Here is the text of Sister Dierdre Byrne's speech at the Republican National Convention:
Here is an excerpt: "My journey to religious life was not a traditional route, if there is such a thing. In 1978, as a medical school student at Georgetown University, I joined the Army to help pay for my tuition, and ended up devoting 29 years to the military, serving as a doctor and a surgeon in places like Afghanistan and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. After much prayer and contemplation, I entered my religious order in 2002, working to serve the poor and the sick in Haiti, Sudan, Kenya, Iraq and in Washington, D.C. Humility is at the foundation of our order, which makes it very difficult to talk about myself. But I can speak about my experience working for those fleeing war-torn and impoverished countries all around the world. Those refugees all share a common experience. They have all been marginalized, viewed as insignificant, powerless and voiceless. And while we tend to think of the marginalized as living beyond our borders, the truth is the largest marginalized group in the world can be found here in the United States. They are the unborn."
My comments: I can't help but be impressed by her life of service to others, first as a doctor and army surgeon, then as a religious serving the poor in very challenged places in the world.
But I had trouble with the cognitive dissonance in this part of her speech, especially after her comments about refugees previously: "Donald Trump is the most pro-life president this nation has ever had, defending life at all stages. His belief in the sanctity of life transcends politics. President Trump will stand up against Biden-Harris, who are the most anti-life presidential ticket ever..."
Sister Simone Campbell has also dedicated her life to the service of others. As has Father James Martin. Both gave invocations at the DNC, but not endorsements. For that matter, Cardinal Dolan also gave an invocation, but not an endorsement. I feel that an invocation, but not an endorsement, is an appropriate gesture for a public minister of the church such as these people. All of them are examples of how people of good will can find themselves on opposite sides of the fence.
Personally speaking it is too much cognitive dissonance to bracket Trump out of the equation, I have to choose the option that doesn't include him.
I have a problem with someone being able to ignore the evil done to grown humans you CAN see while worrying about the embryonic humans you can't see. Again, no one is dragging pregnant women off the street and forcibly removing their fetuses. They are initiating and cooperating in the procedure. I cannot understand this decision except under dire external circumstances, but how does one force a mother to be a mother?
ReplyDeleteStanley, yeah. I feel that it is a mistake to approach abortion solely as a supply problem. It is as much or more a demand problem, as you say the women are initiating the procedure. To a degree poverty can be part of it, or moral formation. The government can help the former but it can't do anything about the latter,
DeleteKatherine, I have one second cousin who had three boys by three different fathers and wasn't married to one of them. But she is Catholic. Had the kids. They are all turning out fine. It must be remembered that a lot of women DON'T have abortions and wouldn't think of it. I think more should be done to support the women who have the kids.
Delete"I think more should be done to support the women who have the kids."
DeleteYes - a statement that many unmarried dads need to hear!
Hollywood often is demonized by the Right, but two major motion picture releases in (somewhat) recent years have looked sympathetically at pregnant women who chose not to have an abortion and have the baby instead - I'm thinking of Juno and Knocked Up. To be sure, both moms in these movies are white, relatively financially secure and seemingly with good support networks, so they surely gloss over many real-life difficulties. But it's worth pointing out that there is some Hollywood sympathy for single women choosing to have the baby.
I have difficulty with "normalizing" or lauding single motherhood. he
DeleteMy dad and his half sisters never knew their biological father because their mothers wanted nothing to do with him. As a result, he got out of paying child support and providing important family info to three of his six children.
You have a right to know who your father is, even if he is a charming drunk. In fact, it might be an object lesson to know you carry that proclivity.
And you have a right to know who your siblings are. My dad would have loved the ones I met a couple of years ago. So lively and interesting!
And men should never never never be able to sow their wild oats without paying the same penalty as women.
Don't want to laud single motherhood. Just saying choices were made, bad and good. My relative may be an effup but she's a nice, loving effup.
DeleteSorry for veering off topic and for TMI--I loved my gramma with all my heart. But she deeply regretted that my dad never knew his biological father and that she had drawn that line in the sand, and she was right to.
