Will there ever be any limits to defining "abortion?"

 There was a time in America when the killing of an unborn child was considered both a sin and a crime. Today, it is considered a simple "option" by any women who sees the results of her enjoyment of sex as "an imposition." That view was not acceptable then. But it is now. On that basis alone, may I suggest that what I now suggest may seem extreme and unacceptable now, but may very well be public policy in less than 20 years:

Since a child is not viable and able to live on its own even after birth and the mother is seen as responsible for it until it reaches its majority (with a few select exceptions), it would be consistent that, just as an unborn with a defect may now be terminated, why should not a child that develops an illness, has mental deficiencies, or is diagnosed as a dangerous psychopath be able to be killed by the mother,... at her sole discretion? After all, isn't that the power that women who currently become pregnant have right now in states that legalize abortion while the child is still in the womb... even if only the feet remain there? If there is to be equal protection under the law, that there should also be equal NONPROTECTION under those very same laws?

Make a note of this and be prepared to revisit it in the light of developments in the next two decades. Logic applies and, as separate but equal as a concept fell in the last century, so will the current protection wrongly granted to minors when denied to those in the womb.

A secondary challenge is that almost all who favor allowing the killing of children in the womb simultaneously oppose the killing (the "death" penalty) for those convicted of murdering others. That is clearly illogical. These are usually the same people who repeat the mantra, "follow the science," which recognizes the humanity and viability of children in the womb. That relegates the "non-personhood" argument and artificial and denigrating term "fetus" to the curb. Science says that the "fetus" IS a human being and shows that it senses and recoils from pain and danger.

An argument that says a child with no record of any action or choice may be legally killed by the "mother" but denies society the right to kill a person that has murdered and/or raped and or caused the death of another intentionally is just beyond defense. None has ever been presented... at least not to me. If there is one, I'd like to hear or read it so I can "understand" the argument.

Simply saying that one person's existence being a "complication" or "burden" to another has never been seen as a defense to a charge of the second murdering the first... and simply creating a definition that claims to state a difference is spurious at best.

No one has ever responded to these arguments with either logic or reason. All that comes forth are personal insults, gestures, and obscene language or simply walking away without offering any response. Understandable... but sad.

The Supreme Court has done all of us a favor. They put the question of killing babies in the hands of secular legislatures throughout the country, where it belongs. Why? Because although I see abortion as murder, it is the right of the majority in each state to decide on the character of aborting babies, and when. The will of the majority of the people should rule. I do not suggest that makes the act right, but if a citizenry decides to legalize abortion, it should clearly be the decision of that very group, state by state. And that decision, and its ultimate consequences, should be clearly on the heads of each voter and each state legislator. (And I understand and sympathize with their angst at having that burden cast upon them. It was easier when any blame or consequences rested on the Supreme Court rather than on them. But that was wrong, and now they have both the right and the obligation to rule.)

Health Care simplified (maybe)?

Why does the government always look to solve a problem by starting with the most complicated and controlling approach first (and often never moves on from there)? And that is assuming (a very big and IMHO false assumption) that it can accurately determine whether or not there actually is a problem.

Indulge me by joining in another look at Health care in America. The whole conversation is about two areas: costs and availability of coverage, right? For the sake of argument, supposing we separate the two for purposes of discussion.

Cost. Right now, the individual states control the cost of policies sold in their states...or, at least they have the power to control those rates. So...the federal plan that is going to cost us who knows how many trillion dollars does not really address or improve that factor, does it? Do we really think that federal bureaucrats will do a better job than state bureaucrats? I don't either. But...can we change the factors in a way that might (and I emphasize, might) improve costs? How about allowing cross-state-line sales of different health care insurance products? Instead of mandating a specific model of coverage, as states do now, why not mandate that different policies can be marketed with different scopes and levels of coverage and the consumer can select whatever suits his or her desires? Further, if you thought it would be helpful, research and find out what the profit margin is for Health Insurance Companies, come up with an average and mandate that all Health care Insurance Companies may not set rates that result in exceeding that margin. Adjust that number by inflation, provide for public auditing of compliance. Require that promotional and explanatory literature on the different Insurance policies highlight in bold print and plain English just what the differences are between policies, with emphasis on scope (types of things and illnesses covered AND NOT COVERED) and Coverage (amount of money available by type of service and lifetime of policy).

I think all of this, done at the STATE level, would result in lowest possible (knowing that this does not necessarily lead to an actual reduction in bills, just that the charges are not inflated) costs and allow a family to chose at least some coverage at a cost that they can afford.

Availability of Coverage. Again, let us presume that we want to extend coverage to all citizens. Why not just provide for reimbursement of costs of medical care to citizens who do not have coverage. All Doctors, Hospitals and Medical Laboratories have to do is document the person receiving coverage, why they were not covered by a policy (pre-existing condition, financially unable to afford coverage, etc.) verify that they were a citizen or a legal resident, and the government would cover the costs. There would be no reimbursement for treatment for illegal aliens or non-citizens. Also, these forms would also be required to be audited to prevent fraud.

This would, within a couple or 5 years provide us with a baseline for the costs of covering those who do not have any insurance. If the experience seemed to support it, perhaps a follow-up step would be to replace the reimbursement program for the Health care Industry with a subsidy for lower income families to enable them to buy an insurance policy, leaving the government directly responsible only for those with pre-existing conditions.

Such an approach would provide both more alternatives and more power of choice to the American citizen and family, keeping government control at a minimum while mandating government verification of industry, provider and end user truthfulness, as well as minimizing taxpayer costs.