Monday’s opinion page hosted commentary on the two most contentious social issues being debated currently: gay marriage and abortion. On one hand, Michael Khavari (“Upholding marriage rights,” Nov. 23) asserted — correctly — that the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. is belligerently warning that it will cease to provide services to needy families and individuals because the Church refuses to acknowledge that homosexuals ought to have the same human and civil rights as the rest of society, including the right to marry.
On the other hand, George Pisano in his letter to the editor (“Setting the record straight,” Nov. 23) argued incorrectly that the Stupak Amendment, which bans federally-subsidized households from purchasing health insurance plans that cover abortion under the proposed House health care bill, is acceptable because abortion is “morally wrong.”
Neither gays nor women ought to be second-class citizens in this country. Abortion is a legal, Supreme Court-affirmed medical procedure. Young and lower-class women who may require federal subsidies to purchase insurance should not be required to play by a separate set of rules from middle- and upper-class women who can afford private plans that cover the operation.
In previous eras in American history, people of faith have courageously stood at the head of movements to better our society: temperance, abolition, and desegregation, for example. But now, the religious community (which, I realize, is far from monolithic) is trying to justify the denial of rights based on medieval notions of what is “moral.” What is moral in 2009 is to acknowledge the biological and social differences that exist between all Americans and work to ensure equal opportunity and equal protections for all.
Michael Karlik
CLAS III
Nope, abortions, among many optional procedures is something that i shouldn’t have to pay for for someone else
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Oh, and yes, it is justifiable for a wealthy person to be able to purchase something a less fortunate person cannot. That is kind of how an economy works.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Slavery was forced segregation were also “legal, supreme court affirmed” traditions that both America and UVA embraced wholeheartedly, Michael. And some religious folks were and are at the forefront of the struggle for human rights then as now, in the halls of congress and from the pulpit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA43T5ogsD4
First, I think it’s a good idea to remind ourselves of exactly what it is we are talking about here. The philosophy of ignoring the victims and pretending it was for their own good anyway that Michael employs here is exactly the same we saw with slavery and the holocaust. The only difference is that now the killing is done for the sake of the UVA lifestyle, as well as getting out of one’s responsibilities for their own actions. As long as we can not look at the results of what we do, it’s (they are) not there – right?
Watch the whole thing and don’t be squeamish about what you support and defend:
http://abortionno.org/
Whose hand was that, Michael? Whose head? Whose feet were those? hmm?
Now then, as a fairly left wing supporter of health care reform, I’m afraid I won’t fit any better into your condescending labels any better than the 64 house democrats who voted in defense of human rights by adding the Stupak Amendment to the legislation. But that doesn’t matter, because in the end this debate was not about government intervention in people’s lives – and you know it wasn’t. that was just the best thing you could come up with in your defense of forcing taxpayers to pay for people killing their own children.
The most recent national Gallup poll found 51% of Americans describing themselves as pro life, as compared to 43% pro choice. But you know that if we expanded the question to “do you support taxpayer money paying for abortions,” you know as well as any other rational person that the gap would grow dramatically. And in the 2 polls that actually matter, 11/4 was even worse news for you and yours in the killing lobby. Deeds made abortion a central issue in the campaign by complaining over and over of Bob McDonnell’s steadfast defense of human rights in that regard over his career. Then he lost by a stunning margin. Even in bright blue New Jersey, a pro life governor was elected for the first time in ages.
What happened here, Michael, is that legislators got the message, and are reflecting the views of their constituents and saving their electoral hides. It has nothing whatsoever to do with 215 congressman getting together and plotting to take over people’s lives with government control. Indeed, it is only about saving lives for some, and not forcing others to pay for abortions for others.
Pro Life has made a remarkable comeback after Obama’s election a year ago, whether you like it or not. Activists like Lila Rose, Gianna Jessen, and Rebecca Kiessling have gotten national attention online even if the loony left TV networks do their best to ignore them. Even worse for your side, Planned Parenthood has suffered from a series of very embarrassing defections from former directors who are willing to blow the whistle on what is really going on.
And yes, Michael, UVA is in the business too. But the UVA Health System has some similar problems as you will soon see. Our governor-elect is on the side of human rights. And his mandate is as large as his margin of victory.
Abortion is not health care. Not for the mother. Not for her child.
Beheadings in utero are no less a crime than in a crib. And having one’s cervix forced open and one’s child dismembered and ripped out is not healthy for any woman. Compromised cervical muscles and damaged/scarred uterus’ are the very real consequences of the procedure you pretend is promoting women’s health. The medical, scientific realities are exactly the opposite. Indeed, we now have countless thousands of children born preterm and with cerebral palsy and many other developmental disabilities already thanks to you and yours suppressing the science of human biology. But their rights will not be considered in your articles, as their rights are revocable if they are not “politically correct.”
The health of women and children alike has been destroyed by your side of this debate long enough. It’s not as easy for you to suppress the scientific facts anymore. You can call abortion legal health care if you like. You can also call the sky green and the grass blue.
Abortion is indeed allowable based on an old court precedent based on a lie about a rape, that Jane Roe herself – another defector – now is trying to get overturned. But it is not legal in the sense that American voters ever shrugged their shoulders and said it was OK to smash someone’s skull and remove them from the womb. That’s just your fantasy. Indeed, Laci and Connor’s Law is the law of United States:
“the term `unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero’ or `child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
And there are several human rights accords also, including:
“WHEREAS the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”
U.N. Declaration of The Rights of the Child
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0