Political links for a Tuesday.

[pauraque_bk]

idlerat warns of the dangers of privatizing Social Security, Bush's first order of business for the new term. We didn't hear enough about this during the campaign, possibly because it's neither an emotional hot-button nor necessarily simple to explain, but it's important.

*

AP: Key GOP Senator warns Bush on judicial choices

NY Times: Abortion remark by GOP Senator puts heat on peers

Arlen Specter is a moderate Republican, in line to head up the Senate Judiciary Committee. He did a little saber-rattling after the election, warning Bush that he may meet with resistance if he attempts to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Naturally, this is causing a stir. ani_bester has the scoop on what the American Family Association said to their mailing list about it. Now Specter's backpedaling, but he still may be blocked from becoming chairman.

Despite being pro-life, I think we'd be better off with Specter. The way to reduce the number of abortions (in my opinion) is not to ban them outright at this point, but to promote the use of condoms and the Pill. President Bush supports and funds abstinence-only sex education to the exclusion of other programs, but abstinence-only can't be shown to work. If Roe v. Wade is overturned with sex education in such a state, I see a future of more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, and more unsafe abortions that threaten the mother's life as well.

And if you're pro-choice, I reckon it's a no-brainer. who_is_sylvia has information on how you can let the Republican leadership know you support Specter for the chairmanship (if, in fact, you do).

*

AP: Hungary pulling out -- more could leave after [Iraqi] election

Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands have announced they're pulling out of Iraq. It isn't mentioned in this article, but unforgettable Poland is also scaling back its involvement.

With allies pulling out, the natural concern is whether a draft will become necessary (though Bush has often said he won't institute one). You can't become a Conscientious Objector when there isn't a draft, but you can compile a CO claim and have it ready in case you need it. I don't say this to be an alarmist -- it's simply that your claim is stronger the earlier it's compiled. (Two people on my flist have had friends of theirs in the National Guard be called up for duty in Iraq in the past week, and another is facing the possibility -- love and luck, all.)

Comments

[pauraque]

The fact that there is outrage at the idea that a Senator might do his Constitutional duty by evaluating nominees rather than rubber-stamping them is deeply distressing for the state of our federal government, no matter *what* the issue is.

Yes, precisely. It's part of a disturbing trend of "we must stand behind the President no matter what" that's been building since September 11th. Mindlessly supporting the President is neither virtuous, nor patriotic, nor productive. _I_ don't agree with everything that comes out of the mouths of politicians I generally support -- I don't have to. It doesn't work that way.

Your position on abortion sounds very similar to mine. I'm uncomfortable with it and dislike pro-choice extremists, but I absolutely can't bring myself to side with the pro-life movement. I find that the movement (as a whole, generally not individual followers), after you take away the radical fringe who want to kill abortion doctors, is still one of the nastiest, most vicious, least compassionate political movements in the country.

Yeah, it's a problem for me. I sometimes hesitate to call myself pro-life because of the negative connotations, but it's the most accurate description of my position, and I want people to know that not all pro-lifers are nutjob radicals with no sense of reality, nor are they all Christians, nor are they all Republicans, etc.

One of the problems is that while it's okay to say "Well, no one likes abortion", it's less okay to put forth sane ideas about how to have fewer of them. It's at the point where neither side will budge, for fear of looking weak or letting their position slip, losing supporters on one side or the other.

Each side has so viciously demonized the other that I suspect it may be up to the quiet, moderate middle to do the work of actually solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

One of the problems is that while it's okay to say "Well, no one likes abortion", it's less okay to put forth sane ideas about how to have fewer of them. It's at the point where neither side will budge, for fear of looking weak or letting their position slip, losing supporters on one side or the other.

I don't think this is quite true. While it's true that you don't hear as much about it in the media, there are a lot of groups, mostly feminist-orientated in my experience, that are trying to make it easier for women not to have abortions.

The methods for lowering the abortion rate without actually outlawing them range from helpful to completely counterproductive, however. The ones I think work better are ones aimed at social justice and equality; making it easier for a women to have a kid instead of making it harder for her to have an abortion. If you make it harder for women to have abortions and yet it's even harder to have a kid, the abortion is still going to be a preferred choice for the majority. But if you make it easier for women to have kids -- more health care, more child care, more flextime and parent-friendly jobs, living wages, than more women (married or not) are going to decide that yes, they *can* have the kid.

Of course, you do have to accept that there will still be women who don't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, and will do what they have to ensure that they don't remain that way, whether that means a quick trip to Canada or amateur surgery.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

Much agreed. I have seen some groups, frequently associated with churches, that are pregnancy support centers or the like. I think these are a good idea, but they aren't nearly enough -- this is why we need more affordable but reliable child care, alternate educational programs for pregnant teens, and, oh yeah, near-universal health care. Private groups can't do this; at least some of it needs to be government (and not by funding faith-based programs). Support centers do need to be honest, though, when discussing options with their patients, and be understanding that many women are considering abortion, yet are not monsters. I don't think most of the religious-based groups are very good at that (though I don't know much about most specific groups). The attitude tends to be that it's something you don't even *consider* unless you're a horrible excuse for a human being.

Those groups aren't what I think of as the pro-life movement, though, at least in a political sense. The political movement is all about making sure that anyone who has or performs an abortion is prosecuted like the monsters they are, and nobody has sex unless they're married and want lots and lots of kids. Oddly, this actually contradicts the line on sex from most conservative Christian churches -- sex is a gift from God to married couples and intended as a joy, not just a tool for procreation.