URBAN DISPATCH: George Bush wants to get you pregnant
By Christine Carrie Fien on Jul. 22nd, 2008
The term "lame duck" is a misnomer. And misleading.
You might think that considering their abysmal approval ratings, George Bush and one of the most incompetent, dangerous administrations in American history are safely neutered. Wrong.
The latest: the Department of Health and Human Services has drafted a proposal that threatens federal funding of organizations and health facilities if they refuse to hire people who object to abortion and certain methods of birth control. The proposal, critics say, includes an overly broad definition of abortion, defining it as "any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
Philosophers, scientists, and religious thinkers have always struggled with the question of when life begins - at conception or at birth. Thank goodness we now have the Bushies to tell us that, in fact, it begins sometime after the man zips up his pants yet before he makes it out the door.
Never mind that birth control pills do more than prevent conception; they're also used to reduce menstrual pain and cramping and to improve heavy and irregular menstrual bleeding, to cite two examples.
Bush's abstinence-only push is a failure by design. Lack of comprehensive sex education and precluded access to birth control and emergency contraception lead to only one place: more unintended pregnancies. In fact, birth rates among girls ages 15 to 19 inched upward in 2006 after a long decline. But since when do the Bushies let science trump ideology? Censor or suppress the reports. Discredit anyone with a dissenting view. Put media on the payroll. It's all good, kids.
So what is the president up to now? In an interview with City Newspaper, Carol Love, president of the regional Planned Parenthood, predicted that if conservatives can't overturn Roe v. Wade, they intend to cripple it with a protracted series of swift kicks; an incremental "chipping away" through things like parental notification laws and waiting periods. This latest trick could fall in that category.
Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election, and he loses nothing by throwing social conservatives a boner. He has no agenda to push. It also gives an unpopular president who's tied to an ugly and endless war and a tanking economy an "accomplishment" to brag about.
At the very least, actions like this confuse people. Historically, most people have assumed that life begins quite a bit after conception or even when the baby is born. Political rhetoric and advancing technology are pushing that assumption back earlier and earlier. The language of this new proposal bestows life even before implantation of the fertilized egg. The danger, of course, is that no one knows when life begins. Is that really something a political entity should decide?
I've been trying to figure out what this latest move means for John McCain. Maybe it enraptures the conservatives who've had their hearts broken by Bush and are reluctant to fall in love again. But it could also alienate the spurned Clinton supporters who might otherwise go for McCain. Most likely, it's the Bushies acting in their usual vacuum.
I have to wonder why the president is even involved in this issue. There's no shortage of urgent matters that are a lot closer to his job description. Maybe this man still feels like he's doing God's work.
The Bushies have six months left and, much like a dying animal, they're going to use their last gasps to do as much damage as possible. Turn off the lights when you leave. And don't forget to burn down the house.
Watch Iran. Watch abortion. Watch the oil. And watch out.






User Comments
Here is what others say about this article. City Newspaper isn't responsible for the content of comments.
Jacksonian on July 28th, 2008
Below is my opinion on why abortion is wrong. We have to at least start with the truth. Then discussions regarding society's role should begin. If you choose to publish it please have the courage to do so in it's entirety. Thank you.
Why Abortion is Wrong!
Despite being "legal," we must, necessarily, due to the enormity of what is taking place every day, re-consider the reality of what takes place during an abortion. It is very easy to slide into the familiarity and comfort of our emotions when discussing this topic. This is a very emotional topic. Emotion has to be left at the door if you want to get to the truth.
At the moment of conception a sperm penetrates an egg thereby fertilizing the egg. At that moment the genetic make-up of that baby is complete. At that very moment the fertilized egg, or zygote, is no longer just a cell or clump of cells from just the mother or just the father. It is no longer just "a part" of the mother or the father. That zygote is now a living entity (or being) that is separate and apart (identifiably by the newly created genetic makeup) from both parents and dependent on the mother for nourishment and space to grow. It is not the mother or her body. It is a human being at the earliest and most vulnerable stage of life. At that stage its form may be described as a few cells but its substance is pure human. It is a being and it is human. Fact via logic.
(FYI: 9 days after conception blood begins to flow. 19 days after conception the heart begins to beat. 35 days after conception tiny arm and legs begin to grow.)