DeleteI think if my dad had known his biological father instead of romanticizing what he hoped (or feared) he was, he would have had a less fraught relationship with his stepdad, thought of himself less as a mistake and burden to his mother, and been able to hold his father to account.
My dad was always trying to make up for being a burden to his mother, and he passed on to us the notion that children should take care of their mothers all their lives. We were constantly enlisted to deal with my mother's mental illness and encouraged to rack our brains to determine if we had made her nuts.
My brother moved 2,000 miles to get away from it. I swallowed the Kool-Aid such that my own kid told me that he felt like my mother always came first. Is that why he married a lulu and has a failed marriage under his belt at 25?
These sins reverb down the generations. We try hard to muddle through, but we usually don't wake up until we've done the damage.
Abortion may not be the answer, but let's not sugar-coat the choose-life option.
My life had its shortfalls. My mother and father were separated due to my father's OCD, triggered, I think, by Iwo Jima. Anyway, it was more neurological than anything else and not to be blamed on anyone except for maybe Tojo. Since I have no offspring, no one else will have to suffer any possible reverberations. I am at peace.
DeleteJean And men should never never never be able to sow their wild oats without paying the same penalty as women.
DeleteBut they do. They always have gotten away pretty much scot-free. Even when child support is ordered, many men don’t pay it. So the mothers spend a lot of time and money in courts trying to get someone to enforce it.
A project for right -to lifers to take on? Paying for legal assistance for these single moms who are struggling to survive without the needed assistance from the fathers?
I have yet to hear of a proactive policy to address this issue this from the right-to-life movement. Who are the same people who vote for politicians whose policies reduce the few practical, financial safety nets available to the 75% of women who are low income or poverty level who are the majority of women who seek out abortions.
True enough about not sugar coating things.
DeleteBut we have to own our choices. You didn't make your son get married, and I'm assuming he was of legal age when he did it. Kids like to guilt trip us sometimes.
"A project for right -to lifers to take on?"
DeleteGood thought! And a very Catholic Social Teaching-oriented thought: all these issues are connected to one another. Different threads, same tapestry.
My point, which I apparently made badly, is that single motherhood is not always about money.
DeleteTalking about how much better it is that single motherhood has been destigmatized because it means more babies will be born ignores what may happen to those babies as they grow up.
It may be an ultimate good that babies are not aborted, but let's accept that these families without fathers have long-term consequences for all concerned.
Let me hasten to add I am not offering my comment above as a corrective to anyone else. We all know single parenting with an indifferent or hostile father is never optimal. I merely wanted to point out that lack of money wasn't the only sub-optimal part of the whole picture.
DeleteI responded to Jim P's link to Sister Dede's speech in another tread. Apologies for cross posting:
ReplyDeleteI laud Sister Dede for her work trying to reverse the effects of the abortion pill--that is pro-choice in it's own way!--and I support her right to speak out about what she perceives as social evils. Bonus points for mentioning refugees, whom Trump has treated abysmally at our own borders.
I do think she conflates being anti-abortion with being pro-life. She makes a deeply orthodox Catholic argument against abortion that is moving if you already believe along those lines, but is not likely to resonate outside the denomination. She is incorrect that Biden and Harris support infanticide as most people define it. And she specifically endorses the candidate, something Sister Simone did not do in 2012 (though you could argue that she does so in a round about way by dissing the Romney-Ryan budget, which the USCCB had also done). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UgzQ5tjV_Fo
I don't have much of a problem with religious leaders speaking plainly, even about candidates, policies and platforms - so long as, when they are regaled in their habits (as she was) or collars or vestments or other garb of religious authority, they are speaking from their religious tradition rather than simply advocating for Republicans or Democrats.
ReplyDeleteTrump has been very strong regarding abortion. Many Catholics, whether lay, religious or ordained, sincerely support him because of that. At the same time, Trump has been terrible regarding the lives of immigrants at our southern border. That also is a pro-life issue. His performance on COVID-19 - another pro-life issue - is somewhat contentious but it is widely conceded that his leadership could have been much better; whether and how that translates to lives lost and ruined strikes me as much more difficult to discern. It just seems to me that an honest accounting of his pro-life track record, from a Catholic standpoint, needs to take all these items into account.
