How a pro-life Christian can support the Democratic platform

Yesterday, after contrasting the party platforms on abortion, I promised to comment "on how a pro-life Christian can support the Democratic platform, including its right-to-choose paragraph."

Almost exactly four years ago, I wrote "A Plea to Pro-Life Voters" on how a pro-life voter could support the Democratic platform in spite of its right-to-choose paragraph. If you are a pro-life voter, I beg you to stop right now and read that post. Everything I said then still applies now. I'm not going to repeat it here.

Nothing I say here will change your mind anyway, whether you're pro-choice or pro-life or somewhere in the middle. So before I rush in where angels fear to tread, let me make one thing clear: In this blogpost, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind about abortion. I'm simply going to give a few reasons that a Christian--Catholic, Orthodox, evangelical, progressive, Mormon--might support a woman's right to choose.

1. First, let's look at the elephant in the living room. If you believe abortion, without exception, is murder, I understand why you favor the Republican platform: at least you're consistent. No need for you to read further here--though please do not get involved in any way with the medical care of my daughters or granddaughters.

Most Americans, however, accept that, however serious it might be, abortion is not murder. According to an August 27 AP news story, "Republican Mitt Romney says he is in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health and life of the mother." Though polls show Americans split right down the middle between pro-life and pro-choice camps, more than 80% agree with Governor Romney about allowing certain exceptions. I'm guessing that neither Romney nor any of the 80% would condone killing a six-month-old baby for the same reasons.

2. Americans disagree about what to call whatever is aborted. Is it a "product of conception"?  A pregnancy? A zygote? An embryo? A fetus? A potential human? An unborn child? A baby? A person under the definition of the Fourteenth Amendment? And if it is all of those things at different times, when does it pass from one stage to another, and what value does it have at each stage? Some of these questions have medical or biological answers, while others are philosophical or political or religious. Ethicists are not of one mind about abortion. When a pregnant woman's life is endangered by her unborn child, for example, Catholic theology forbids abortion whereas Jewish theology requires it.

3. "Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy," says the Democratic platform. "There is no place for politicians or government to get in the way." That's because we trust our families, doctors, and clergy--but not our lawmakers. In 2010, when the Gallup polling organization asked Americans to rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in various lines of work, 66% gave medical doctors a very high or high rating and 53% gave clergy the same. Only 9%, however, trusted members of Congress to the same extent; 57% rated their elected representatives' ethical standards as low or very low. If I needed counsel about a problem pregnancy, I would not seek out Todd Akin.

4. For me, the bottom line is this: America is a democracy where people of varying views agree to  live together in as much harmony as possible. Some things we agree about and make laws for everyone to follow: it is a crime to murder, to steal, to kidnap, to counterfeit. In other areas we differ and allow everyone to make their own decisions: the religion (if any) we practice, the work we do, the clothes we wear (though 'twas not always so--medieval societies legislated all of the above). That's why we say we're a free country.

If abortion is banned in nearly all instances, however, my choices evaporate. There's no point in discussing my situation with my family, my doctor, or my pastor or rabbi. The federal government, without knowing my circumstances, my options, my despair, or my religious beliefs, has made the choice on my behalf. Such coercion makes for bad religion and bad politics. Coercion is not the American way.

But when I have the right to choose, I can choose to be pro-life. If I want to, I can affirm nearly everything in the Republican platform's section on abortion (apart from the first two sentences, which aim to eliminate choice). I can join Republicans in valuing life, preventing abuses, sensibly regulating the practice of abortion, and making adoption more attractive. Or I can join Democrats in working to lower the abortion rate through education, affordable health care, and pre- and post-pregnancy support programs.

Yes, if we continue to allow freedom of choice, we will continue to have abortions. (We will anyway, of course, though if they go underground they'll be less safe for the mother.) But my Augustinian theology says that God gave the human race freedom of choice, even though there was an excellent chance we'd eat the apple and mess everything up; and my evangelical theology says that persuasion wins more souls than coercion; and my Anabaptist theology says there are lots of decisions the government should keep its hairy nose out of. Freedom, as our forefathers taught us, is even more important than life itself.

And that's why I think it's not only possible but desirable for a pro-life Christian to support the Democratic platform, including its right-to-choose paragraph.

Who makes the choice? - the party platforms on abortion

As of last night, both political parties have published their platforms for 2012.* To nobody's surprise, they stand in stark contrast to one another, and nowhere more so than on female reproductive issues.

Republicans call their 412-word statement "The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life." Democrats call their 143-word statement "Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose."

Republicans link the "fundamental individual right to life" to the Declaration of Independence and, oddly, the Fourteenth Amendment (can fetuses then own property? should they be counted in legislative apportionments?). They support a human life amendment but do not specify what it should say. They oppose using tax money to "fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage." Interestingly, though the pro-life article in the Republican platform says "child" or "children" five times (when referring to fetuses), the word "mother" does not appear. Nor is there any mention of possible exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the pregnant woman's health or life.

