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

Imposter-in-chief -- out in plain sight

Roger Cohen is an opinion writer I have long-admired.  

Here, Cohen writes about the Donald Trump who has been on display this week in his state visit to England, his brief stop-over to meet the Irish Prime Minister at the Shannon Airport VIP lounge, and then in France at the D-Day 75 year commemoration.   Here's some of what he wrote, published in the New York Times:

*     *     *     *     *

"How small he is!   Small in spirit, in valor, in dignity, in statecraft, this American president who knows nothing of history and cares still less and now bestrides Europe with his family in tow like some tin-pot dictator with a terrified entourage.

"To have Donald Trump -- the bone-spur evader of the Vietnam draft . . . commemorate the boys from Kansas City and St. Paul who gave their lives for freedom is to understand the word impostor.   You can't make a sculpture from rotten wood.

"It's worth saying again.   If Europe is whole and free and at peace, it's because of NATO and the European Union;  it's because the United States became a European power after World War II;  it's because America's word was a solemn pledge;  it's because that word cemented alliances that were not zero-sum games but the foundation for stability and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic.

"Of this, Trump understands nothing.   Therefore he cannot comprehend the sacrifice at Omaha Beach 75 years ago.  He cannot see that the postwar trans-Atlantic achievement -- undergirded by the institutions and alliances he tramples upon with such crass truculence -- was in fact the vindication of those young men who gave everything.

"As Eisenhower, speaking at the Normandy American Cemetery, last resting place of 9,387 Americans, told Walter Cronkite for the 20th anniversary of the D-Day landings:  'These people gave us a chance, and they bought time for us, so that we can do better than we have before.'

"That was a solemn responsibility.   For decades it was met, culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.   Doing better, however, is not using nativism, xenophobia, nationalism and authoritarianism given a nod and a wink by the president of the United States.   It's not Brexit, Britain turning its back on the Europe it helped free.

"The American moral collapse personified by Trump is not 'beautiful' or 'phenomenal' or 'incredible' or any of the president's other clunky two-a-penny superlatives.  It's sickening and dangerous. . . . [The petty fight he picked with London's Muslim mayor on the eve of his arrival for a state visit in the United Kingdom is but one example cited by Cohen.] . . . 

"America is much better than this, much better than an American president who, as the cartoonist Dave Granlund suggested, probably thinks the D in D-Day stands for Donald . . . . [in contrast to]

"Eisenhower, who in that same 20th anniversary interview said that America and its allies stormed the Normandy beaches 'for one purpose only.'   It was not to 'fulfill any ambitions that America had for conquest.'  No, it was 'just to preserve freedom, [and] systems of self-government in the world.'  It was an act, in other words, consistent with the highest ideals of the America idea that Trump and his Republican enablers seem so intent on eviscerating."

*     *     *     *     *

To show just how total is his narcissism, we need look no further than the interview he gave to Laura Ingraham for FoxNews while in Normandy.   It was the day of the D-Day commemoration, and as a backdrop for the interview they used a photo shot of the rows of white grave-markers in the American cemetery -- which made it even more inappropriate for Trump to use his interview to trash his enemies, including "Nervous Nancy" Pelosi, who he said is "a nasty, vindictive, horrible person," and Robert Mueller, who he said "made a complete fool of himself."

Near the end of the interview, when it was obvious they were running late, Trump even proudly "took credit" for holding up the beginning of the ceremony, telling Ingraham that he was "proud" of doing that "because it's you," and then heaped praise of the FoxNews interviewer for her good ratings.

To the network's credit, they issued a disclaimer, saying that it was not their interview that held up the opening ceremony, because President and Mrs. Trump were there to greet President Macron when he arrived even later,  having been held up by a ceremony concerned with PM Theresa May's last day in office.

OK.   Nevertheless, the transcripted dialogue reveals that Trump was quite willing -- he even said "proud" -- to hold up the beginning of the most solemn occasion likely to occur this year in an internationally televised program that was about the sacrifice of allied soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom.

And even if he knew from the beginning that the opening would be delayed by Macron's late arrival, he was willing to let the world think that his mind was, as always, on himself, not on the sacrificed soldiers lying in those graves, not on the dwindling number of elderly veterans who were there for the occasion honoring them.

Fake bone spurs fade in comparison to this little act of venality and narcissism.

Ralph

D-Day: 75 years ago today, European democracy was saved

There is a nostalgic poignancy pervading the 75th anniversary today of the Western Allies' massive D-Day invasion of Omaha Beach in Normandy, France, which signaled the new push to free Europe from Nazi Germany's fascistic hold.

The poignancy comes from the fact that it is likely that this is the last major D-Day commemoration that any of the men who fought in that invasion will be able to attend,  The small group of veterans of the invasion there today are in their 90s.   And, although an 80th anniversary commemoration is planned, even the youngest will be approaching 100 by then.

But there will always be those 10,000 graves of American soldiers buried in the cemetery nearby where the ceremony was held.   President Trump read some appropriate words that had been written for him -- about sacrifice and about heroism -- and, yes, about nations coming together to save freedom and democracy.   So we needn't use this occasion to dwell on the contrast of his having avoided military service himself and his opposition to joint treaties and multinational defense alliances.

Yet, it does not escape notice that it was the young French President Emmanuel Macron who gave the full-throated endorsement of alliance and cooperation among like-minded nations.

At one point in his remarks, Macron seemed to speak directly to Trump and his "Make America Great Again" slogan when he said:

“We know what we owe to the United States of America. The United States of America, dear Donald Trump, dear president, which is never greater than when it is fighting for the freedom of others. . .  The United States of America, that is never greater than when it shows its loyalty to the universal values that the Founding Fathers defended when, nearly two and a half centuries ago, France came to support its independence. . .    We shall never cease to perpetuate the alliance of free people.”

