Though the discussions of what the Democrats will have to do to regain national power might lead one to think otherwise, it is usually not good to cry over spilt milk, wondering "what might have been." This is hard though given that I think we had a subpar candidate, so will always wonder "what if?" Anyway, as I mentioned a few days back, success in Montana suggests that the Democrats have ways of winning now with Colorado another example, both states from Red America. Toss in such close states such as New Mexico and Nevada, and I think the whole business is just a tad bit overblown.
No matter, we are told that the Democrats have to temper their positions to win, such as the right to privacy, or however one might want to label this bundle of rights. And, bundle it is -- the reason why I have been so fascinated with the area of abortion for so long is that there are so many issues involved, including such things as religion, women's rights, bodily integrity, control of one's health and well being, and privacy in intimate relations.
This is known deep down on some level by both sides. So, frame the issue differently (e.g., Sen. Kerry's "articles of faith"), put a different brand on it so to speak. And, how exactly do they suggest we cut back? The matter is seen perhaps best in the "partial birth abortion" legislation, which President Clinton vetoed and lived to tell about it, which ultimately was a matter of woman's health. I guess we are to sacrifice that for those few percentage points needed to win, huh?
The selective treatment of abortion matters suggests that we cannot take things at face value. For instance, I mentioned recently the abortion pill controversy, which admittedly has not gotten much press overall. At issue is at most three deaths and various negative complications, which is nothing to sneer at, but is sadly not unique when it comes to medication. Compare this to the thousands of deaths apparently caused by the drug Vioxx.
[Correction: Thanks to a comment, I saw the above paragraph was edited incorrectly. A discussion on how "the right to be left alone" appeals to both liberals and conservatives was cut into a sentence involving Vioxx. Anyway, the latter link furthers the argument made by the comment that Democrats should look toward social libertarianism to advance their interests, including the fact a conservative agreed with me. But, see also, the criticism by a conservative (on this issue at least) Democrat.]
On the other hand, when an extra provision is tossed into a spending bill that would block any of the measure's money from going to federal, state or local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide abortions, make abortion referrals or cover them, it is sold as a matter of conscience. [The breadth of the legislation would mean that conflicting state laws, a few of which are more liberal on abortion funding, would be overridden. State discretion is a sometimes thing these days.]
Reflect back to those dead Latinas ... or the medical complications possible in pregnancy. Sorry to be a bit blunt -- just trying to show what's at stake here.* Yes, Virginia, there is a difference when the Republicans are in power. Feel safer now?
---
Anyway, the proper soul searching should be left to sports. For instance, sloppy play and a killer penalty toward the end of the game (one that I repeatedly read/heard was "questionable" -- oh, I despise when that happens), one that robbed the Giants (and new QB Eli Manning) of a good shot at getting the lead. But, even if the game (and likely the season) turned on a bad call, the team is flawed enough to blame other factors. For instance, if they could hold Michael Vick and the Falcons scoreless for the Second Half, why could they not hold the Arizona Cardinals to under seventeen points?
Oh well. The Jets won (messy, but we'll take it). And, while watching Brett Farve lead his team back to victory, one wonders -- does anyone love his job more than that guy?
---
* I know this might be considered in bad taste, but when this administration and their allies decides to cut back on family planning funding and allow (or direclty further the right of) medical providers to be selective in handling out medical advice, there are real world consequences. See, e.g., some of the essays in The W Effect: Bush's War Against Women, edited by Laura Flanders. The idea that pro-lifers suddenly stop caring about children at birth is an exaggerated stereotype, but one that is not too surprising given their support of such policy choices.
And, I don't know how much the pro-life movement makes a concerted effort at making itself friendly to sympathetic people on the other side. I feel sorry for Feminists for Life and such fellow travelers. Surely, the right to choose an abortion is not the only way to stop the tragic results of certain pregnancies (or unwanted pregnancies overall), though we probably will never exist in an utopia where abortions will never be an important option. And, until we reach this utopia, women for various reasons should have a full (and legally currently have a pretty strong) right to choose whether or not childbirth is right for them.