Democrats, on the other hand, "strongly and unequivocally" support Roe v. Wade. Abortion, they say, "is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way."

Both Democrats and Republicans express concern for the pregnant woman who chooses to give birth. Democrats vow to provide "affordable health care and [ensure] the availability of an access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs." Republicans "salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life." They say nothing about providing any material help to such women, however: apparently this is a task for the private sector.

Tomorrow I plan to comment on how a pro-life Christian can support the Democratic platform, including its right-to-choose paragraph. Or at least I'll start commenting. This topic is not as simple as some people make it, and blog posts are necessarily short.
___________________________________

*The entire GOP platform is available here; the entire Democratic platform, here.

Why we eat organic foods (in spite of today's headlines)

Fox News: "Organic Food Has Little Health Impact, Study Says"

New York Times: "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce"

Washington Post: "Organic food adds no vitamins for extra cost, research finds"

Photo of South Bend farmers' market by Jane Halteman.

Hey, is this good news, or what? Give up organic heirloom tomatoes at $4.99/pound! Stop paying $5.99 up for a gallon of organic milk! Buy cheaper ground beef than the organic grass-fed stuff at $7.99+/pound!

Slow down, folks. Read the articles, not just the attention-grabbing headlines. What the scientists discovered was basically this: Take two identical, ripe, juicy, fresh peaches, one of which was grown organically and one of which was not. Analyze the nutritional profile of each. You will find that one peach has just about the same vitamins as the other.

OK, and I'll bet they're pretty much the same color, too. And they probably weigh the same. And if dropped from a tall building, they most likely will go splat at about the same time.

Only thing is, that's not the point. Most of us don't buy peaches because of their airborne velocity or their weight or their color--or their vitamin content. We buy them because they taste wonderful and because they're good for us. The good news is, we can get good taste and lots of vitamins whether we buy our peaches at Jewel or at Whole Foods, though the taste is even better if we can get them right off the tree at a fruit stand or a farmers' market.

Still, some of us prefer to buy peaches that were grown organically. This has nothing to do with their vitamin content and not much to do with their taste. It has a lot to do with the fact that they're number 4 of the Dirty Dozen.

Peaches are loaded with pesticides (though not quite as loaded as apples, celery, or bell peppers). Some of us think that neurotoxins, even if they are "almost always under the allowed safety limits," as the NYT puts it, may not be as good for us as vitamins. Some of us suspect that future research may change the allowed safety limits. Call me paranoid, but I'd rather avoid those neurotoxins whenever I can.

A few other reasons to buy food processed according to organic standards:

• The be-kind-to-animals reason. Animals involved in the production of organic meat, eggs, and dairy products are usually treated more humanely. They are not crowded in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are the moral equivalent of puppy mills.
• The good-for-you reason, continued. Just as organically grown plants aren't sprayed with pesticides, organically raised farm animals are not given antibiotics, which increase the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant diseases; or hormones, which may contribute to early puberty and even cancer.
• The sustainable agriculture reason. Organic fruits, grains, and vegetables tend to be grown in ways that enrich rather than deplete the soil.
• The clean-up-the-planet reason. Do you have any idea how much pollution is generated by conventional farming methods?
• The taxpayer revolt reason. CAFOs generate oceans of manure, far more than their soil can absorb. Much of it goes into our waterways. Some pollutes the air. Taxpayers pay billions of dollars to clean up after these farmers--and also to subsidize the corn they feed their confined animals. 
• The bringing-down-costs-for-everybody reason.  Yes, supermarket food is cheap--but if you add in the tax burden and public health implications, it isn't as cheap as it looks. Sustainably produced food, over the long haul, could be almost as cheap. Once enough people who can afford to eat organically grown food start insisting on it, such food will become more readily available and the prices will come down. This is already happening: click here to learn what organic products are available today at Wal-Mart.

And then maybe, just maybe, the Department of Agriculture will stop subsidizing harmful farming practices and teenagers will give up Coke and Pepsi and will start eating organic peaches instead.  And organically raised pigs will fly.

LABOR DAY by Joyce Maynard

We've survived the Republican National Convention. Next week we will endure the Democratic National Convention. In between, we get Labor Day weekend--our last chance, according to our foremothers, to wear white linen and read lightweight novels.

I recommend Joyce Maynard's 2009 book, Labor Day, though no one in it wears linen of any color and its weight is more middle than light. The story is engrossing, the characters are fascinating, and it includes a fine recipe for pie crust.