Jim, sorry, I didn't see that you had already posted the link to her speech on another thread.
DeleteNo worries. I'm glad you highlighted her here!
DeleteDuring the two hours of his convention last night, 1,012 Americans died due to Covid at the current rate. It is what it is, and the economic advisor to the Crime Family Trump talks about it in the past tense. Nevertheless, people keep dying from it. How many people died because the governor of Florida prematurely "opened up" Florida so the "most pro-life president" could hold his adoration fest there -- which had to be called off anyway despite those who sacrificed their lives for his ego?
DeleteHere are the latest numbers I numb you with: Palm Beach County (pop. 2.4 million) 1,094 deaths; Taiwan (pop. 48 million) 7 deaths. Back in April, the pro-life president said we had nothing to worry about. At the same time Taiwan delayed school openings for three weeks while they wiped down everything and amassed enough tests to take the temperatures of students and teachers twice a day and immediately test anyone whose temp was too high. It profits a man nothing to give up his life for the whole world -- but for a five minute slot at the RNC?
It's sad that this woman, who has worked with refugees, and with the poor in several countries, is too blind to see that Trump is not the most "pro-life" president in history,"defending life at all stages".
ReplyDeleteShe has been used, and does not even realize it. Trump has turned America's back on refugees from the mid-east and Africa, immigrants from central America who are also refugees from violence, poor people all over the world, by cutting humanitarian aid. He also increases abortions because of policies that undercut and weaken the very safety nets women might need in order to give birth and raise their children.
Pro-life? NOT!
There is a lot in the Bible about being nice to immigrants ad strangers. I seem to remember that there are two references to abortion, and you have to squint to see them. Our pro-life president has a preferential option for the squint.
DeleteTom, where are those two references? I have never heard of them. The only reference to contraception is the "sin of Onan", whose sin was not spilling his seed, as the anti-birth control types attempt to claim, but that he failed in his obligation to his brother's widow by deliberately trying not to impregnate her, which apparently was his moral obligation since his sister-in-law was widowed without children.
DeleteTimes have changed.
Anne, I honestly don't remember. One is in either Deut, or Lev. in the O.T, and the other is somewhere in Paul's letters.
DeleteThe one they always use is Psalm 139, " You formed my inmost being, you knit me on my mother's womb..." The whole psalm is about the intentionality of God as creator.
DeleteBut it says nothing about abortion. God the creator is apparently not too concerned about every single fertilized ovum, given that scientists estimate that around 50-75% fail to implant, and that around 25% of those that implant spontaneously abort. Maybe Aquinas’ notions about ensoulment marking the change from embryo to “personhood” should be revisited.
DeleteHey, don't ask me! Anyway, I'm not a scripture-only kind of guy.
DeleteBut, here is a contribution from Priests For Life. YMMV.
https://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/4376-the-bibles-teaching-against-abortion
Jim, I am not a scripture-only kind of guy, either. But I do use the Bible for prayer and worship. And whereas Jesus is constantly harping on the misuse of wealth, I just can't find him raising a ruckus about abortion, which was known about in his day. I find a lot about immigrants and strangers; I find zip about abortionists or women who have them. So when I see a Church that lives comfortably with trophy wealth and trophy wives, making a huge uproar over one particular sin, I wonder why.
DeleteThe Priests for Lives have to explain every one of those scriptural references they use because none of them flat-out says what the PfL wants them to say. And when they bring up "innocent" lives (Black Lives don't matter as much because no one past the age of reason is innocent), they have to overlook the choice that occasionally arises between the unborn child and the mother carrying him. The child is as much a threat to the mother as a non-innocent kid with a gun and a cop fetish, but PfL says let Mom die so this innocent killer can live. A Cargo Cult can make as much sense as that.
Tom, yes, pulmonary hypertension is one of those situations.
DeleteAlso, some women get pregnant while taking drugs they need to survive or maintain their mental health--drugs that will harm the fetus. This has occurred in my cancer group several times to women on oral chemo. Most opt to go off the chemo and hope for the best. Many of them miscarry, but it's not clear whether that's from the chemo or the untreated disease.
