Sunday, March 17, 2002
More than a month and a half since President Bush extended the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover fetuses, thereby supplying needed prenatal care to poor women across the United States. At the time, feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women screamed bloody murder that Bush was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade.
So, in the 45+ days since the change, exactly how many abortions have been stopped? How many illegal abortion clinics have been closed?
Then why does Alex Gerber, a former health care consultant and clinical professor of surgery, ring the alarm bell in today's San Diego Union-Tribune?
Legally, Bush's attempt to sidestep Congress in effect will reverse the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I think the good doctor should stick to medicine, because his grasp of the legal system is woefully inadequate. Heck, a C-student in a high school civics class could explain to Gerber the problem with that little analysis. Gerber's homework assignment this week will be on the system of checks and balances.
Regarding public morality and the law, the American Jesuits have stated: "In a pluralistic society, a fundamental assumption of public policy is the recognition that everything immoral need not be declared illegal – social realities as well as religious principles must be taken into account in judging the wisdom of any legislation." Further, "the pro-lifers' branding of alternate viewpoints as immoral suggests a kind of moral fascism."
In re-igniting the abortion controversy while the country is absorbed with far more weighty problems, the Bush administration obviously disagrees with these views.
Well, first off, as I pointed out long ago, this was not a move to outlaw abortion, it was a move to extend health insurance coverage. The fact that, aside from Gerber's little article, the issue hasn't been on the radar screen of any major U.S. publication is testimony to the fact that Gerber is as bad at political science as he as at civics.
Secondly, as to the accusation that "branding of alternate viewpoints as immoral suggests a kind of moral fascism" that's hokum. Some "alternate viewpoints" are immoral. Neo-nazis' contention that Jews are dogs and should be executed is morally wrong. Would Gerber argue that denouncing that "alternate viewpoint" is "moral fascism?"
One of the biggest problems in American society today is the aversion to calling anything "evil" or "wrong." Saying that requires making a moral judgement, and that's just not politically correct.