Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

It's as though Nation readers believe that Stupak--a spoiled, run-of-the-mill, healthcare-flaunting member of Congress--is suddenly, in Christian-like fashion, going to sign on to contribute to their cause without his first being assured of getting in return more than he gives.

Stupak can't argue about abortion until he's overcome what is for him a greater problem: every last woman's right to privacy. As things stand, the man is a lunatic, aiming to pass legislation against what the rest of us know are only thought-crimes--Stupak's thought crimes.

You want to know how mentally healthy, how pious, how devout Stupak really is? You want to know how certain Stupak is that women have no right to privacy? Ask him how many abortion-undergoing women he's publicly named as murderers.

J.E. Bernecky

Westover, PA

Mar 8 2010 - 11:38am

Web Letter

I deeply appreciate having read this, for it showed me the error of my ways.

I had been using "Stupak logic" with respect to the government funding of charitable work by religious organizations. As an atheist (I prefer "rational person"), I saw the government funding as freeing up money in the organization's overall budget to be used for the promotion of myth and superstition. While that argument does have a sound basis in "pure reason," in the real world we apparently have to pretend that, to use Stupak's term, money is not "fungible," and that each dollar has written on it the purpose for which it is to be used and has no influence on its partners in the budget bucket.

A counter-argument might be that where indirect funding of "undesirable" actions can be prevented, it should be; otherwise, we are trapped in the logic that if something cannot be done perfectly across the spectrum of human activity, it should not be done at all. Very little in life achieves total perfection, and conflating the possible segregation of funds in the abortion funding debate with the use of public transportation to get to the abortion clinic is an unrealistic, unworkable and unenforceable objective.

For the record, I am prochoice. Government should either fund abortion as just another segment of healthcare, or stay out of the way altogether and let the decision be between woman and her private counsel.

A fine and thought-provoking article, for sure!

Alan D. Scott

Castine, ME

Mar 8 2010 - 7:51am

Web Letter

Stupak should realize that he is on his fourteenth minute of his stint in the dim glare of reality. Soon (1) he will be exposed as the fraud he is--his association with the Family and his subsidized housing at the Family's 8,000 sq. ft. mansion/boarding house/bordello on Washington, DC's C Street and their close ties to the "gays can be executed" legislation movement overseas (which they were pushing at the most recent "National Prayer Breakfast"... complete joke); and (2) when he is dropped off at twilight on any weekend on a street corner (any street corner) in downtown Detroit. He'll be on a "campaign" stop. Har har har.

Bye-bye, Bart. Hope you enjoyed showing what an 1800s servant you are... zero spine, zero.

Ron Baldwin

Chicago, IL

Mar 7 2010 - 12:34pm

Web Letter

Any legislator who is willing to stop 30 million people from getting healthcare, who is okay with 45, 000 people dying every year from lack of access to healthcare, has lost the right to use the term "pro-life."

Kathleen Schultz

Portland, OR

Mar 4 2010 - 3:27pm

Web Letter

Mr. Stupak is beginning to sound like a child who wants attention and will tell any lie, misbehave to any extent, to be paid attention to. How do we elect these people? More to the point, why? After Stupak's last appearance on television a couple of days ago with Contessa Brewer, I think, he said, and I paraphrase, that the Senate bill pushed abortion funding. I reread the bill on line and I couldn't find any abortion language.Damn boring reading. I'm beginning to wonder if he has read the bill or if he is just relying on the village idiot to tell him what's in it.

james l. pinette

Caribou, ME

Mar 4 2010 - 1:44pm

Web Letter

When are we going to confront the Stupaks and force them to admit that they don't care a bit about "dead babies"--or, for that matter, dead infants and children who lacked nutrition or medical care or are bombed or blown up by a landmine?

When are we going to stop allowing huge chunks of the electorate to feel holy about mindless, one-issue voting in races that can't possibly affect abortion law anyway, but can inflict extreme hardship on women and children?

Allowing their pretext that they "value life," even being defensive when told we do not, just facilitates their political game.

Fiona Mackenzie

Tucson, AZ

Mar 2 2010 - 7:35pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.