Henry, the narrator, is 13 years old and about to start seventh grade. The book's first paragraph lets us know that his family situation is complicated:

It was just the two of us, my mother and me, after my father left. He said I should count the new baby he had with his new wife, Marjorie, as part of my family too, plus Richard, Marjorie's son, who was six months younger than me though he was good at all the sports I messed up in. But our family was my mother, Adele, and me, period. I would have counted the hamster, Joe, before including that baby, Chloe.

A  seemingly random encounter with a weirdly inappropriate stranger (he's dripping blood, for heaven's sake!) turns everyone's lives upside down--but it's not what you're thinking. In a series of mildly suspenseful chapters, we find out who the interloper is and what he wants. We also learn a lot more (maybe even more than we wanted to know) about Henry and his mother.

Labor Day would be a coming-of-age novel if it didn't end when Henry was still 13, with only a couple of closing chapters to bring us up to the present. It could be a middle reader if Maynard hadn't included quite so much sex (though perhaps that's no problem these days, alas). Its unobtrusive but elegant prose and gradually unfolding characterizations would make it a literary novel if Maynard hadn't told the story in a fairly straightforward fashion, with more action than interior monologue.

It could not, however, be chick lit.

The one thing that bothered me about Labor Day did not occur to me while I was reading it. Only afterward did I think, wait--were there any strong females in the book? Adele: eccentric beyond belief, and probably mentally ill. Marjorie: conventional, a bit narcissistic. Evelyn: overwhelmed. Mandy: manipulative, lying, and cruel. Eleanor: worse.

And then I wondered, why were the males so likable? One is weak, to be sure, but not evil. Another is practically divine. The stepbrother is a nice enough kid; and young Henry, though he makes a serious error in judgment, is a delightful (and amazingly articulate) little nerd.

The fact that I'm still thinking about Labor Day two days after finishing it is why I've found the category that best describes it. It's an excellent book-club book: a well-written, enjoyable, not-too-demanding page-turner that begs to be discussed with friends. I should have expected as much, since I learned about it at my public library. It's the contemporary book group's pick for September.

Saving Medicare the Republican way

It's a promise: "A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare, for my mom’s generation, for my generation, and for my kids and yours." That's what Paul Ryan told the Republican National Convention last night in his acceptance speech.

How do the Republicans plan to do this? The Republican Platform spells it out: "The first step is to move [Medicare and Medicaid] away from their current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model."

Right--that has worked so well for pension plans.

Once upon a time we were told that the 401(k) defined-contribution plans would let us retire rich. We could choose our own investments! No intermediaries would take hefty cuts! The miracle of compounding interest would do the rest!

But then interest rates tumbled, and financial institutions took hefty cuts anyway, and our houses lost a third of their value, and most of us forgot that we really needed to be socking away the maximum allowable percentage of our salaries if we planned to continue eating in retirement.

You might want to check out David Callahan's article, "A Perfect Failure: Why the 401(k) Has Been a Flop." Or you might just want to consider your own 401(k). Will you have saved a million dollars by the time you retire? That's how much you'll need if you want to draw out a modest $40,000 a year, and if you want your savings to last as long as you do.

Now ask yourself: do you really want an individualized, free-market Medicare along with your individualized, free-market 401(k)?

Soon-to-retire Boomers will remember a sentence reportedly uttered by an American officer in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." That's pretty much how Mr. Ryan plans to save Medicare.

I do hope Messrs Obama and Biden come up with a better idea.

Four countries that already meet the Republican Platform's health-care goals

Health care in the Netherlands, 17th century
(Jan Steen: "The Doctor's Visit)

Friday evening we were having supper with friends who make frequent trips to Israel. One of them commented that Israeli doctors don't have a lot of administrative expenses. To arrange for payment, to transfer records, or to prescribe or check medications, all they have to do is swipe a patient's health-care card. "We could learn a lot from them," she said.

Saturday evening we were having supper with friends whose families live in Canada. One of them commented that Canada's health-care system gets a bad rap in the U.S., and that nearly all the complaints are nothing more than political propaganda. "Most Canadians are satisfied with their health care most of the time," he said. "The only complaint you hear is that sometimes the waits are too long."

I just read the Republican Platform section on health care (it starts here) in which they promise to repeal the loathly Affordable Care Act and replace it with something magnificent (as yet undefined). "Our goal," they say, "is to encourage the development of a healthcare system that provides higher quality care at a lower cost to all Americans while protecting the patient-physician relationship based on mutual trust, informed consent, and privileged patient confidentiality." Now there's a goal I can agree with 100%.

Interestingly, it well describes health care in Israel and Canada, which are single-payer, tax-financed systems--what Americans correctly call "socialized medicine." It also is a perfect description of health care in, for example, Germany and the Netherlands, which are multi-payer systems that combine some government funds with funding from competing private insurers--what many Americans also call "socialized medicine" because they don't know any better.

