Obama-Care

Remember the promises? No government funds for abortions.

Source: gop.gov

We must stop this immoral offense against human life and against American taxpayers.

Washington, DC – U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today in response to the Obama Administration spending $160 million on a “high risk” insurance program that will pay for abortions:

It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion. It is also reprehensible to take taxpayer dollars from millions of pro-life Americans and use them to pay for abortions.

President Obama promised the American people that his health care law would not allow federal funding of abortion. But according to an investigation by the National Right to Life Committee, this allocation for Pennsylvania’s high risk pool will break the president’s promise by using taxpayer dollars to subsidize coverage of nearly any kind of abortion.

We must stop this immoral offense against human life and against American taxpayers. Congress should act quickly on critical legislation by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) to stop the administration from using ObamaCare to fund abortions. The best long-term solution, and the one that I remain committed to, is the total repeal of ObamaCare.

While the Patriarchal address has much to commend it, the leveling of ideas it exhibits is troubling. The essay below was originally written as a comment, but I posting it here for comment and analysis.

Frankly, the ideas in this speech are muddled. It sounds like it an American wrote it who has only a cursory understanding of the history of ideas.

For instance, while the examples citing Ghandi and King are true, it is overlooked that the reason for Ghandi’s success was that the English, despite their empire building in India, still responded to Ghandi’s appeals that were shaped by and heard through the Christian moral tradition. The same holds true for King. He was successful because by drawing on the morality of the Christian tradition, particularly the inherent value of the individual, he awakened the conscience of nation shaped by that tradition.

Ghandi’s and King’s success however does not translate into a universal appeal for non-violence, simply because non-violence is not a moral value transferable to all cultures (take Islam for example). This is not to say that Christians should espouse violence, but only that the moral reasoning employed in the speech does not reach very deep.

Further, the speeches posits politcal polarities as if the only difference between them are of a kind, not value. “Should I have an apple or banana with lunch?” is all it asks. In fact, there is a world of difference between say, Progressive and Classical Liberal or Conservative ideas (Gramsci or Alinsky vs, say, Burke or Kirk) that diverge not only at their goals but, more importantly, in their foundational ideas. These foundational ideas are essential, and anyone who understands them will see that what the EP cites as three critical questions of the age:

1) Nonviolence;
2) Philanthropy, specifically in the form of healthcare; and
3) Environmentalism

depend on an even more fundamental question (and I would argue the question of the age): What is man? The crisis in the West in other words, is anthropological. The issues the EP cites, while important, are driven first by this foundational question. Continue reading →