?
There are plenty of lawyers who have blogs which have discussed many of these issues almost endlessly. Have you looked at any of these? I think that would be a good place to start.
Thanks,
Luke
July 21st, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Kyle, by ‘what specifically’ I meant was section of HCR you’re asking about.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I am not asking for a lawyer’s opinion. I am not a lawyer. I am just a private citizen that has read the constitution and compared that to a lot of what our government is doing and developed opinions about it.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:49 am
Kyle,
I understand, but you were asking for a comment from someone, that’s what led to my question.
To be honest, I don’t think reading the constitution is enough. If you read the constitution, you are still lacking a lot of information on what is and what is not in the constitution.
Without reading Marbury vs. Madison, you miss out on many ideas about the concept of constitutional itself. It just goes on from there.
One crude example: something which was “constitutional” in 1897 under Plessy vs. Ferguson, might have become completely “unconstitutional” in 1955 under Brown v Board.
The constitution is a huge piece of the puzzle, but it’s not all of it.
For what it’s worth the Roberts Court has already sent some signals on its interpretation of the the Commerce Clause and they take a wider reading than the Rehnquist court.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
I am not asking for a lawyer’s opinion. I am not a lawyer. I am just a private citizen that has read the constitution and compared that to a lot of what our government is doing and developed opinions about it.
Unfortunately, the constitution does not cover metaphorical or hyperbolic “offenses.” If the government isn’t actually doing something specific that’s illegal or unconstitutional, then there is no offense. That’s why you don’t hear non-libertarians complaining about these sorts of things.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:44 pm
What I have suggested are not metaphorical or hyperbolic offenses. It is certainly reasonable to question the government’s ability to subsidize insurance premiums for private individuals. You know Tim, about the only thing you do on this blog is offer accusatory remarks. Why not try offering a counter viewpoint instead of wasting time placing political labels on people you do not agree with?
I do realize that you could argue that the federal government is not specifically violating the constitution. However, I have also asked where in the constitution certain powers being exercised by the federal government are found.
If your position is the government can do whatever it wants to do as long as there is no specific violation of the constitution, then perhaps we need to start ammending the constitution to prohibit specific policies.
Based on the noticable void offered by you on this subject other than making sure others know what you think my personal political persuation is, I suppose you are OK with the federal government taking tax money from working people and giving it to other people. Since you are, is there a limit or line that should not be crossed? Where does it stop? What is the criteria that should be used to make the decision to use public money in this way?
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
It is certainly reasonable to question the government’s ability to subsidize insurance premiums for private individuals.
It’s reasonable to question pretty much anything. Of course you’re doing much more than questioning, you are accusing the president of involvement in some sort of conspiracy to undermine the capitalist nature of the United States.
You know Tim, about the only thing you do on this blog is offer accusatory remarks. Why not try offering a counter viewpoint instead of wasting time placing political labels on people you do not agree with?
1) So wait, you’re accusing me of….making accusatory remarks? Hmm.
2) I’ll stop calling you a libertarian when you stop espousing libertarian principles. The idea that the government is not allowed to interfere with private industries (i.e. complete or near-complete economic deregulation) is a very, very libertarian policy. Also libertarian is the idea that a company’s “right to production and competition” actually outweighs the right of the masses to be able to survive at a reasonable cost.
Even if you don’t want to admit that this is a libertarian view, they still come from the same ideology — the idea that property is inherently more valuable than human life, and that to sacrifice property to protect and improve human life is somehow “socialist” or “totalitarian” or “takes away our rights.”
:/
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Addendum: I can already hear the follow-up response, “but people don’t have a right to survive at a reasonable cost! It’s not actually in the constitution….”
Anyone who makes that argument will prove my point, which is that they value property more than life.
But anyway….I’d still disagree. The stated premise of the constitution, as outlined in the preamble, is to provide a framework of safety and security and welfare for the people. Capitalism is just a means to that end — the work needs to be done, so it makes sense to build a system where the people work themselves, and also reap the benefits of work in doing so. Problem is, the jobs which are necessary to run a country are (a) limited, and (b) of varying importance. Which is to say, one person’s job may be “easier” but pay better or be “more important,” whereas another’s may be “harder” but be “less important” and as a result have fewer financial benefits. This results in an unfair allocation of resources — people do the same amounts of work but are not afforded the same resources in return.