We live in an era of unprecedented consumerism that has most people equating "freedom" with choice. The Founding Fathers of America intended for our freedom to be based in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom is not based in choice carte blanche.
When you cloak the termination of the life of this "being" with the illusion of choice, you open the floodgates of emotion because it is considered by the disillusioned to be a direct assault on what they perceive to be their freedom. As Americans, freedom is our most precious asset so if what we perceive to be our freedom is under attack there will necessarily be a rush to defend this "choice" or, due to its legality, what most pro-choice women consider their "right."
Giving a woman the "right" to have an abortion is logically equivalent to giving a taxi driver the "right" to kill a person who jumped in his cab, even though his "Not in Service" light was on, because he doesn't want to be bothered with the time, effort and inconvenience of taking the passenger where he needs to go. When a "passenger" shows up in a mother's womb you can't just ask them to get out.
I am not going to approach issues of incest, rape or potential death of the mother. These are exceptions to the rule and need to be addressed on an individual basis. Abortion, in and of itself, is the premeditated murder of another human being and it is wrong. Any argument to the contrary is illogical and nonsensical.
Me on August 5th, 2008
Responding to the comment before mine:
But you really have to approach the issues of incest, rape, and potential death of the mother. You sit there and say you won't approach those issues because they are the exception, and then you go and say right after that that ANY time abortion is preformed, it is MURDER. What if the mother will die? Is it to be considdered MURDER because she chose her own life, instead of her AND the child dying? What about Rape? The mother would be reminded of the horrible ordeal every time she saw her child... and if she chose to give the child up? Just another child in a bad situation in foster care. Same thing with insest.
I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong. Personally I could never do that to a child, but I don't believe you have the right to sit there and tell me that any argument to the contrary to yours is illogical and nonsensical; that in and of itself is a childish statement saying "I'm right and your wrong times infinity!" Come on, give me a break.
Jacksonian on August 11th, 2008
Anytime an abortion is performed it is murder. Pure logic. If the mother is going to die and chooses to abort, it is still the murder of a human being. If a woman is raped and aborts the child it is murder. The question is not, in these situations, whether or not it's murder, the question in these situations is whether or not the murder is justified. That is why these exceptions need to be addressed individually and are not part of the logical argument as to whether or not (in and of itself) abortion is murder. The caveat in these situations is the justification for the murder. "Just another child in a bad situation in foster care"? There are couples on waiting lists for years to adopt new-borns. Why is it that people like you always run and cower behind the "exceptions to the rule" when the truth slaps you in the face. Those situtaions, in the large scheme of things, are a tiney percentage of abortions that take place everyday in the U.S. Today, and everyday, approximately 3700 humans are murdered under the logically flawed moronics of Roe vs Wade which cloaks murder in the delusion of "choice." Give you a break? Why dont you stop being concerned with yourself and give 3700 human beings a day a break and a chance at life. Where is a human being supposed to feel more safe and secure than it's mother's womb? Stick with the main argument and stop hiding behind exceptions that may or may not be justified depending on the individual stiuation.
Ted Christopher on August 13th, 2008
Jacksonian,
Your points miss the hard facts. I point out some of them in replying to a recent letter (in the Letters Section).
Your points about adoption are as hunky-dory absurd as its depiction in the recent movie "Juno" (moreover a miserable movie). Many of the very many abortions performed are very unlikely to have parents lining up to as potential adopters. Even in the best case adoption is very challenging (which doesn't make adoption bad).
Jacksonian on August 14th, 2008
I wrote one sentence regarding adoption. Here we go again with a failure to face the point of my argument. I am simply trying to show that abortion is murder. It is not about a woman doing what she wants with "her" body. From that platform all the other arguments must spring and could be argued ad infinitum. I am not so blind as to realize that Chad and Babs Suburb aren't going to want to adopt a crack bably from the inner city. I want people to accept the fact that before any arguments take place regarding individual situations, people must start from the reality of pure logic. Whatever course is taken, if an unborn baby (a living being seperate and apart from the mother or father as evidenced by the genetic makeup created at conception) is aborted -it is murder. Whether or not it is justified (an excruciating decision either way) must be established case by case. The logic behind Roe vs Wade is flawed as it is written. It was passed during the height of feminism as a societal appeasement to a public in turmoil over women's rights. Logic was trumped by emotion. If we can start from that platform of truth - cases regarding rape, incest, adoption, etc can then be argued regarding the justification for the act of murder - individually.
