The Supreme Court is hearing arguments pro and con concerning government mandated affordable health care. They are not at the moment hearing any cases about state mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds. Both involve the government telling you what you are obligated to do with the health and welfare of your own body by way of a government mandate. Both require by government mandate that the individual must pay. If government mandated health care is potentially deemed unconstitutional, then what justification can there possibly be for state mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds? Common sense dictates if one is constitutional, so potentially is the other – and if one is unconstitutional, then so potentially is the other. It’s a very simple equation – and I believe a sound one. The question boils down to which way the conservative religious-right want it served to them? Because they can’t have it both ways.
If conservatives think it’s OK for big government to shove a wide-radius, 10″ long electrified metallic cattle-prod up in-between a person’s legs against their will — and then force them to pay out of pocket for the indignity… Then HOW in the next breath can they throw a body-block against single-payer state-mandated health insurance? The parallels are obvious to anyone who takes the time to give it serious contemplation. The main difference is the trans-vaginal ultrasounds are driven by misguided religious mythology — and health care reform is driven by a sense of humanity and the practical effort to take the financial burden off the state having to to carry payments for the uninsured who visit hospitals and emergency rooms… Not to mention implementing merciful measures like abolishing insurance denials for preexisting conditions and other profit-motivated injustices instigated by wealthy insurance barons. Obviously there should have been a universal health care option. But there is no reason for a non-medically necessary trans-vaginal ultrasound.
The right-wing can’t have it both ways based on their own convoluted interpretation of ancient biblical texts that have no bearing on contemporary life or medical advances — ONLY to ignore the human rights accomplishments of the past century. You’ll notice the bible (in both testaments) is ripe with troubling inconsistencies concerning human rights. Example: Leviticus 25:45 “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy and they shall be your possession they shall be your bondmen forever.” Or this salacious tidbit: Exodus 21:2 & 7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” Hmmm, neither of these quotes (of which there were too MANY from which to choose) pass the common-sense morality smell-test.
The bible is also FULL of passages where the Lord sanctions parents killing children. So much for anti-abortion logic: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.” So, in other words, abortion is terrible, but the Lord sanctions painful, torturous death to a living child as A-OK if the child happens to be a lazy hormonal teenager who drank a little too much beer. This, children of God is royally fucked-up.
I prefer this passage in Matthew 17:15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.” I like that kid, if I had a kid, that’s what be what he’d be up to — apples not falling far from the Animal House. Face it boys and girls, both testaments of the bible are comprised from centuries and centuries of oral-tradition neatly embellished along the way like ‘whisper down the barrel’ — some parts dropped — other things added with a pinch of human exaggeration. After time, it all got written-down in a variety of languages, not all of which translate with the same meanings and inferences. Before you know it, people in high places were editing religious texts to suit their own agenda while passing it off as the ‘Word of God.’ In no time at all, every freakin’ religion in the world (not just Christianity) became a twisted mess of contradictions — so much so, you can pick and choose any passage from any religious text — or part thereof — to justify nearly anything you like, whether or not it has any bearing on logic or common decency.
You know what makes sense both morally and fiscally? Universal health coverage for all people as a human right, and not as a lucrative business that blackmails people merely trying to live in reasonably good health. Matthew 10:8 “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those afflicted with leprosy, expel demons. You have received without paying, so give without asking payment.” I was able to find biblical support repeatedly for universal health care, but not word-one about trans-vaginal ultrasounds. Seems to me it makes logical moral sense not to pick and choose political definitions of morality based on archaic mythology and then impose it on others as arcane law. I couldn’t find any biblical mention of frozen embryos but I’ll keep on looking…