Macron then went on to expand on the fact that global institutions such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union were created for that purpose.

If one looks only at our president's behavior at formal events during this trip, we might feel that he passed the test with a C-.    But, of course, in his Twitter remarks and in a televised interview with Piers Morgan, it was the same old Trump.   Picking enemies to attack and insult -- let's see, they were of course London's Muslim mayor, the American born, mixed race wife of Prince Harry, and the actress Bette Midler -- what is it about women and dark-skinned minorities that gets under his skin so?

When we add in the venality he showed in the televised interview with Piers Morgan and the utter ignorance and insensitivity he showed in the meeting with the Irish Prime Minister, I'd have to give him a failing grade.

This matter with the Irish PM concerned the difficult Brexit issue presented by the fact that part of Ireland is under United Kingdom control and would therefore leave the European Union if the U.K. leaves, while the Irish Republic itself is not part of the U.K. and thus would remain in the EU.   So then there's the problem of having to establish an enforced, international border between Northern Ireland/United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.   Trump treated this as a minor problem that could be solved with a wall (ugh) and ran rough-shod over his host's sensibilities about the whole thing.

Yes, it was probably his ignorance (not knowing the history of the problem this division has been for Ireland for decades, having for decades a virtual civil war) and his arrogance (that he can blithely offer another country simplistic solutions to their problems about which he knows nothing).

It's embarrassing.   It's humiliating.  And a dereliction of duty when he is so ignorant about the countries he's visiting on an official state visit.   So, yes, Donald Trump was a failure in this official state visit.

Ralph

PS:   Sorry, can't resist this.   In the interview with Piers Morgan on British tv, Trump was sounding off about transgender troops in the military and how much they cost the government for their medical care.   He claims that all the drugs they take (hormones, "so expensive").    Co-host Morgan pointed out that the government spends 10 times as much on Viagra for service members as it does on transgender health care ($84.2 million vs $8 million).

Mueller's restricted options as: "special counsel" rather than "independent counsel"

Many of us have wondered why Robert Mueller did not make his report directly to Congress.    Isn't that what Kenneth Starr did when he led the Bill Clinton impeachment investigation?

Yes, but Starr's appointment was as "independent counsel," operating under different guidelines and restrictions than Mueller, who was a "special counsel."  It not only mandated that the independent counsel report directly to Congress but that he also "advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for impeachment," in the words of Michael Zeldin and Julian Zelizer reporting for CNN.

After what many felt was Starr's unnecessarily salacious open report, Congress let the independent counsel law expire and left the Justice Department to rely on its own newly written regulation for a "special counsel," reporting only to the Attorney General.

So, legally, Mueller did not have that option to report directly to Congress.   The special counsel regulation gives power to the Attorney General to release the report . . . or not.   Which might be just fine when you have an independent AG who is not beholden to the president.

But, as has become obvious, that is not what we have in AG William Barr.   It is equally obvious that Congress needs to pass a new law that gives the power of impeachment fully back to Congress as part of its legitimate, constitutional role of oversight over the Executive Branch and the president.

Zeldin and Zelizer suggest that given the time and difficulty of passing new legislation (especially with Republicans controlling the Senate) that the House could voluntarily analyze Mueller's findings under the same standard as that which existed in the independent counsel.     They could ask Mueller whether he "would have been obligated to advise the House of substantial and credible evidence constituting grounds for impeachment."   In other words, ask Mueller to advise them as though he were operating under the old independent counsel regulations.

They explain that this would give the House, in its oversight capacity, "a workable framework for analyzing whether they believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted."

Perhaps this is exactly what Mueller was trying to do when he gave his 9 minute press briefing.    As Zeldin and Zelizer point out, Congress will need to make its own determination, "as impeachment is a political judgment informed by, but not dependent on, violations of statutory law."

I agree.   I think this would be a good idea and a useful move.   I also think I know what Mueller's response will be:    "Read my report."    He's already told Congress what to do.   Just read the damn report.   It's all there.

Ralph

Conservatives shocked by Mueller's summary of his own report

The bewildering thing about this whole Mueller/Barr controversy about the meaning of the Mueller report -- now that Mueller has spoken and said what he meant -- is that so many conservatives still believe Barr's version.

Well, perhaps it shouldn't be bewildering, given what we know about strongly  held beliefs that do not give way to facts or more logical explanations.

But my favorite commentary on this came from Jonathan Chait, writing for the Daily Intelligencer.   He wrote, with dripping irony:

"What so vexed the right about Mueller's curt affirmation of his previous conclusions? , , ,  [T]hey believed their own propaganda. . .  Presented even briefly with reality, their minds have reeled in shock. . . ."

Chait then presented reactions from noted pundits who refused to believe Mueller's own presentation, including a writer for the  National Review , Charles C.W. Cooke, as well as famed attorneys Alan Dershowitz and John Podhoretz.   But then Chait concludes with what I find amusing:

"Ironically, it was Fox News meathead Dan Bongino, ranting to his radio audience, who came closest to grasping reality.  Bongino notices that Mueller heavily signaled that he did find behavior that, if the perpetrator was not the president, would be crimes. . . .

"Bongino realizes this comes down to either Barr or Mueller misleading the country about what Mueller's report concluded.  And yet, perched one step away from the correct answer, he insists it must be Mueller who is lying about the Mueller report.  Ignore all the evidence of obvious crimes in the Mueller report.  Ignore Mueller telling us that department policy prevents him from labeling those actions as crimes.   The one reliable truth Borgino returns to is the sacred value of Bill Barr's word.

"If you can't trust the slavishly loyal attorney general, handpicked by a president whose sole criterion for the job is to ignore its ethical guidelines and protect him at all costs,
who can you trust?"


Indeed !