In order to encourage effective capitalism and competition, it is sometimes necessary to regulate the economy — food stamps help people whose jobs are necessary but low-paying, for example. We don’t want to discourage people from taking jobs that don’t pay the absolute optimum, because then nobody will want to do those jobs, so there are of course financial alternatives for people who find themselves in a tight spot. To a libertarian, this would be “socialism” and a “violation of my rights as a private citizen.” To me, it is part of a realistic view of how capitalism actually works in the real world, as opposed to some naive and idealistic version of capitalism in which everything is privatized and entire classes of people are systematically blamed for their own financial insecurity just because EVERYBODY in the world can’t be a doctor or a lawyer.
[/rant]
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
You are wrong on both points Tim.
I have repeatable and consistently been clear that I am NOT accusing the president of being involved in a conspiracy. I do not care if you think otherwise. You are just plain wrong to insist that I am when I am here to refute your claim. If you want to continue thinking you know what I mean when you don’t, that is your problem.
I have never said nor implied that the government is not allowed to interfere with private industries. I have even stated as much on another blog thread where I agreed that regulation of private industry is one of the roles of government. But since you insist on being more informed about what I am talking about that I am, I will state it once again. I am not calling for complete or near-complete economic deregulation. Also, I do not believe that a company’s rights outweigh the right to survive at a reasonable cost nor do I believe that property is inherently more valuable than human life.
You are not the expert here about what I stand for and what the meaning of my comments are. I am the only expert here on that subject so I suggest in the future that you try to ask questions or clarify.
So in closing, thank you for providing more evidence for my claim that about the only thing you do on this blog is offer accusatory remarks….for you just did it AGAIN.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
After I posted, you second post was there. Thank you for offering something more. In your example, where we are going to have a disagreement is the method being used to address the inequality you speak about. I do not think the way to address it is for the government to take public tax money and subsidize private incomes on an ongoing basis. I do not have a particular problem with programs that offer TEMPORARY help to those who are having a hard time, but to offer sustained government payouts to private citizens is not a formula that works. We have got to face it, a certian percentage of the population is always going to live below the poverty line. The rest of us need to stop relegating the care of these to the government, which is wasteful and cumbersome, and start helping people who need it individually in our communities. Face to face care of the needy is a much more effective way of providing help than a faceless, unaccountable, government bueracracy IMO.
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Luke, responding to your first post. I don’t see a way to discern between different people’s moral convictions unless there is a clear and objective standard apart from nature. This is the argument of G.E. Moore in “Principia Ethica” (a naturalist). Objective discernment is illusory unless there is a standard beyond nature.
Oh, and while vivisectioning might be objectionable, there is a difference between mutilating dead things and mutiliating living things. Also, the pacifist objection is different too since militarism has been, historically, required to defend the people’s privilege to hold to pacifist objections. The early church was largely pacifist, yet they had Biblical instruction to be submissive to government. So they just wouldn’t assault or kill anyone, but they paid their taxes and let the Roman government invite condemnation for whatever evil it did with its tax monies. The early church also did not have much of a vote to change the Roman governmental order either, whereas we do have a vote and so we have the moral responsibility to seek to elect officials who will do the right thing where and when they can. Pacifism is a complex position that can include various degrees of civil disobedience. Many of its stances provide a middle ground for the objection you were raising.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
John,
Thanks.
You said: I don’t see a way to discern between different people’s moral convictions unless there is a clear and objective standard apart from nature.
John, my question was one of political philosophy, not moral epistemology.
Is your answer that we first have to determine whose moral objections are objectively correct? Then we respect those objections only?
You said: Oh, and while vivisectioning might be objectionable, there is a difference between mutilating dead things and mutiliating living things.
I am not sure what you’re referring to here. Abortion vs vivisection? Vivisection comes from the latin: vivus (alive) + sectio (to cut). Encyclopedia Brittanica defines vivsection as: [an] operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals.
I think that while some may disagree, both you and I agree that a fetus is indeed alive.
With your discussion of Pacifism, you seem to miss my question. If there is someone who objects to her money being spent on war machines, out of religious and moral conviction (Mat 5:38-42), should she be forced to give her money to produce them?
To say “well, you have to use force to protect your right to pacifism” has nothing to do with the question. Maybe some people prefer to die and go to heaven rather than have that right be paid for with innocent blood.
Our right to vote is also beside the point. If you have the right to vote, does that mean the government can use your own money to violate your moral beliefs?
Again, this is a question of political philosophy, not morality.
(Think Locke, Rousseau and Rawles, not Hume, Taylor and Lewis.)
Thanks,
Luke
August 4th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
John,
As I said in asking the original question, I don’t know a good answer.
I appreciate your participation in the discussion. I may just be missing something, but it seems to me that you jumped to a different question (what is moral and immoral).
Thanks,
Luke