I would not try to influence a woman in this situation one way or another. It's a circumstance that needs to be addressed by a doctor who can provide a clear picture of the risks, the required monitoring, and a possible safe alternative to the standard chemo depending on the woman's overall condition.
If all goes well with the pregnancy, the mother still has an incurable and often debilitating blood cancer while trying to manage a baby and, later, a high-octane toddler. This is a common topic in the support group during the pandemic: How do I get through the day with my kids?
If a woman has to quit work because she can't both mother and earn money, that's a whole new set of issues.
These situations are never easy. I like to think that a parish priest or deacon would be understanding and have concrete suggestions for these mothers.
Jean:"These situations are never easy. I like to think that a parish priest or deacon would be understanding and have concrete suggestions for these mothers."
DeleteNot just the priests and deacons - the entire "pro-birth" movement has NO concrete suggestions - much less real, help which costs $$$, for ANY woman facing a problematic pregnancy - whether health related or otherwise.
I will not support that movement as I did at one time, sending donations, until they drop the facade that they are truly pro-life. That means not abandoning women when they most need practical help, walking away after the baby is born, smugly confident that they are morally superior to pro-choice people who actually work for policies that will support women in choosing to give birth.
And as far as the absolute lack of valuing the life of the mother, that case in New Mexico a few years back was one of the final straws for me before choosing to leave the RCC. That bishop wanted both the mother and the baby to die for his exalted "moral" principles. The deaths of women whose lives could have been saved by abortion in Ireland was the tipping point there that led to the end of Ireland's absolute ban on abortions. Women so clearly saw how the church devalues their lives. The bishops there fought tooth and nail against in the referendum that overturned the ban. It was no good. They had already lost most of the populace, and especially the women - their history of sexual abuse of kids, hidden of course, and their clear devaluing of women in general by supporting a law that would not even permit the saving of a woman's life when there was no chance for the embryo to survive but the woman's life could be saved with an abortion. These were the two biggest factors in destroying faith in the Catholic church in a country that was once known as purely Catholic.
If people believe that (a) an unbaptized baby will go to hell for eternity because it was aborted, and therefore (b) a mother who had an abortion might save her life but will lose her soul, then I understand why they (c) want strict laws and penalties against it mothers and doctors who perform abortions.
DeleteAs I understand it from RCIA, the Church essentially teaches (a) and (b). Catholics may believe (a) and (b) without advocating for (c). However, the Church also seems to ascribe levels of complicity in the sin of abortion on politicians who do not advocate for (c) and on those who vote for those politicians IF they are voting for said politicians PRIMARILY because they do not advocate for (c).
It is all very fundamentalist, disregards divine grace and mercy, and it has allowed the Republican Party to give itself a political advantage with Catholics by giving lip service to being anti-abortion.
For the most part, I completely disregard a candidate's stand on abortion when I vote.
"If people believe that (a) an unbaptized baby will go to hell for eternity because it was aborted, and therefore (b) a mother who had an abortion might save her life but will lose her soul, then I understand why they (c) want strict laws and penalties against it mothers and doctors who perform abortions.
Delete"As I understand it from RCIA, the Church essentially teaches (a) and (b)."
The Church Ladies did you a disservice, because the church doesn't teach (a). Not the members of the church haven't taught it at various times and places over the course of two millenia. But that's not the church's current thinking. The church's current thinking is that it doesn't know the ultimate destiny of unbaptized babies who die.
Thinking about this is useful for clarifying the core principle upon which the church's opposition to abortion is based, as that principle has become such a cliche that we stop thinking about what the words really mean: we believe that the unborn child has a *right* to life. Taking that right away from the child is at least as much of a human rights violation as torturing a prisoner or locking an asylum seeker in a cage or practicing female circumcision.
Regarding (c): I don't know that the church has taught with great clarity and unanimity about politicians who support abortion. Certain individual bishops probably have, but I don't know that the church's teaching authority is univocal on the question.
I don't consider my views on the question to be simplistic, but I believe I am situated solidly in the tradition in calling out politicians who profit politically by advocating for abortions. Seen through the lens of Catholic moral teaching, that's at least as bad as profiting politically by advocating for the mistreatment of immigrants and refugees.
