Having just listened to Rep. Cao of Louisiana acknowledge that he is voting against health care reform based on his religious beliefs, rather than fulfilling the will of his constituents, I think now is the perfect time to analyze the validity of the anti-abortion argument as it relates to the current health care bill before the House of Representatives.
In the previous article, I spoke about the need for Senators and members of Congress to represent the collective views of their districts and states as opposed to voting for, or on ideological, party line, or personal religious reasons. Obviously, not everyone will share the same religious beliefs as Rep. Cao, so the debates on policy in this country really should hinge on the content and merits of the bill, rather than on one single minded congressman’s thoughts on an idealistic, anti-abortion, America.
After reading the text of the legislation closely, I’m struggling to see how any honest legislator, on either side of the aisle, catholic or pro-choice, can argue that the bill before them will ultimately lead to federally funded abortion in the future. If these congressmen and women are so inclined to fight abortions, they should focus more closely on the fact that private insurers, not the government, are already covering thousands of abortions at this time.
To deny 32 million Americans health care coverage in the name of something that doesn’t exist in the bill at hand seems to make absolutely no sense. In the name of compromise, it has been stated from the very beginning, that the intention of this bill is not to increase access to abortions, nor to involve the government in the practice. Republicans and Democrats who have read the full text should know this, which is why many people might be dumbfounded by the voting decision of Rep. Cao on that basis.
Not to lay this all on Cao, but he represents a population in desperate need of care and has chosen his own selfish religious ideals over solving one of the biggest problems facing the population which he was elected to represent. There is still a group of congressmen, including Cao, and led by Rep. Stupak, who insist on staying firm based on their belief in a huge abortion rush in the future.
Is it time for these representatives to take a hard look at themselves, the people they represent, and decide whether saving the lives of thousands of Americans is less important than a fear of fulfilling a selfish virtue? Should a bill, which can be amended and fine-tuned in the future to clean up small disparagements, fail on the basis of a matter which has been settled in principle already? Are representatives who vote for themselves, or their parties, over the needs of their constituents the right people to lead our country?
As we have learned from the messy process before us now, who we send to Washington to represent our collective interests is a vital decision which we must take seriously. The responsibility ultimately lies with each of us to stay relative in the political process by exercising our right to vote in every election, even the less popular mid-term elections. Collectively, we need to do a better job picking our leaders this November. If we do this, we may be able to avoid elected officials like Cao who will stop progress based on fact less claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment