Editors' Note: Guest blogger Ted Hayes is a retired chemist, Baptist minister and Doctor of Counseling. He was recently featured in D. Gregory Smith's post, "Educate Me."
During the recent mid-term elections, the party in the minority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives campaigned successfully with promises of new jobs and smaller government. So far the only effort in jobs creation is to cut government spending and "if jobs are lost, so be it," according to the Grim Weeper, John Boehner. Where was their righteous indignation when the previous administration was spending us into oblivion by getting us involved in two wars and contracting for outrageously expensive defense items that the military didn't even want?
Most of the other efforts to date of these holier-than-thous have been to wage war against women, particularly in the area of abortion. They can depend on their very ill-informed base's jumping up and down with glee if they fuel the culture war and attack women and the LGBT community. Since their last foray into the fight against any form of equality for gays ended with repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," they have now turned their "guns" toward a woman's right to choose.
Many would like to outlaw abortion regardless of the circumstances of the impregnation, even if by rape and/or incest. (During the campaign I often wondered what Christine O'Donnell would have done had she been raped and become pregnant as a result. Would she have chosen to take the pregnancy to term, had an abortion, or arranged for an "accidental" miscarriage?) These same kill-the-jobs, stomp-the-gays, and debase-our-female-citizens politicos even plan on taxing insurance companies having policies that provide coverage for abortions. These kinds of political maneuverings are being proposed in an effort to suck up to that part of the electorate that claims to be "pro-life." So, under the circumstances, where should you and I stand on this issue?
I have never been convinced that the pro-life-ers are really pro-life so much as they are pro-control. They have protested against the use of federal funds to provide abortions, sanctimoniously claiming that the money could be used better to support life rather than to contribute to the "death of the unborn." Other protesters have blocked entrances to abortion clinics, bullying and harassing women who are exercising freedom of choice and their legal right to an abortion. These kinds of protests often lead to violence and bloodshed - as in the murders of physicians who provide such services - paradoxically endangering/destroying life rather than preserving it.
I believe I have a non-violent solution that will allow these "pro-life" protesters to demonstrate easily the strength of their convictions. If Roe v. Wade were ever overturned and a woman's right to choose became illegal, that illegality can occur ONLY if the following is enacted into law simultaneously. All "pro-lifers" must register and be assigned a number. When a potential abortion is brought to their attention, the person next in the numerical order would be given only the federal funds that would have been spent on a single abortion; no more, no less. Using that federal money now to support life, the persons would have the opportunity to see the expectant mother through the highest quality of prenatal care. S/he would have the added joy of paying for all medical and hospital care associated with the delivery as well as for any psychological treatment needed for the woman being forced to carry the unwanted, and possibly life-threatening, pregnancy to term.
At birth, the real rewards would begin. That pro-life adherent would have to adopt the child to love, nurture, house, clothe and educate. Adequate medical and dental care would have to be guaranteed for the new family member by its adoptive caregiver/parent. The pro-life adherent would sign a guarantee that the child would never be abused, would never be on welfare rolls and would become a positive, productive member of society. If not, then the "parent," who was so much in favor of this life's being spared, would be held accountable for any shortcomings.
And think how much greater the rewards would be if the newborn were a crack baby or if it were to be diagnosed with full-blown AIDS at birth. Just imagine what joy there would be in the John Boehner household to adopt that crack baby. And how the Eric Kantor family would have their lives enhanced seeing the AIDS child through to its possibly inevitable end. I almost weep with joy at their anticipated ecstasy of these experiences!
By the way, all excess expenses above the initial federal money received would have to be met from the assets of the person(s) who received the baby right after its birth. It may mean having to work two or more jobs just to meet those expenses. Also, if the pregnancy/birth results in the death of the woman bearing the fetus, then the pro-lifer also could be possibly be tried as an accessory in that death, but at the very least must bear responsibility for the care of any survivors who were dependent on the deceased. But what an honor it would be for that person whose singular motive for protesting was giving a fetus its right to life! The notion that there was ever a motive of "pro-control" would be dispelled once and for all.
Were this simple method followed, pro-lifers could say in the manner of their political and religious cohorts, "Read my lips! I really do stand for life and not for control." If they cannot adhere to the terms of this method, my advice to them is simply, "Shut up!"