do we really want this kind of mentality in our lawmakers? Last Friday, Kansas legislators approved a ban on insurance companies offering abortion coverage as part of their general health plans. The one exception: when a woman's life is at risk. DeGraaf, who is in his first term and who is an associate pastor, also called for banning coverage for abortions of rape pregnancies. (Women could get around this if they purchased separate, "abortion-only policies.") During the House discussion there was predictably some disagreement over whether excluding rape pregnancies from coverage was perhaps the sort of callous treatment a recently violated woman shouldn't have to deal with. Here's DeGraaf's response to Rep. Barbara Bollier's challenge, as reported by the McPherson Sentinel: Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?" Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with pregnancy?" DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have a spare tire on my car." "I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for." http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/05/pete_degraaf_rape_flat_tire.php
I actually prefer it here in Canada. I think the US has extraordinary potential, perhaps unlike any other country in the world. However, the political Right keeps it in check. You may disagree, but please don't think I'm kidding.
A lot of unleashed talent, I think you are right. The political situation stinks, and appears structural, poor leadership on both sides.
I think Lucrum must mean income diversity. One could reasonably predict that power in a highly stratified society, but with a relatively homogenous ethnic make up, would be making the same type of argument, as this republican is, for the poor to plan better for rapes and such and to not expect power's help.
As I've gotten older I've come to accept that, on the issue of abortion, neither side is stupid, or evil. I can't criticize someone for wanting to protect the rights of the baby. I can't criticize someone for wanting to protect the rights of the mother. I can see both perspectives. From a medically educated standpoint I don't know how anyone can argue that a baby in the womb is not 'alive'. They have a heartbeat. They can measure brain activity. I understand how people can get passionate about being pro-life. Pro-life supporters are not assholes. Just as pro-choice supporters are not assholes. They just don't consider a pre-born baby 'human life' and they want to protect the rights on the mother. I get that. I think I have the answer to this highly devisive issue. At least an answer that both sides should be able to live with