Let’s get serious. Abortion is a sedentary issue. Of course it’s brought up every election cycle, but real debate on the much contested issue never takes place once an election is over and victorious candidates enter their respective chambers.
Contrary to one might assume, even progressive pundits are part of the problem. I’m tired of reading about how ridiculous Ken Buck’s (Tea Party/GOP candidate for Senator in Colorado) position is on abortion, as if it’s never been taken before. Buck thinks women who’ve been the victim of rape or incest and become pregnant as a result should fight through the shame and disgust and have the baby. He frowns on contraceptives, too, as if the preceding perspective would allow you to be surprised. So he’s the hillbilly version of the Pope; move on!
Ask yourself how America’s federally enforced policy on abortion, regardless of whether it leans more left or more right from this year to the next, affects your economic status? It hasn’t changed a thing for me. Sure, some might chime in with the complaint that their tax dollars support the murder of babies and for that they’re rightfully upset–in fact, the issue was part of the Republican demands in the health care bill HR 3692–but I think we should be a little more upset over top executives raking in 400 times the amount paid to the lowest paid workers across the nation and the ever expanding debt from wars we still haven’t declared.
So, sure, you could say I’m wrong in asserting that abortion is a moot issue, but it certainly plays the role of a distraction from real imperative discussions more than anything else.
According to LifeNews.com, “Under the health care bill Obama signed, there is no ban on abortion funding. While some states can opt out of funding abortions under the plan, taxpayers in other states will be forced to pay for them.”
How is the preceding circumstance any different from an individual taxpayer who is against the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan (now flooding into Pakistan), the over 800 military bases around the world for who knows what, and the yearly defense budget that is by some expert accounts in the amount of 1 trillion dollars, being obligated to pay taxes that finance these wasteful military endeavors? If we’re speaking from a strictly economic/equitable tax dollar allocation perspective, the ladder is far more unfair, and considering the amount of lives lost in Iraq (on both sides), far more unjust.
Towards the end of the summer, the Obama administration asked the Pentagon to cut a measly $100 billion over the next five years from the defense budget. Not only is that number a drop in a bucket, but the savings are intended to be spent in a more “fiscally responsible” fashion; to modernize the military! This a great example of how distorted our policy discourse has become. Even when our leaders dress budgetary reallocation from one section of a department to another section of the same department in heroic, courageous calls for change and reform, some Americans are still fast asleep, dreaming far away from any thought of concerning themselves with the real issues; the more obvious reasons for America’s ever growing debt.
If you’ve been struck by boredom through your local news channels’ coverage of the 2010 Election debates, you’re not alone, and there may be good reason for the tepid, trite, and amazingly dull format of the debates. From my own observation, a nation whose general population fails to demand real leadership by exercising their right to vote, irregardless of party stripes, will only get rhetorical slogans out of the mouths of political robots: “We need real leadership, and I’m the man for the job.” I’m sure Ken Buck would agree, after all, he’s probably not wearing “high heels.”