Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


Dept of No-Good-Deed-Goes-Unpunished (Abortion Division)

posted by swaldman

Democratic health care proposals in the House and Senate included this novel provision: the new health care exchanges would be required to offer at least one plan that covers abortion and one that doesn’t.
Doesn’t that sound even-handed? What I’m hearing is that the pro-choice forces didn’t much like the provision since most parts of the country already offered plans that covered abortion. They viewed this as a gimme for the pro-life forces.
Ironically, the pro-life forces attacked the provision for requiring that some plans cover abortion.
In other words, neither side much likes it. Hey: we’ve found something that the pro-life and pro-choice forces can agree on!



Advertisement
Comments read comments(3)
post a comment
Gerard Nadal

posted September 23, 2009 at 12:58 am


Steven:”Hilariously, the pro-life forces attacked the provision for requiring that some plans cover abortion.”
Hilarious? Over 3,000 babies are butchered daily in the US. I’m glad to see that the few defenders they have can add some levity to your day by objecting to abortion funding. I guess you really don’t get the horror of a human hacked to death in what ought to be the safety and sanctity of its mother’s womb. You don’t get it that they experience distress and agony as they are slaughtered. I say this not as a Roman Catholic, but as a Ph.D. Biologist who understands his physiology better than most.
Are you a father?



report abuse
 

Steven Waldman

posted September 23, 2009 at 4:04 pm


Gerard, I guess I’ll change ‘hilariously’ to ‘ironically.’ (I meant the word ‘hilariously’ to drip with acid sarcism, but I guess it didn’t) There are two points of irony here. There was a proposal on the table that would have dramatically increased the availability of health insurance policies that DON’T COVER ABORTION. And the pro-life forces attacked it. I understand and respect the principle they were espousing but it is ironic that in their focus repudiating anything and everything their enemy did, they defeated something that would have (IMHO) advanced their cause.
The second irony is that pro-choice people were worried they were giving up too much. They needn’t have worried. If it gets stripped, the pro-lifers will have done the work of the more ardent pro-choicers. I guess I do find that a bit, well, paradoxical.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted September 24, 2009 at 6:15 am


Steven,
The goal is to get rid of abortion. Period. To be certain, there are those in the pro-life camp who would accept compromises in pursuit of that goal. There is certainly something to be said for a half-loaf of bread still being food to a starving man. But that misses the point.
Just policy must be informed by good morality. It is simply unacceptable to say that one can accept the deaths of x number of babies. Besides, where is the value in accepting some policies that do not cover abortion, when those who are pro-choice will merely navigate to those that do?
Having bought in to such absurdity, the pro-life camp would be making a deal that it would be accused of reneging on in the future as it sought further reductions/elimination of abortion.
I realize that we are regarded as lacking depth and dimensionality in intellectual discourse when we say that all abortion is evil. We are accused of being rigid and anti-intellectual. I’m long past the phase in my life where those allegations might have cowed me into embarrassed silence. Becoming a scientist has taught me the value of universal laws and irrevocable truth in the physical universe. This has only buttressed my understanding of these values in the metaphysical.
At fertilization, there comes into existence a new human animal at its earliest stage of development. Being a distinct member of our species it must necessarily carry with it the inalienable (God-given) rights spoken of by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence: LIfe, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness. How often in our history have we learned to our bitter sorrow and disgrace the value of ‘inalienable’ (God-given), when by judicial, legislative, or executive fiat we revoked that which was not ours to revoke? African Americans, Native Americans, the sterilized handicapped, interred Japanese Americans, and now, the pre-born, all have been savaged by the hubris that leads to predation.
I think that those who are blind to such repeated lessons from history that illustrate the consequences of deviating from the Natural Law, as set down by the Founders, are the true anti-intellectuals among us. Their hubris continues to cost us dearly.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.