When does life begin? Revisiting some anti-abortion inconsistencies.

Last month, in response to public discussion of new, extreme anti-abortion laws, I began discussing the broader (but related) question:   When does life begin?   If anyone wants to review what I wrote then, see Friday, May 17 and Monday, May 20 item 3.

Essentially I take the position that the question is a philosophical one, more than a biological one, because development of a living person is a gradual,  complex process.   And I pointed out some logical absurdities that result when one insists that life begins at conception, or at first heartbeat, and that the collection of embryonic cells (biologically, a "bloastocyst,") has all the rights of a "person."

In an opinion piece in a recent New York Times, writer Molly Jong-Fast added some more absurdities that I'd like to share with readers.   She begins with this question:   "When, exactly, do abortion opponents think life begins?"

Alabama State Representative Terri Collins, speaking in favor of Alabama's new anti-abortion law, told colleagues:  "This bill addresses that one issue.  Is that baby in the womb a person?  I believe our law says it is.   I believe our people say it is.  And I believe technology shows it is."

Op-ed author Jong-Fast, however, differs -- and pokes some holes in this thinking, pointing out that the Alabama law does have one exception.  She writes:  "Fertilized eggs, blastocysts, five-day-old embryos -- people, according to some definitions -- are exempt and can be destroyed, [according to the Alabama law] so long as they are not contained in the body of a woman.   The egg in the lab doesn't apply."

This comes up in the course of newer techniques of in vitro fertilization in the process of helping infertile couples have a baby.     What often happens is that a man's sperm and a woman's ova (eggs) are brought together in a lab dish, resulting in multiple fertilized embryos.    Some of these are then implanted in the woman's uterus and the remaining ones are frozen -- in case the initial implants to do thrive.

So then you have a bunch of fertilized embryos that may or may not later be used.  What's their status?   Are they persons?   There is some case law on this.    In one such couples' case, their frozen, fertilized embryos were spoiled in a fertility clinic storage tank malfunction.  They sued.   But an Ohio appellate court ruled that "frozen embryos are not people."

An Alabama State Senator and co-sponsor of their recent anti-abortion bill seems to agree.   He said, "The egg in the lab does not apply. . .   It's not in a woman.   She's not pregnant."

He does not address the logical inconsistency:    Let's say 10 eggs were fertilized in the lab;  2 were placed in the woman's uterus, the other 8 frozen and stored.    So all 10 were alike in the way they became fertilized, but the ones in a woman are persons and the ones in frozen storage are not, according to the Alabama law.   And yet, by these same people's own definition, "life begins at conception."

Now, however, what if the infertile woman becomes pregnant on the first in vitro attempt?   What do you do with those other 8 you've frozen and stored, but now don't need?    Can they be discarded -- or would that be murder?

Another test of the concept happened in our own government.   A 24 year old woman from Honduras, being held in an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detention facility, went into labor at 27 weeks and delivered a stillborn baby.  It was not induced but rather a spontaneous, premature labor and fetal death during birth.    Yet ICE did not report it as an "in custody death" -- because "for investigative and reporting purposes" a stillbirth is not considered an "in custody death."    So, in such a situation, ICE doesn't consider a 27 week old fetus a person?   Jong-Fast asks:  "Is an immigrant fetus less of a person than a citizen fetus?"   And she concludes:

"The idea that fertility clinics should be allowed to end 'life' in the pursuit of resolving infertility is wholly illogical;  the notion that an in-custody stillbirth at 27 weeks is not a death, but that an abortion at six or eight weeks is a murder punishable by up to 99 years in prison, requires wild feats of mental jujitsu.

"It's almost as if the Republican Party considers 'life' to be a completely arbitrary notion.  It's almost as if this isn't actually about 'life at all."

*     *     *     *     *

One of life's difficult questions . . . to be continued.

Ralph

Medicare-for-all is not a fantasy

Several of the announced Democratic candidates for the presidency have declared their support for a "Medicare-for-all" system -- which is producing a fear-induced response from conservatives and even from some centrist Democrats.

