Didn't Take Long, Did It?

I would just like to point out some things related to the Supreme Court’s decision (with newly-joined “Strip Search Sammy” Alito onboard) to hear a case involving late-term abortions and the legality of the so-called “partial birth” abortion law, which was struck down a few days ago in courts in both New York and San Francisco (and, as Barbara Boxer pointed out, “partial birth abortion” is a political term and not a medical one…it’s an unfortunate testimony to the right-wing noise machine that that needs to be pointed out).

The first thing to point out as a reminder is that one of Alito’s “enablers,” Joe Lieberman, sold out his constituency on Alito the same way he is selling them out again by supporting Dubya on the D.P. World ports controversy. Click here for more "good news" for Joe related to this post.

The second thing to point out is that, while this analysis of Bush’s FY 2006 budget shows an increase in block grant funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (up $508 million, and I’m automatically leery of the fact that that money will be doled out by the states – hopefully – instead of the feds), the budget shows a cut in the Social Service Block Grant for services for disabled people, and Section 8 housing assistance for people with disabilities is cut in half (if you happen to meet someone from Northeast Philadelphia, by the way, don’t get them started on Section 8 housing…to say that that is a hot-button issue is about as much of a truism as saying that the Pope is German).

I’m pointing this second thing out because of the logical consequence of making it harder to perform the “late-term abortion” procedure, which isn’t likely to happen unless something has gone horribly wrong with either the fetus or the mother. That logical consequence is a large increase in the special needs population of this country. So what sense does it make to make it illegal to get this procedure and criminalize those responsible (and make no mistake…THAT is where all of this is going) and then fail to provide for what will likely be a huge increase in the special needs population of this country? If you’re going to “talk the talk,” then “walk the walk,” OK?

And here’s another thing: doesn’t it make sense to allow any couple who has the means and the proven, committed desire to raise a child to do so, particularly kids with special needs (as explained here)? What difference does sexual orientation make concerning this, especially because so many kids from traditional “hetero” marriages have problems that are at least comparable to kids raised in same-sex marriages?

All I’m asking is that the people who scream about “partial birth” abortion do a little “outside-the-box” thinking and consider what is best for the kids, particularly those with special needs, who arrive and require care and family support into adulthood. I realize that’s not something that can be captured in an easily digestible sound bite or headline, but isn’t that what we’re talking about when all is said and done? If not, then isn’t all of the screaming hypocritical and self-serving and nothing more?