Ted Christopher on August 14th, 2008
Jacksonian,
Your dodging my points by responding to the adoption tidbit. See my comments in the letters section.
The "abortion is murder" logic is based on the reasonable assumption that a human being is defined by their DNA. Thus right after conception you have a primal definition of a human being (the DNA) and thus killing that conceptus is murder. Reasonable except that empirically this logic is crushed, most visibly by the differences between monozygotic twins. Right after conception mysteriously the single conceptus becomes two concepta. These are identical by your logic - same DNA and same minute biological entities. The problem is that the resulting humans are remarkably different. Their health trajectories are so different that the current estimates for the DNA contribution to longevity is in the neighborhood of 3 percent. Your are going to see science increasingly back-pedalling from the genetic determinism that underlies your argument.
People who don't like abortion should be motivated to find ways to reduce it.
Jacksonian on August 15th, 2008
How does the issue that "the resulting humans are remarkably different" negate the fact that this is the murder of a genetically determined human(s)? How do the "current estimates for DNA contribution to longevity" negate that these are seperate living entities that are murdered before they leave the womb? The DNA's percentage of contribution to longevity has nothing to do with the original genetic determinism at the point of conception. At that moment they are a seperate living human beings as evidenced by the genetic makeup. How that DNA, or what percentage of that DNA, contributes to longevity going forward is an argument after the fact and does not "crush" in any way the logic of the original premise.
"People who don't like abortion should be motivated to find ways to reduce it." ?
The way you reduce it is educating people through postings like this. Genetic determinism at the point of conception is more than "primal definition of a human being". It is an actuality that cannot be negated by what percentage of that DNA contributes to a health trajectory. That is nonsense. What percentage of a caterpillar's DNA in the egg is relative to it's health trajectory or it's longevity after it becomes a butterfly? And how would that DNA's role in either it's health trajectory or longevity refute the fact that crushing a caterpillar egg is the termination of a living being (seperate and apart from it's parents)?
My hope is that women who decide to have an abortion realize they are doing far more that removing a clump of cells from their bodies. The decision is ultimately theirs. But a decision with ramifications as far and wide as the termination of another life (necessarily) must come from an educated starting point.
Ted Christopher on August 15th, 2008
The two points are there to be investigated. One, the big picture is that humans are simply overwhelmingly the planet and with it their future as well. Population is a big part of this.
Two, the genetic points rebut your position. Putting aside the longevity/health disconnect - which is supposed to be central to the logic of genes - look at the personality issue. Your point is that "At that moment [conception] they are a seperate living human beings as evidenced by the genetic makeup." In fact by your logic they are two identical mini human beings as evidenced by their shared genetic (really DNA) makeup. And they are apparently identical mini cell clumps. But they never end up as anything resembling identical human beings. This is where the logic of equivalencing little DNA defined clumps and human beings fails.
Judith Rich Harris opens her "No Two Alike" with the tale of two conjoined monozygotic twins. They have spent their entire life attached. When asked about their planned separation surgery one responded "We are two completely separate individuals who are stuck to each other. We have different world views, we have different lifestyles, we think very differently about issues". What is perhaps more remarkable is to look at the results of large scale studies of monozygotics on their views of issues - including abortion - and see the big disconnect. Finally, I grew up around some monozygotics and the empirical lesson was "identical" refers to their appearance.
Jacksonian on August 18th, 2008
"..humans are simply overwhelmingly the planet ..... Population is a big part of this." Hey....this guy's good.
Who cares if they do or don't end up as "identical" human beings? They are human beings from the start as evidenced by their genetic makeup. Longevity and health are central to the "logic of genes"? What is the "logic of genes"?: Pseudo-intellectual banter. Round and round and round she goes! Again, in response to "Me" as noted above: Why is it that people like you always run and cower behind the "exceptions to the rule" when the truth slaps you in the face. Abortion is murder and it is wrong.
The truth is there. Read the thread again.
Ladies... in the end....the decision, not the "choice", is yours. Listen to your heart. God is whispering.
Jacksonian rests. Peace out.