"Not just the priests and deacons - the entire "pro-birth" movement has NO concrete suggestions - much less real, help which costs $$$, for ANY woman facing a problematic pregnancy - whether health related or otherwise."
DeleteAnne, really? Two points:
1. Most support for single mothers and their children is funded by government entitlements. Any person who is pro-life or pro-choice who pays their municipal, state and federal taxes is providing concrete support for single mothers and their children. The pro-life person is no less supportive in this regard than the pro-choice person.
2. You're simply ignoring the many ways that pro-life advocates support private help for mothers and their children, apart from government programs. If not for the opposition of pro-choice advocates, there would be many more instances of pro-life women's clinics and support centers in cities and counties around the country.
Jean, I have never heard that the church teaches that an unbaptized baby who dies would go to hell. They used to talk about "Limbo" as a place of natural happiness, like heaven, only you wouldn't see God, that the unbaptized might go there. But it was only ever a theory, and I've not heard it mentioned for at least 40 years.
DeleteThe way I think about situations such as the one Anne mentioned about the woman in Arizona who had pulmonary hypertension, is that it's like a house on fire. If you can only save one person from it, you save the one you can. It would be nuts to let both die whn you could prevent one death.
Jim: Anne, really? Two points:
Delete1. Most support for single mothers and their children is funded by government entitlements. Any person who is pro-life or pro-choice who pays their municipal, state and federal taxes is providing concrete support for single mothers and their children. The pro-life person is no less supportive in this regard than the pro-choice person.
They have few choices when it comes to paying taxes. They do have choices in choosing candidates to work for to put into office. The pro-life movement as a whole works to elect politicians who wish to reduce and/or eliminate many of the programs that currently support single mothers.
2. You're simply ignoring the many ways that pro-life advocates support private help for mothers and their children, apart from government programs. If not for the opposition of pro-choice advocates, there would be many more instances of pro-life women's clinics and support centers in cities and counties around the country.
Please tell us more about these programs. Beyond baby bottle collections that provide minimal tangible support for a few months (diapers and formula usually), I have not heard of any significant efforts to provide long-term support or support for the big-ticket items - child-care, for example, so that the woman can continue to work, or help with paying insurance coverage to cover ongoing medical costs for the mother and child. The single mom, especially the poor women (who are 75% of abortion recipients) face daunting financial pressures after giving birth- for at least 18 years.
As far as the rest of it goes, the only thing I have heard about are "crisis pregnancy centers" which sometimes run into opposition from pro-choice types for a form of false advertising. They provide minimal medical care - pregnancy tests basically, available cheaply at any drug store, and occasionally, sonograms. I am in favor of mandatory sonograms before abortion, BTW. And a waiting period after. But these crisis pregnancy centers do not provide counseling on contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, nor abortion. They don't do pap smears or mammograms that I have heard of. I don't think they should have to provide abortion information directly, but if the woman asks, they should tell her where she can obtain this information. That seems to be the crux of the issue.
Do women have a right to be informed of all the options?
Are there other examples of providing long-term support for women in order to help them give birth and care for a child until it can go to school?
I don't know of any - but perhaps you do. So, please elaborate.
Thank you for the clarification on unborn babies, Jim.
DeleteI have heard clerics say we can *hope* they do not go to hell when discussing miscarried and stillborn children. But no promises. Someone gave me one of those "I'll Hold You in Heaven" charms after my second miscarriage. I threw it away when I turned Catholic. It seemed like an empty promise after what the Church Ladies said.
When I asked about Limbo, the Church Ladies said Catholics don't believe in that anymore.
RCIA signalled that whatever we did with birth control could be chalked up to therapeutic use (hormone replacement, for ex), but abortion was non-negotiable and could not be forgiven by anyone but a bishop.
I think the bishop rule has changed?
I had a brother who died shortly after birth, and didn't have a chance to be baptized. The parish priest told my parents that since they would have wanted him to be baptized, it was a kind of Baptism of desire, and they could entrust him to the care of God. That was in the early 1950s, I was too young to remember, Mom told me about it later. But I thought it was a compassionate answer.