Their knee-jerk reaction is that our nation can't afford such a plan.   But the push-back from progressives this time is not being cowed by such dismissive messages.   Here's what CNN's Dean Baker says in his essay "Medicare-for-All is Not a Fantasy."

*     *     *

"First, many countries do have national health care insurance along the lines advocated by proponents of Medicare for All. The list includes Canada, France and Denmark, among others. These countries all have healthy economies, with living standards comparable to those in the United States. . . .

"Their health care systems also have comparable outcomes to the United States. This means not only do people live as long (actually they live somewhat longer on average), but people with health conditions such as cancer or heart disease on average do as well in countries with universal coverage as in the United States.

"Having government-guaranteed medical coverage does cost money, and in all the countries with universal coverage, people do pay a larger share of their income in taxes. However, the necessary increase in taxes to provide universal care may be less than many people would fear.

"First, most working people are paying something like a tax for their health care insurance since they get it through their employer. Employers don't provide insurance as a gift, and premiums for insurance come out of workers' wages in the same way that a tax would come out of those wages.

"According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average employer payment for a family plan was more than $14,000 last year. Last year, this employer payment came to more than $900 billion. That's more than $2,700 for every person in the country. Most workers would probably not object if their employers paid this money to the government for universal coverage as opposed to an insurance company.

"The other key point is that we pay close to twice as much for our health care as the average person in other wealthy countries. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we paid $10,200 per person for health care in 2017. Canada paid $4,800, Denmark paid $5,200, and France paid $4,900.

"The main reason for the difference is that we pay twice as much for everything. We pay twice as much for prescription drugs, for MRIs and other medical equipment and tests, and our doctors get paid twice as much. In addition, the private health insurance industry costs us more than $250 billion a year (almost $800 per person) to act as an intermediary between patients and providers. In addition, hospitals, doctors' offices and other providers spend tens of billions to deal with complex claim forms that differ by insurer.

"The government already pays for more than half of the nation's health care bill through Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and other public sector programs. Getting to Medicare for All would mean covering the other half of the current expenses, along with the additional costs of paying for the uninsured and under-insured who are not getting the care they need.

"This would be a difficult political process as the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and other affected groups will use all the political power they have to prevent reductions in their income. But at the end of the day, it is undeniable that the United States can afford the same guarantee of health care enjoyed by people in other wealthy countries. The question is whether we have the political commitment to bring it about."

*     *     *

Of course, a lot of lobbyists, as well as insurance and pharmaceutical executives and employees. would be out of work.   And doctors would probably be paid less.  Which is more important?   Those losses by the already well-off -- or the gain of health care by millions who don't have it?   

Which is more moral for our nation as a whole?

Ralph

What to do about Trump?

Here's my dilemma.   Donald Trump's presence is ubiquitous . . . and negative.   He trashes our allies (unless they give him a royal state visit) and praises our most villainous enemies.

But he does make news.   He is a master at grabbing attention -- for himself.

So, as a half-hearted news blogger, do I let him hog my news too?  Or do I, as I often want to do, ignore him?   One thought is that nothing could hurt him more than if we all ignored him.

But then, if we don't express the outrage, the embarrassment, the scorn, are we not contributing to his "normalizing" all this bad behavior, alienating our allies,  destroying our traditions, wrecking our institutions, undermining our democracy?

I'm not sure our institutions will survive another 18 months of this Trump presidency-by-insult, by threat, and by temper tantrum.    I'm pretty darn certain they won't survive another term.

And I'm not at all confident that voters will turn him out of office in November 2020 -- especially if he starts a war, the ace-up-the-sleeve of the tyrant about to be defeated at the polls.

I'm not always this pessimistic.   Maybe my outrage will kick in again soon.  It helps a little that the Democratic candidates are beginning to go after him -- and he's not going to win in this fight with Nancy Pelosi.

Ralph