2016 election

I, Virginia Bergman, pledge not to vote for a male presidential candidate in 2016 just because he's male.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

The Sanctity of Whose Life?


Halloween is fast approaching and in a macabre kind of way, James Dobson’s recent sermon in the New York Times on the sanctity of enwombed life was timely, following as it did on the heels of Bush’s veto of the child health care bill.

Dobson announced that more than 50 pro-family leaders had resolved as follows: “If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.”

Dobson went on to say, “I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.”

For some of us, the sanctity of human life extends beyond the nine months in the womb. But in 2004, Dobson helped an army of so-called values voters re-elect George W. Bush, the Christian Right’s chosen standard-bearer. Since then, quite a few values that support life after birth have gone missing in the conduct of our government.

For starters, consider the values that inform plain and simple honesty (the Bush Administration has no credibility); humane treatment of detainees; the oversight of U.S. hired guns in Iraq; adequate aid for communities stricken by natural disaster; care for the environment; follow-up funding for mandated educational programs; and a commitment to our children’s health care.

Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times nailed Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as both heartless and mindless: “In purporting to defend against a government takeover of the insurance industry, he {Bush} blocked one of the best options for lifting families from wholly government-paid entitlements like Medicaid and into private insurance paid for in part by parents.”

The editorial continued: “SCHIP isn't welfare. In California, it is Healthy Families, the highly successful program that matches every state dollar with two from the federal government and entices parents to obtain and contribute to health coverage for their kids. Families that earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal (the California incarnation of Medicaid) but not enough to buy insurance on their own use Healthy Families to get their kids off to a good start in life and correct any problems that, left untreated, would turn into a larger taxpayer burden down the road. Those parents also get into the habit of making health insurance part of their budget, which is exactly what opponents of government-provided healthcare want.”

The editoral concludes: “Congress will try to override the veto later this month. If a few more members get clued in to the wisdom of using government help to introduce families to private health insurance, they will do a world of good for thousands of children.”

Let’s pray that a few more members get clued in. As Jesus, Bush’s favorite philosopher, would say, “Suffer the little children, come unto me.”

1 comment:

  1. In regards to abortion, I've always been on the fence myself (much to my wife's dismay). I will say that the inherent hypocrisy of the "Religious Right" does not make it easy to truly be pro-life. It's as if life begins at inception, but ends the moment the umbilical cord is cut. If we as a nation can't take proper care of the children we all ready have, then we certainly don't have the right to tell a pregnant woman not to have an abortion.

    [sarcasm] In Bush's defense, I have to say that America really doesn't have the money to spend on the health of our children; we need that money to send our children to foreign lands so they can kill other people's children. So we really shouldn't complain...[/sarcasm]

    ReplyDelete