Huh?
Now, it should be said that he was referring to a sub-set of prenatal tests, not all prenatal tests. And it should also be said that there does appear to be a higher rate of abortion amongst those who discover early on that the embryo or fetus has genetic problems likely to result in serious disabilities or death of the fetus before it comes to term (in which case the opposition to abortion seems, frankly, absurd). You can argue about the right-or-wrong of abortion based on this information, but I'm not here to do that.
The thing is, plenty of expectant parents want information that comes from all forms of pre-natal testing in order to understand what they are getting into. As an expectant parent myself, my fiance and I are discussing which tests we want and which we do not, and those that we do end up getting we will get for the purpose of being able to understand and plan for any special or unusual challenges we may end up facing as parents. If our child will have a severe disability, isn't it better not just for us, but for those surrounding us (including the other rate-payers on our insurance plans) that we know what we are getting into and therefore plan for raising the child in such a way as to minimize the impacts that our child's needs will make on those around us? If my child will need special care, and I have lead time to arrange it and possibly minimize the cost of such special care, then everyone, including the child, comes out ahead. However, Mr. Santorum would prefer to prevent my insurance company from providing such tests because he's afraid that we will abort the fetus if we get bad news. Certainly, he doesn't talk of outlawing the tests, just making them more difficult to obtain by removing requirements that they be covered, which will impact the families who could most use the information in preparing for caring for their children.
What's more, by detecting potentially serious health problems, such tests can actually save the lives of both children and mothers. When a serious issue, such as spina bifida, is detected, steps can be taken to protect the developing child. Checking RH status is the same. Far from aborting a child, these procedures can save a child who would likely die without them.
He talks about the "elites who want to govern our country", has often spoken about the left's opposition to families, and yet he wants to reduce the ability of the average person to get information directly relevant to their ability to raise and support their family and control their own lives. And his supporters seem to have intentionally blinded themselves to the fact that this is completely self-contradictory. We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia...
To make matters more annoying, Santorum's statements are clearly structured in such a way to appeal to a fear of Nazi-era eugenics, completely with baseless claim that those evil lefties are out to "cull the ranks" by getting rid of the disabled. This is curious, as Mr. Santorum, as well as his political adherents, have a long history of trying to do away with social programs aimed at helping the disabled. Again, you can argue back-and-forth about whether these programs should or shouldn't exist, but it remains the fact that Mr. Santorum and his party are hardly models for compassion towards the disabled and it is nothing but stark hypocrisy to make statements about the alleged lack of compassion on the other side of the aisle. As blogger Harold Pollack puts it:
"There is no evidence whatsoever that liberals–let alone President Obama–are less solicitious or caring about the disabled than other Americans. I’ve never heard any liberal health policy wonk promote genetic technologies to “cull the ranks of the disabled” or as part of any cost-cutting plan. That ugly meme is completely made up. By any reasonable measure, the proliferation of genetic diagnostic technologies coincides with great progress in public acceptance and support for people with disabilities."
This is, of course, just another sign of the intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency typical of both major political parties and, truth be told, the vast majority of the minor political parties as well. While Santorum's family history (his daughter has a genetic disorder) may give him some credibility in the eyes of his supporters when he talks about these issues, the reality is that he is either woefully uninformed and foolish as regards these issues, or else sees yet another place where he can try to get a claw in the social/political psyche of potential voters, consequences be damned. He is either a fool or a reckless cynic - take your pick.
There is a further problem, though. Right now, Santorum is talking about only some prenatal tests. However, as someone who has observed the way that science is processed by the general public for years, I can tell you that it is only a matter of time before all prenatal tests are viewed with suspicion by at least some portion of the public. The U.S. population, both on the right and the left, is not very good at comprehending complexity in medicine and science. No matter what issue you look at: global warming, vaccine safety, the use of X-Rays, concerns over endangered species, etc. etc. - all get turned into weird cartoons while the true and complex nature of the issue gets stomped underfoot of political rhetoric. Now that Santorum has added prenatal testing to the list of technologies about which the Religious Right should be suspicious, I fully expect to see this become, over the next few years, an opposition to a wide range of technologies geared towards helping parents and children. Normally, I would dismiss this sort of thinking as a fallacious "slippery slope" argument, but I have seen it play out too many times over the last twenty years to not think this is exactly what will happen.
The good news is this: the farther along Santorum gets, the more alien fromt he general public the Republican Party becomes, and the more the Republican Party is likely to really examine itself. There are many smart, honest Republicans. There are many good ideas within the Republican Party. We, as a nation, benefit when these people and ideas are able to be active participants in political debate. However, over the past few decades, they have been drowned out by an increasingly over-reaching, anti-reality group within the GOP, which has distorted the discussion of politics within the nation. While the Democrats have done their share of damage and contributed some truly galling rhetoric to the mess, it is the Republicans who have been increasingly pulling away from reality since the 90s. Already we see discomfort amongst that party with Santorum, and a dawning realization on many of their parts that this man being a significant contender means that something has gone horribly awry. With luck, this will help catalyze the party to get back to a serious discussion of economics and social policy, and begin to jettison the lunatics who are no longer just the fringe.
You can tell I'm in a good mood this afternoon, because I think this is possible. Tomorrow morning, before coffee, I'll think we're all doomed.
3 comments:
Being educated is fine, example: with our first child the doctor wanted to schedule an amniocentesis test. At the time it was used to detect genetic defects in the fetus. Upon further inquiry we discovered that nothing could be done to fix the problems if something was discovered and that there was a 0.5% chance it might cause a miscarriage. Bad bad bad.
On the other hand, we probably had a further 20-30 tests run over the course of the pregnancy that checked for things that could be fixed. Example: Lisa became toxic and could have had many complications if changes weren't made in diet, activity and other factors.
I hope this doesn't parallel Vaccinations or turn into Countereducationism.
I hope so, as well.
And you and Lisa are a good example of the reasons why Santorum's stance is a problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt that either of you favor abortion, and yet you went for the testing in order to have information and be responsible parents. You found out about problems so that you could deal with them, or at least know what you were facing, which is the responsible thing to do.
I will correct you (though not sternly). We feel that abortion should be avoided in nearly all situations. However there are exceptions to every rule and we realize that (ie. the fetus is a threat to the mothers health). The LDS Church is of the same opinion. The main reason we work hard to oppose abortion is that we feel it is horribly over-used.
I think the anti-abortionists have taken things way too far. What's next? Force women to go full term in cases where both the mother & the child will die?
Post a Comment