The abortion debate
Well both sides of this divisive issue went to extremes. Once the Virginia issue arose with the Governor speaking of “options” after birth and supporting abortion up to the minute of it, the issue has been center stage.
New York followed immediately with no limits on time frame and the Pro Life movement had an edge for the first time that I can remember.
So what do they do? Go to the other end and beginning with Alabama place restrictions to a degree that takes away the edge they gained.
A few weeks ago we noted America was against nine month abortions. They favored a first trimester decision. After that they were okay with restrictions. Alabama and others in their zeal to do right, as they saw it, gave back the advantage.
So who’s right?
It depends on which side of the divide you are. The left says a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body.
The right agrees she does, until she shares that body and a life to be born has begun.
The left says, until it’s born it is her body.
The right says, how come we consider someone deceased when their heart stops beating, but not alive when it starts?
And so it goes. Where is the ground we can survive?
It is not arguing the under one percent extreme of rape and incense. Going to extremes on either side just inflames the discussion. Let’s settle the 99% first and them get to the extreme.
America today wants to support abortion but wants a decision early before the fetus can feel pain.
Let’s define what America would accept.
Alabama at six weeks, and Missouri at eight has America saying too soon. First trimester is where they feel comfortable. That by the way, would take care of the extreme we noted earlier.
Why don’t those on the right recognize the opportunity to make progress on this issue? Why don’t they say that in the case of rape we would make available morning after pills?
Why don’t they make the limit twelve weeks and not six? It would be a major victory in their decades long fight.
Once there, then they can monitor scientific progress for earlier detection. Why would they fight for a time period that will cause them to lose, maybe forever? I know they believe they are right, but so does the other side.
Let’s agree on a period people can and will support. We will all be better for that.
As the argument goes on and the Democrats have moved from collusion to other reasons there is a huge divide in the party. Here’s a story from Politico this AM that illustrates how bad:
BEHIND THE SCENES … “Pelosi clashes with fellow Dems in closed-door debate on impeachment”: “Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Joe Neguse of Colorado — all members of Democratic leadership — pushed to begin impeachment proceedings during a leadership meeting in Pelosi’s office, said the sources.
“Pelosi and Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Cheri Bustos of Illinois — some of her key allies — rejected their calls, saying Democrats’ message is being drowned out by the fight over possibly impeaching Trump. …
“[I]n a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee meeting, Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee stood up and demanded Trump’s impeachment. Pelosi then countered, ‘This is not about politics, it’s about what’s best for the American people,’ said a member who attended the meeting. … During the Steering and Policy Committee meeting, Cohen said President Bill Clinton faced impeachment proceedings ‘over sex’ while Trump is ‘raping the country,’ according to two sources in the room. Cohen later confirmed his remarks.”
The MSM is not reporting it but the far left clearly wants impeachment. You remember Cohen, he was the one who brought the chicken in when Barr didn’t show up. This issue is so intense inside the party it can divide them for 2020.
Speaking of the MSM have you noticed how they have avoided the whole counter investigation on how the collusion story began? For a medium that covered collusion every night and was proven wrong, wouldn’t you think they would want the details on how they were mislead? Instead we get silence. Why?
Trump’s IMMIGRATION Plan
The President presented his plan and it was immediately controversial of course. I can tell you he made one big mistake in presenting it that is so basic you wonder about his staff.
You have heard over and over about his “merit” entry. It has been the one area most attacked. As I listened to his presentation it was clear that this was the area of left attack. I wondered immediately why he didn’t say we would have immigration annually based upon “need”. What does our country need to satisfy national needs. We would open the doors annually to needs. We may need engineers and farm workers this year. Next year it might be health care and scientists. Need in place of merit would have been so much better.
Finally a follow up
Remember when we talked about the soda tax implemented in Philadelphia and predicted it would be a disaster? Well here’s a report out of Philly:
A two-year-old decision by city officials in Philadelphia to impose a beverage tax on sugary and artificially sweetened drinks caused sales to drop by 38 percent, according to one of the first studies evaluating the duty’s effects. Since Jan. 1, 2017, Philadelphia has added a tax of 1.5 cents per ounce on all soft drinks including “diet” sodas.
Areas bordering the city that were not affected by the tax saw a bump in sales, but after accounting for this effect, the net fall in sales was estimated at 38 percent a year. The numbers confirm a basic economic theory: If the price of a product goes up, fewer people will buy it.
Now Philadelphia budgeted the “income expected” into their budget. Next you’ll hear about a revenue shortage and the need to raise taxes to cover costs.