Delete"They have few choices when it comes to paying taxes. They do have choices in choosing candidates to work for to put into office. The pro-life movement as a whole works to elect politicians who wish to reduce and/or eliminate many of the programs that currently support single mothers."
DeleteOnce again - bunk. Pure banana oil. Please, tell us all about these pro-life organizations that actively work to eliminate support for single moms and their children.
Ah, Jim. You seem to be avoiding answering the questions. Do you claim that pro-lifers support democrats? Polls and studies indicate that they vote heavily trump and GOP, Even though trump and the GOP cut social safety net programs or try to. Up next - Obamacare. Again.
DeleteI suppose I need to clarify that I don’t know how many pro-life groups as groups officially endorse conservative Republicans, but there is little doubt that self-identified pro-life people vote for them. Maybe no official endorsements by groups that might cost them their non-profit status.
And you forgot to tell us about all the support centers the prolife groups set up. And what they provide pregnant women in long-term support after the baby is born, beyond diapers and formula. And you haven’t explained how the pro choice people have managed to stop them from setting up these centers.
So...?
Illinois right - to - life group endorsements. How many of those endorsed (all Republicans) have a voting record that includes cutting social safety nets for poor women? How many have actively proposed increasing social safety nets?
Deletehttp://www.ifrl.org/ifrl//download/2018_IFRL_PAC_Midterm_Endorsements.pdf
About Catholic organizations which help single mothers, we have one here, the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Of course their mission is not exclusively to single moms, they help anyone in need. In the past, not so much lately, I was involved as a volunteer to help process rent assistance requests. I would estimate that about 75% of them were single mothers. St. VDP also has a food pantry, where people can get several days worth of food. Also utility assistance, and vouchers for gas. They have a thrift store with very low prices, free stuff in an emergency. So yeah, a lot more than diapers and bottles. Mothers aren't their only outreach, but sometimes the best way to help them is to help anyone who needs it. The organization gets lots of support from all three parishes in town.
DeleteWay too many who claim to be "pro life" are really "pro birth." After that you are on your own, lady. And don't count on THEM to cover your mistakes with governmental help of any kind. So much for "defending life at all stages."
DeleteThis clunked against my ear: "the truth is the largest marginalized group in the world can be found here in the United States. They are the unborn."
ReplyDeleteWell, let's see: 862,000 abortions in the U.S last year, according to Guttmacher 26 million refugees, according to the UN rescue agency. Sister Col. (ret.) Byrne has a strange definition of "largest."
I'm pretty sure that if climate change is ignored and not mitigated, we will eventually be in the realm of gigadeath. Also, there is a finite chance of aborting our whole species. I would also be wary of saying the best friend my cause ever had is a stupid, sleazy, lying, racist, crooked scumbag. What if the sister had said, "I endorse this stupid, sleazy, lying, racist, crooked scumbag because he is against abortion." Anti-abortion folks can't say this, it seems. They have to say he's doing well on absolutely everything.
DeleteI can't say I'm happy about the Dems rah rah attitudes on abortion, but I'm voting for the bastards anyway.
"I'm voting for the bastards anyway." Yah, pretty much my view, Stanley.
DeleteI don't know if you can play a numbers game with this, but I believe the death of a democracy also counts. I have to vote against the slow (or maybe not so slow) drift into authoritarianism, the death of the idea that our country is something the rest of the world can respect and look to for leadership.
DeleteKatherine- “ I believe the death of a democracy also counts.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s the single most important issue in this election.
Four more years of trump and the country we have known as America will be dead.
This was a nice moment from last night. H/T Jamelle Bouie for calling it out.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uq_4mk6Vw0
I agreed with this, whence I assume you got the tip from Bouie:
DeleteMelanye Price: I’m glad Alice Johnson is free. More people with unfair sentences should have the same opportunity regardless of whether they know a celebrity who knows the president. Her story is heartwarming but not a substitute for humane and just changes in the criminal justice system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/opinion/rnc-best-worst-trump-night-4.html
Yep, saw that, too, and I agree with Price.
DeletePardons are a last resort, and most of those requests are denied, not only by Trump (whom Price or another of the NY Times gang called out for cronyism and favoritism in his pardons as a general rule) but by other presidents and governors. What really is needed is more fundamental criminal justice reform.
