I am glad voting is such
an easy thing for so many of my friends. In the recent months, the lines have
been drawn and the troops allied on either side shooting at each other. I'm
still hanging out in the middle, and I am taking fire.
For the sake of honesty,
I should note at the outset that I am left leaning politically, but I am
anti-abortion and it is a priority issue for me. I am a Catholic, and my faith
takes precedence over all else.
I am deeply disturbed by
the election choices this year.
I see on the one hand a
man who would overturn the ACA. He says this often and proudly. Sometimes he
throws a few pennies to the moderates who support the act, or most of it. He
has, every so often, said that he would do something about the most
popular components. But he has no firm plans, and the only clarity is that he
absolutely will overturn. Setting aside questions of who can do what, this is
not acceptable. My daughter has a genetic syndrome which has meant that her
medical bills are incomprehensibly high. She has needed, and will need,
multiple complicated surgeries. She has had multiple hospitalizations, for
things like colds that barely keep most kids home from school. She has consulted
with more specialties than I knew existed. I can credit a humbling number of
doctors with saving her life, because her life has been saved more than once.
She was diagnosed prenatally. I knew how complicated her life would be early
enough that abortion was not just an option, but it was the option recommended
to me by my doctor. Now, one candidate thinks that it is OK that people like
me- who decide to cherish our unborn little one even when it is bound to be
very difficult- should be bankrupted by medical bills. We have good insurance,
and our insurance cannot kick us out when we reach a certain cap. If we did get
dropped, another insurance company could not deny us based on her history.
Thank you, ACA. The candidate that is comfortable with my family's financial
ruin as a direct result of my choice to protect my wonderful daughter calls
himself pro-life. The candidate who saw my situation as an emergency and fixed
it, calls himself pro-choice.
I simply do not believe
that Romney cares about the unborn. If you care about the unborn, you do not
allow that they be punished for the crimes of their father. Either we are
right, and the unborn are people deserving of the same protection as their
older siblings or not. Or we are wrong. I just don't see the grey area here. If
we are wrong, it is absolutely an assault on women to insist that they
carry a pregnancy to term. If we are going to claim the moral high ground, we
have to insist that the babies are babies. They are to be treated the same as
their older siblings. The second we admit exceptions, (other than the life of
the mother) we yield the moral high ground. Maybe it does not matter whether
the candidates care about the unborn. Maybe it only matters what they will do
to protect them. In that case, I have to weigh whether certain specific
abortion restrictions will save more lives, or whether things like safety nets
for women in crisis, affordable health care, and paid parental leave will save
more lives.
I see one candidate who
would throw a beloved family member out of the country because he has no
documentation. He would leave behind a wife and daughter. This candidate calls
himself pro-family. The other candidate seems to care, but has had neither the
fire nor the political capital to address this assault, because my beloved
family member is not among the most sympathetic of the undocumented. He was not
dragged across the border as a child. He is not a grandmother. Nonetheless, I
believe it is gravely immoral to break up his family.
I see one candidate who
either does not understand the Catholic Church, or does not care. He is bound
and determined to cut off her arms. The HHS mandate on contraception forces
Catholics to violate the dictates of the Church. It is that simple. I am more
angry than many of my Catholic compatriots on the subject. When Obama said
repeatedly and specifically to Catholics, prior to his first election, that of
course he would ensure that his healthcare reform would include strong
conscience protection, I believed him. Now, he wants me to wait until after the
second election to find out what accommodations his administration is willing
to make to fix the promise he broke. I actually think that there is reasonable
middle ground here. Conscience clauses have clear precedent. But any
accommodation will bring out the noisiest rancor on the far left. Saying that
women who don't want it don't have to get it is irrelevant. Saying that priests
and parish secretaries are exempted is not enough. We, the Church, are our
various ministries. We are charities, hospitals, schools, and universities. We
hire and serve people who do not share our faith because the call to service is
universal. We cannot choose between service and paying for contraception. You
may think it is no big deal, but we think it is gravely immoral. We are not
trying to make your choices for you. We just don't want to pay for them.
What about the economy?
It is supposed to be the issue at the forefront of every thinking voter's mind
this year. The truth is that the economy is not one issue, but many. Anyone who
wants to reduce the economy to a numbers game does not understand what is at
stake. It is also true that neither candidate is willing to be honest about how
we are going to get out of debt. One candidate is promising rainbows and
unicorns. No one will pay more and we won't cut anything. Yay! One candidate is
pretending he can place the sole burden on the very wealthy. (You are supposed
to hear, "not you." If you heard "you" than put another
very in there. The very VERY wealthy. Not you, of course.) If anyone has sorted
out who to vote for based on economic concerns, I am interested in your psychic
powers. Now, of course, some of us will trust the democrats to act like
democrats and the republicans to act like republicans. In that case, do I want
raised taxes or tax cuts for not me? Do I want safety nets in place?
I will say this, the
Ryan budget, which neither is espousing openly, has been condemned by Catholic
bishops as immoral. Cuts are too deep and they leave too many falling through
cracks which are widened into gaping holes by poor a poor economy.
Speaking of Ryan, that
was an interesting choice for VP. Who is he? He is known for his immoral and
unpopular budget. (That will pick up a few far right votes.) He is a Catholic.
(That should sway some Catholics, and we are notorious swing voters.) And he
has pretty blue eyes. What else? He actually has a record which we can assess-
unlike Romney. He has a solid anti-abortion record, which he stands by. He is
not good on crime, by which I mean, he votes for stronger sentences for
juveniles and against alternative sentencing for rehabilitation. He is
desperately bad on the environment. But here is where it gets interesting, at
least to me. He voted against paid parental leave. He voted against mental
illness being given the same standing as other healthcare issues. He voted in
favor of denying treatment for lack of a Medicare copay, so long as it is
non-emergency. (Just wait till it is an emergency, then come back.) Throw a
little Ayn Rand in there and I just cannot get behind this guy.
On top of all of this, I
am supposed to consider gay rights? War? More war? Not really a war, just a
particularly violent non-war? The death penalty? Education? Euthanasia?
P.S. If one more person
tells me to vote with my "lady parts" I swear I am going to scream.
For those still out of the loop, women are not just baby making machines which
are either currently functioning or not. We vote on the same variety of issues
as men.
No comments:
Post a Comment