Jonah Goldberg is right. He makes an excellent point in his piece this morning on President Obama’s abortion-pill mandate. Conservatives, libertarians, and others who believe in medical freedom should make this argument much more often when engaging liberals: What happens if “the bad guys,” namely we right-wingers, win the next election, and now we get to run Obamacare? (Be sure to twirl your handlebar mustache as you pose this question.)
Imagine, as Jonah does, that Rick Santorum is elected president and becomes the reincarnation of Cotton Mather, just as Nancy Pelosi probably fears as she lays her coiffed head on her high-threadcount pillows every night. Imagine further that instead of repealing Obamacare, the former GOP senator from Pennsylvania decided to keep this law in place and modify it along much more traditionalist, even puritanical, lines.
Santorumcare could involve — say — a federally mandated, five-day waiting period before women could have abortions. This parallels the original five-day interlude that potential firearms buyers faced under the Brady Law. How could the Left object to that?
How about a requirement that every American who receives free condoms from any federally subsidized health center first must receive 30 minutes of mandatory abstinence counseling?
And why not a rule that those who visit Gay Men’s Health Crisis cannot accept any services until after completing a two-day course on gay conversion, so that they can be “cured” of their homosexuality?
I seriously doubt that President Santorum (or President Brownback or President Palin) would do such things, but then I never envisioned President Obama ordering free birth control for any and every adult female who wanted it — regardless of income — and paid for under federal orders by health insurers, over the objections of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Our friends on the left should worry about what potentially could happen to their shiny new toy, if Obamacare ever became Santorumcare, Brownbackcare, or Palincare.
As a wise man once said: “Careful what you wish for.”
Great point, Mr. Murdock. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the left-wing media will be only too happy to use this as a talking point.
A firm majority of people are against Obamacare, but in a squishy way that hasn't changed much with this new aborto-ception mandate. But frame the idea of social conservatives flipping it around as a means of reawakening a "Scarlet Letter" type regime, as the libs no doubt will and the press will no doubt enable, and those squishy moderates will run right to Obama as the lesser of two evils.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What happens if “the bad guys,” namely we right-wingers, win the next election, and now we get to run Obamacare?"
Serious Answer: General David Petraus. Proof of Republican competence when necessary.
But keep repeating the argument that your side is too incompetent to do anything right. I see a lot of upsides in you making that point. :) Say it clear. Say it loud.
"Don't you see liberals, the voters will sometimes still elect us even though we are completely incompetent! Don't you see!!" Umm.... actually, when you reveal yourself to be totally incompetent, just the opposite will occur.
Remember when the House and the Senate used to be controlled by Democrats for a 26-year stretch? I think the argument, made by Republicans about Republicans, that Republicans are incompetent idiots, might just be enough to make that happen again.
I suppose if Republicans screw things up for a single term and deliver a nice backlash with such great results, maybe it is more than worth it. =)
So please, take control and be as incompetent as possible. By all means... The American people will learn its lesson about government then all right. But it won't be the lesson you are hoping for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Welker:
What a sad little rant.
"...I think the argument, made by Republicans about Republicans, that Republicans are incompetent idiots,", what fantasy world do you live in where Republicans were making the case that Republicans were "incompetent idiots" ???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously, that's their argument? Disassemble the government because Republicans can't be trusted to run it competently?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, the argument was what if others did unto you as you did unto them? What if the Republicans behaved toward you the way you are behaving toward us (in this case, using "health care" as an excuse to jam beliefs down other peoples' throats)?
But how typical of a liberal to not recognize the concept of reciprocity. You guys wouldn't see the Golden Rule if it bit you in the face, would you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, I forgot how much Republicans are so much more cooperative, cordial and willing to compromise for the good of the country than are Democrats. Sometimes it shames me the way they are always respectful to, and never dismissive of, the loyal opposition. Forgive me, though, I'm just a Typical Liberal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo . . . basically this guy barely skimmed the article and then zoomed down to the comments to make an unrelated point which he somehow thinks is a slam-dunk refutation. . . ooookay. Quite frankly I think the only reason liberals aren't too worried about this possibility is because we conservatives have principles and thus are unlikely to actually do what Goldberg and Murdock point out. Heck, maybe we should, it would serve the liberals right. Liberals, meanwhile just relentlessly expand gov't power in order to "do good". Well, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again the Welkster has been shown lacking in reading comprehension. Mr. Murdock's point is that right now the left thinks Obama's edicts are swell and just. If a Republican were to reverse them in the extreme--the lefties would be squealing like stuck hogs! As he says: "be careful what you wish for."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, for our Straw Man, our point is that Government is too incompetent to do much right.
It has a hard enough time with the simple stuff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting that every scary hypothetical example you could come up with involves putting more restrictions on the patient and making it harder for them to receive services, which of course is nothing like the Obama rule requiring employer health plans to provide contraception coverage--the "abortion pill mandate" as you put it.