I hated the War On Drugs - it was draconian punishment driven by ignorance, fear and loathing. Not sure if I should be referring to it in the past tense ...
There was the First Step Act, which was passed in 2018 and did constitute some criminal justice reforms. My buddy Chuck Grassley was a big endorser of that, and it had wide bipartisan support. Trump signed it, but he was not the major driver of the effort. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senate-passes-landmark-criminal-justice-reform
DeleteThe War on Drugs overcrowded prisons with nonviolent offenders, siphoned funds and energy away from community policing, and created a nice lucrative market for foreign drug lords and smugglers. China seems to be happily flooding our market with Fentanyl, but curtailing this is really State Department matter. https://www.brookings.edu/research/fentanyl-and-geopolitics-controlling-opioid-supply-from-china/
Free John Sinclair!
Did Trump take credit for the First Step Act? That was queued up before he was elected, along with the Second Step Act (as yet without a clever name). It looked like criminal justice reform would be the great bipartisan feat of the Trump administration. Then he decided he didn't want a bipartisan feat and signaled the second step should not be taken. The head of Crime Family Trump must not want to get too close to anything with justice in its name.
DeleteTom, who knows what he was talking about. He says he's done more for African-Americans than anyone since Lincoln, maybe more than Lincoln.
DeleteIf you asked him what he has done, I'm guessing that he would bluster about the great economy, the great housing market, the success of Kanye West (well maybe not now), his pardons, and the appointment of Ben Carson.
All that. And I am trying to figure out how he guarantees health care for people with pre-existing conditions while arguing before he judges he appointed that it should be unconstitutional. I don't think my b.s. meter can last until November, it is so overworked.
DeleteAbout pre-existing conditions, we have been getting quotes for our Medicare extended policies for the coming year. For the first time we had to answer 25 very detailed questions about possible pre-existings. It seems to me that the insurance companies are hedging their bets in case Trump wins.
DeleteTom, the GOP plan is to kill Obamacare and then pass a law mandating its most popular aspects--pre-existing conditions, extensions for adult children to age 26, and maybe reduced drug costs.
DeleteJean, That was the plan in 2016. What happened to it? John McCain, for one. Public opinion polls for another. I have no doubt they can finish off Obamacare if they get another four years to try. But they will never be able to get Tom (I Wish I Was in the Land of) Cotton & Co., to pass a "better" replacement for what they could have if having it didn't offend You Know Who.
DeleteTom, have you heard of any bill waiting in the wings that will fulfill GOP promises in the event they overturn ACA? I am no aware of one If they don't have something drafted and a pledge to (try to) pass it, that seems like a tactical error. People don't want to hand over their existing deals, poor as they might be, until they know what will replace it. But people might not matter what with drug and insurance lobbies handing out piles of money.
DeleteJean, Sorry I am late. I have seen no evidence that the Rs figured out how to impose costs, like covering pre-existing conditions, on the insurance companies without giving them something in return. That was what was missing, as John McCain pointed out to Lisa Murkowski, when the Senate voted down the bill to repeal-and-replace-some-other-time early in The Don's reign.
DeleteIt's a problem of quids and quos. Obama promised , "We'll get you a lot of new paying customers, especially young ones who will pay premiums for years before they do any serious medical spending, but you have to promise to cut the pre-existing condition scam." That is a deal. The Great Deal Maker should have recognized that. He has been whittling away the customers, and now he is in court trying to leave the insurance companies with no quid for their quos.
Well, that is bound to have consequences,
Kind of like backing out of the deal with Iran and then demanding Iran be sanctioned because the deal isn't working. Frankly, I don't think the Art of the Dealer knows what a deal is. That is why he hasn't been able to make a deal bigger than changing the name of NAFTA (ask Kim Jung Un), and why Steve Mnuchin has to spend Treasury time negotiating wih the Speaker of the House.
Yes, that was my understanding about why they couldn't kill the ACA. And we are on the same page about all that Trump stuff. The guy just wants to dismantle the Obama presidency for egotistical reasons that have nothing to do with the national good.
Delete