Let's look at how these countries measure up to the Republicans' wish list. (All information unless otherwise attributed is from the World Health Organization's data tables.)

Higher quality care. Mothers and infants in Canada, Germany, Israel, and the Netherlands are less likely than American mothers and infants to die in childbirth. People in those four countries live two or three years longer than people in the United States. Interestingly, this may not be due to better health habits: Only Canada has fewer smokers than the U.S.

In addition, Germans, Israelis, and the Dutch have many more doctors per 10,000 population than we do (Canadians have fewer, which may explain their long waits). All four of the other countries have a higher ratio of hospital beds than we do.

Lower cost. Somehow these four countries have figured out how to deliver good quality health care without paying astronomical costs--their total health-care costs per capita range from 24 to 58% of ours. Oddly, our government actually paid more per capita than the governments of Canada, Israel, and Germany; the Dutch government paid about the same as we did.

Subtract the government contribution from the total bill, and you get what you and I are paying out of pocket. Americans, of course, are paying vastly more than citizens of the other four countries: $3074 per capita in 2006, the last year for which WHO has comparative data. (Canadians paid $1158, Germans paid $860, the Dutch paid $687, and Israelis paid $562.)

All Americans. Canada, Germany, Israel, and the Netherlands, like all other developed nations with the exception of the United States, have universal health care. That means that every citizen is covered. In the United States, by contrast, "nearly half (44%) of U.S. adults—81 million people—were either underinsured or uninsured in 2010." So says the Commonwealth Fund, who note that among low-income families, that figure rises to 78%.

Protecting the patient-physician relationship based on mutual trust, informed consent, and privilege patient confidentiality. Yes, of course. That is also the goal of every other developed nation. Contrary to public misinformation, by the way, Europeans do get to choose their own doctors--and they have more to choose from than we do.

So, Republicans, we have a long way to go in order to achieve those excellent health-care goals. The Affordable Care Act moves us slightly--not nearly far enough--in the right direction. How are you planning to improve on it?

If you were smart, you'd study countries that already have higher quality care at a lower cost that covers all citizens. That happens to be true of every other developed nation, so it shouldn't be too hard to find resources. But what you'd learn is that their health-care efficiency comes from price controls, strict government regulation of private insurers, and an adequate tax base.

Oops.

Mme Neff's Salon

"La Lecture de Molière" by Jean-François de Troy 

In the early 1600s certain French people, disgusted with the crudeness of Henri IV's court, began meeting in private homes to discuss art and literature. They called their groups salons, after the room in which the larger gatherings took place, or ruelles, after the space between bed and wall in which the smaller ones met.

By the 1700s salons had expanded their areas of interest to politics, philosophy, and religion. In theory, at least, they were places where anything could be discussed as long as participants were polite, civil, and well behaved.

Most salons were hosted by women, who provided invitations, food and a place to meet. The guest list was subversive: it included women as well as men, bourgeois along with aristocrats. Prominent intellectuals and artists spoke freely of their vision for liberté, égalité, and fraternité--dangerous ideas in an age of absolute monarchy.

In the early 2000s certain American people, disgusted with the crudeness of the current and seemingly eternal political campaign, decided to drop out of the political process altogether. They are doing their best to ignore politically motivated ads, commercials, and phone calls. According to a recent USA Today poll, some 90 million of us will not vote in the November election.

I sympathize. The constant name-calling and mud-slinging, whether paid for by super-PACs or freely offered by friends, is depressing. Hesitant to say anything political on Facebook or here on my blogs, I've stopped saying much at all. Since I've used Facebook updates to promote my blogs, I feared my friends would weary of me if I posted such updates too frequently. Some of them no doubt roll their eyes if I post them at all.

"In the salon of Mme Geoffrin in 1755" by Lemonnier, c1814

And then I had an idea. I'd like to discuss politics--and philosophy, religion, art, literature, food, wine, travel, language, dogs, and many other topics--with people who also want to discuss these things, and who share the salons' ideals of politeness, civility, and good behavior. It's a bonus if these people disagree with me: then I might learn something. Alas, nowadays a physical salon isn't too practical. My rooms are not as large as Mme Geoffrin's.

So I set up a Facebook page, "Mme Neff's Salon," that is supposedly accessible whether or not you're on Facebook. If you are on Facebook, and if you LIKE the page, you will get updates in your news feed whenever I post to Lively Dust or The Neff Review. Then, if you wish, you can join a discussion, or initiate one.

Now I feel free to go back to writing. If you want to hear from me, please LIKE the page. If you change your mind, you can easily UNLIKE it later. But whatever else you do, even if you resort to earplugs and blinders to keep out the shouting and turmoil from now until November 6, please vote.