GregsOpinion.com

It's a weak argument Greg, infant mortality has very little to do with Medicaid coverage. It's education and nutrition that are critical to low income women and that comes from WIC.

The phrase "the Administration's plan to cut future Medicaid benefits that provide coverage for poor mothers and children" sounds disengenous to me. Are the cuts that the Administration are "planning" really effect these specific people or are they in other areas not related to pregnancy and infant health?

That said, there are many on the right (but certainly not a majority based on my limited observation) that I question their Christian morals and values (e.g. caring for the poor)

Most of anyone who reads these comments know that Greg and I never agree on anything. I'm too liberal, Dean supporting anti-DLC for him. But he's exactly right on this.

I'm not going to go into a long tirade against Defense spending and the like, but everytime the Republicans talk about cutting spending, they start with social programs instead of limiting the billions on corporate bailouts. These dollars being cut from Medicaid affect real people. That's money that they no longer have to buy food and medicine for their kids and themselves.

We hear a lot about hte "culture of life" from the GOP, but where are the legions of Republican families who are trying to adopt the kids they wanted put up for adoption instead of aborted? Where is the "every life is sacred" rhetoric when Texas is executing a hundred or so people a year? Where is that rhetoric when people are screaming for a public execution of suspected terrorists before there is even a trial?

Democrats can reframe this debate, though I'm not sure what good it will do. Too many only care about the unborn and not those who are suffering now. But we have to a moral responsibility to try and help others. We are our brother's keeper, and it's time we started acting like it.

Leave it to me to disagree while agreeing with you, Nate ;-)

Instead of making a moral equivalence with unborn children and convicted murders or enemy combatants, wouldn't it be much more productive to simply point out how the very people the so-called right-wing pro-lifers celebrate for giving birth are being shortchanged in terms of economic opportunity, health insurance, and basic fundamental rights. That's more apples-to-apples, I think.

The medicaid rules changes are what's referenced by Wittman and will impact the CHIPs programs at the various state levels. As we've seen in Texas, with over 160,000 kids cut off from health care, that's as crystal-clear a case to make that those sorts aren't putting the same concern into a culture of life as Christian principles (and others) mandate.

Nick Kristof's column today is another good point of comparison for a national reference. We rank 42 among industrialized nations in infant mortality. In Texas, we're ... what .... dead last in teen pregnancy? Clearly there's a disconnect between the practice and the preaching on this issue from the right.

Now, that said, there's still the disconnect on the left, where 3/4ths of the party is pro-choice. So here's a compromise ... since I hear it said so often among some on the pro-choice side that they are against abortion, but just not for legal restrictions on it (beyond Roe v Wade, at least). There ought to be more discussion on ways to reduce the number of abortions in a way that doesn't lead women to back alleys or baseball bats. It's a challenge that both sides need to seriously address if there's any real concern.

At some point after then, we'll get around to dealing with convicted murderers and enemy combatants.

The chink in the Right's armor is contained between the pages of Pope John Paul's book "The Gospel of Life".

By no means am I a Roman Catholic, but this pro-life/anti-death statement from Peter's Throne is a magnificent lever to pry the hypocrites away from their claim of being pro-life, when they are obviously so pro-death.

Of course, on this issue, we can't have our cake and eat it too... either on the left or the right.

Again, Greg, I think comparing infant mortality to Medicaid "cuts" (which, BTW, did NOT occur in the time period where the infant mortality rose) is a poor comparison. If you can show that CHILD mortality (due to disease) has increased or isn't comparable to the rest of the world THEN Kristoff would have a point.

Side note: trying to email you, but your email link is broken, can you email me with your address?

One email sent, JFH ... lemme know if it doesn't make it over there.