And speaking of the government inserting itself into patients, the GOP rulers in Virginia have already beaten you to the punch on that by requiring any woman seeking to have an abortion to have a probe inserted into their virgina. (I must use alternate spelling in order to post this.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou want "less restrictions"? Okay, how about President Santorum mandate abstinence education as part of health insurance as well as instruction in the Creighton Family Planning Method.
Let's also just conveniently ignore the fact that the gov't is stomping all over the right to freedom of religion, a right that is in the constitution, supposedly in the name of a "right" to contraception which I don't recall being anywhere in the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI imagine the Founding Fathers would've loved The Pill - from what I've read their dalliances & affairs were many, & thus they often wound up straining to support multiple families & mistresses.
"Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" seem to be far better served by widening access to contraceptives than by restricting it IMHO.
The Pill is also used by women medicinally to counter dysmenorrhea & shrink ovarian cysts (that can lead to ovarian cancer), important facts that always wind up conveniently forgotten in this debate. Fighting precancerous growths & recurring chronic pain both being made to take a back seat to dogma as followed by particular religious denominations = conflict, scandal & drama aplenty ... & yet "Big Liberal Media" barely mentions this & then ignores it?
Stomping on religious freedom? Religious organizations are untaxed because the state taking their revenue is potentially problematic as regards both religious freedom & seperation of church & state - not because those organizations have exempt elite status.
Religious freedom is the liberty to either practice a religion or refrain from religion - it is not a writ of religious supremacy. Wishful thinking of church patriarchs notwithstanding, it does not include a right to ignore or negate the basic rights of individuals. Should Christians next protest not having free license to execute anyone who eats shellfish? The King James Bible is much more clear on this than it is on contraception, after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm stifling the laughter... you have never been pregnant before, or have never been with an expectant mother while she gets an ultrasound, but I assure you no probes are going into any "virginas". Now maybe I haven't been around to see this particular procedure done, but I was never told about it by my wife.
And I know you won't understand or acknowledge this, but refusing to pay for somebody's condoms does not restrict access to condoms. Coercing employers to do something they abhor, however, you are A-OK with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But those ultrasounds are ordinarily done fairly late in pregnancy. In the beginning, particularly the first weeks, an abdominal ultrasound may not be sensitive enough to detect anything.
That's why doctors in many cases use a transv*ginal ultrasound. In plainspeak, they insert a condom-covered probe into a woman's v*gina to obtain an image.
In order to satisfy the goals of the legislation - which includes a requirement that a doctor determine the gestational age of the pregnancy- a transv*ginal ultrasound may be the only reliable course."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, your citation is a letter-to-the-editor. Second, the "state-sanctioned medical rape" described in the piece, while scientific-sounding, is of course the horrific part... not the injection into said vaunted holy place of a syringe of poison to kill the little baby growing in there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot quite sure what you're reading. While it is a paper op-ed, it's not a "letter to the editor". And no where in the article does it say the words "state-sanctioned medical rape" which you use in quotes.
Regardless, your original claim that such a procedure doesn't exist (because you'd never heard of it?) is obviously false.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI support the Virginia law, but, I must admit, that was an extremely good pun.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMother Jones (yes, THAT Mother Jones, External Link
) says that the contraception rule was already in the books. Is that right?
From my perspective, Obama wanted, all along, to just get the contraception requirement on the insurance companies. He just placed the initial bid very high, so that he could be reasonable and "compromise" to a lower price.
The real question, though, is whether the FedGov has the authority to require anything, even if insurance can be required. Folks, do not lose sight of what is really taking place. Do not get distracted with details of whether the FedGov can mandate a specific benefit. To debate a specific insurance benefit is to concede the premise.
This is not about shifting from abortion to contraception. It is a flanking move on the mandate law that is heading to the SCOTUS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a very strong argument that illustrates that in a 50-50 country, some folks might vote in the other side, and the results are not what one bargins for. This is one of the huge flaws of the PPACA law in the first place, all the influence of HHS. reguardless of one's position, giving an Administration great control over Healthcare, will also cause uncertainty in the employment market as well, as employers will be uncertain what mandates will be enacted by a particular Administration. Too much control in a central Government, too little in the individual. Not good in the long run.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA fair-enough post, but I wish Republicans did more of this "what if the tables were turned" mode of thinking during the Bush years.
We could do it for the obvious things -- expansion of government spending and health insurance coverage, for instance.
But we could also do it for things currently under the radar. Is Mr. Murdock comfortable, I wonder, with Obama having all the power accorded by, say, The Patriot Act?
A vibrant, rigorous, robust conservatism should have the...fortitude...to ask these questions when they're impertinent -- such as when a Republican is in the big-boy chair and the nation is reeling from unprecedented attack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse