The other day, I noticed a McCain bumper sticker along with a Giuliani (“Rudy”) one. This was another proof in a conspiracy theory that I came up with when Giuliani dropped out of the race a while back.
On 21 May 2008, “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” became law. Essentially, the act prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage to someone with negative genetic makeup. This law is good legislation since it guarantees that everyone has the opportunity to enroll in or buy into health insurance to help improve or save peoples’ lives no matter what their genes may predispose them to.
If the legislation did not pass, many people with genetic issues would have to live without health insurance or live on the emergency room system (the general public). In addition, parents with children with negative genetic makeup would be forced to drop their children off their insurance. Some parents would probably even be forced to abort their children so they (the parents) could have insurance. (So much for safe and rare.)
97% of the US House voted for the Act. Ron Paul, a doctor, was part of the 3% who voted against it. Why would a doctor vote against it? Yes, with this Act the government is interfering in private industry, but with life and death issues, the government must intervene.
FD has suggested to me that the Act may be seen as another affirmative action law. I disagree in part. Yes, it says that the disadvantaged gets special treatment; in affirmative action law, minorities get to get into college. However, with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the disadvantaged get to live. Insurance companies should not dictate that part of society at large must die to win a heavy bottom line (with blood).
What do you think of the Act? Why do you think Dr. Paul voted against it? (I thought he was OTAAC, or pro-life.)
On a webpage somewhere (sorry, I can’t remember where) someone asked, “What do pro-lifers really want?” He was skeptical that pro-lifers (PL’s) really knew what they wanted.
This struck me as strange. I would think it odd that the actions of PL’s (the sane ones, you know, the non-bombers) don’t speak for themselves. We silently protest with prayers outside abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood (usually the same thing). We vote for pro-life politicians. We march on Washington (DC) every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
PL’s want abortion, just like murder, to be made illegal. PL’s don’t want anyone to be able to eliminate zygotes, embryos, fetus, or babies. PL’s don’t want embryos from test tubes to be destroyed (ones from IVF and laboratories). PL’s want women to be given choices of how they are to bear and raise their children, not how to destroy their children.
Yes, abortions will still take place. However, murder and rape are also illegal and still happen everyday. PL’s also don’t want hit men to be permitted to have a room into which they lure their victims for blood-cash.
Ultimately, what PL’s want is for society to view all people as precious and sacred and to be safeguarded in the fact that all human people are to be defended. What abortion does (in addition to euthanasia) is to make society as a whole accept that some people are to be used or eliminated for other’s benefit.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Denver puts it very well.
The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies—although we certainly do—but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.
I at first found Mike Huckabee to be an interesting character, as a possible bright point in the dismal lineup of presidential candidates. Unfortunately, his character did not bear up well when I looked at him further, and I’m sorry to see that some bloggers like Rod Dreher still think he’s a viable politician or sign of a genuine movement. This post is to show evidence that Mr. Huckabee would be a poor president.