Joe Biden caves on the Hyde Amendment- and a serious proposal
But after intense criticism from his far-left opponents for the Democratic nod, Biden reversed his position to conform to left-wing orthodoxy only 24 hours after reaffirming his support for the Hyde Amendment.
“If I believe health care is a right, as I do," the Democratic front-runner blathered, "I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s ZIP code.”
The problem, of course, is that abortion isn't "health care" no matter how many times Democrats and the left claim that it is. The percentage of abortions actually performed because of questions regarding the health of the mother is small. But as we saw in the debate (such as it was) on same-sex "marriage," he who defines the issue (in that case, "marriage equality" rather than the more accurate "relationship equality" or even "marriage redefinition") wins the debate. And the Democrats and the left- and both categories include the overwhelming majority of the nation's journalists- by definition get to define the issue. Always.
After all these years, it suddenly dawned on Joe Biden that it's discriminatory for the Federal government to spend money on something most Americans have ethical qualms about. Imagine that.
And once again, the former vice-president raised the familiar talking-point that the Republican position is "extreme." Well, perhaps it is. But given the fact that despite consistently saying that they support Roe v. Wade (which they seem to understand more in terms of the principle that abortion should be legal at all rather than indicating an acquaintance with what Roe actually says) in fact the consensus of the American people is not only to the right of Roe and the Democrats but always has been.
Bear in mind that there is an alternative term for third-trimester abortion. It is called "Caesarian delivery," and it never requires the death of the fetus. Remember, too, that the large majority of the American people believe that, in principle, abortion should be legal only during the first trimester:
True. Roe only recognizes a "Constitutional right" to abortion during the first trimester, and in general, grants states the right to regulate it thereafter. But it requires that it be legal even in the case of a viable fetus if the woman's life is endangered (which by definition it never is) or her health is endangered (and again, it never is- if we're talking about physical health.
Caesarian delivery is always the procedure of choice (excuse the term) in such a situation, and it never requires the death of the fetus.
It's true that by a significant majority Americans believe that abortion in the first trimester ought to be an option if the mother's mental health is endangered. But remember that simple anxiety can be considered a mental health issue and that all Roe allows a state to require is that a qualified physician certifies that a woman's mental health is at stake. And significantly, Gallup does not even bother to ask the question with regard to late-term abortions!
A majority of Americans think that even in the first-trimester abortion should be illegal "when a woman does not want the child for any reason." Simply that puts them in opposition to Roe. And it also implies that if a first-trimester abortion is to be performed for reasons of the mother's mental health, anxiety probably wouldn't cut it.
Yes, if one uses the position of the American people as measured by Gallup as the measure, the Republican position- that abortion should always be illegal except to save the life of the mother- is indeed "extreme." But then so is the Democratic position, which categorically supports and upholds Roe not only in principle but in the specifics concerning which most Americans disagree with it, whether they realize that fact or not.
I cannot philosophically, ethically, or theologically justify abortion except to save the mother's life, although there are circumstances (rape and incest, for example) in which I would be hard-pressed not to support a woman's decision to abort regardless of consistency. In any case, bear in mind that what I'm about to propose is not a philosophical or theological position, nor is it a suggestion as to what the law philosophically ought to be. But it is where it seems to me as clear as crystal the consensus of the American people is, and while both sides should, of course, remain free to do everything in their power to change that consensus, this seems to me to be where a democratic society whose consensus is where it is in the United States today ought to start out.
1. Abortion should generally be legal in the first trimester. It should not be legal simply as a matter of retroactive birth control. But broadly speaking, any other reason why a woman seeks an abortion should presumptively be upheld.
2. States should be free to regulate abortions in the second trimester, with the proviso that it must be allowed when the mother's life or physical health is threatened, and it can be established in court on the basis of expert testimony that the carrying and bearing of the fetus to term or at least until the 24th week (generally seen as the point of viability) would cause the mother significant long-term psychological harm.
3. States should be free to outlaw abortion by methods which intend the death of the fetus in the third trimester, defined at least as beginning at 24 weeks or however much earlier post-natal advances make it possible for a majority of fetuses to survive outside the womb. There should be a discussion as to whether non-lethal means of delivery (i.e., Caesarian delivery contemplating the survival of the fetus) should be required as early as any significant percent of babies survive, again with every effort made to save the baby's life thereafter.
That seems to me to be a solution which, while it wouldn't please everyone, could be a place which accurately represents our society's consensus and which given our system ought to be the place where we start. It certainly is an option worth raising, and one which I believe would command the support of the majority of Americans, as the status quo does not.
But Joe Biden couldn't raise it. He correctly perceived that you have to be gung-ho, unequivocally for Roe in every detail and even buy into the inaccurate and deceitful rhetoric of abortion as "health care" to survive in today's inflexible and ideologically rabid Democratic party. It should be noted that the Republicans have, at least in the past, actually been more flexible, nominating several candidates who thought that rape and incest ought also to be legal grounds for abortion despite the position of the party platform.
But any flexibility or willingness to compromise, even temporarily, is doubtless dead in the GOP now that it has become the party of El Jefe, Donald Trump. Which only further underscores the point that we will never get compromise or even conversation on controversial issues in terms which both sides can understand as long as we are restricted in our choices to the two parties from which we currently have to choose.
A third party is an absolute necessity if we are ever once again going to be able to discuss the difficult questions which divide us and seek consensus rather than just screaming at one another.
Comments