Matthew Yglesias (August 19, 2007) - Better Questions (Domestic Policy)

Interesting post. I really like the first two questions about the personal predilections of pharmacists and ER administrators. I feel ignorant in asking this, but can they really refuse services and withhold information like that? If so, that is just inexcusable, criminal. The question should be asked.

This question--"Do you support age-appropriate sex education (with “age-appropriate” the key phrase as to when it’s time to shelve the stork)?"--is not smart. This allows Republicans to harp on family values and childhood innocence in a way that empowers people like Bill O'Reilly, Rush, and "Dr." Laura. Obama already got put on the defensive in that regard. Everything he said made perfect sense (teach about inapproriate touching), but it feeds the Republican line that America is a society beseiged by pedophiles and relativist degenerates who want to expose young kids to porn. Can't you see Romney et al. turning that question into images of cucumbers and condoms? That type of thinking is dumb, but it's there. Why invite it?

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 19, 2007 2:10 PM

Clift is right -- steer away from the moral issues and ground them in real policies that affect peoples' lives. Alas, though, my Southern Baptist relatives will still find something to abhor even in responsible medical procedures like IVF. My oldest son, four and a half years old, has a serious genetic disease; when we decided to expand our family, we opted for IVF and PGD (Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis) and now have healthy two-year-old twins. Although we felt we were exercising careful clinical and moral judgment, my parents were extremely uncomfortable with our decision -- and especially with the fact that we are still banking a few frozen blastocysts. It's more than they can handle.

In fact, anything that smacks of responsible adult thinking about sexuality and procreation makes them uncomfortable.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | August 19, 2007 2:50 PM

Clift is right -- steer away from the moral issues and ground them in real policies that affect peoples' lives. Alas, though, my Southern Baptist relatives will still find something to abhor even in responsible medical procedures like IVF. My oldest son, four and a half years old, has a serious genetic disease; when we decided to expand our family, we opted for IVF and PGD (Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis) and now have healthy two-year-old twins. Although we felt we were exercising careful clinical and moral judgment, my parents were extremely uncomfortable with our decision -- and especially with the fact that we are still banking a few frozen blastocysts. It's more than they can handle.

In fact, anything that smacks of responsible adult thinking about sexuality and procreation makes them uncomfortable.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | August 19, 2007 2:51 PM

What a radical idea! Who would have thought of actually thinking up follow-up questions and then asking them? I always thought the role of the modern journalist was simply to ask politicians to state their positions and give their little speeches (perhaps using a Youtuber as a proxy).

Clift's idea is so revolutionary that it's changed the way I view the world.

P.S. All joking aside, I've been suggesting asking better questions about other matters for quite a while and I've even made several Youtube videos with some actual questions. However, a hack like Eleanor Clift would probably faint if she watched them.

Posted by TLB | August 19, 2007 2:54 PM

I'm with Unreal Veal above: the sex ed question is a loser for Dems. Otherwise, this is right on. I can't figure out why the Dems keep getting defensive on abortion, when they have such an obvious alternative: hang the anti-contraceptives positions of most of the anti-abortion movement around the GOP's neck. Most of the country is supportive of abortion rights, but also uncomfortable with the subject. People just don't feel good about abortion, which gives the demagogues easy pickings. On the other hand, most people support contraceptive access strongly, and I don't think they realize how reactionary the anti-choicers are about this. This is definitely where the Dems need to go.

Posted by beckya57 | August 19, 2007 3:32 PM

"Omar" and Fran won the "Sports Page for Ladies" today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/fashion/weddings/19VOWS.html?_r=1&ref=weddings&oref=slogin

Mazel Tov!

Posted by David | August 19, 2007 3:34 PM

Similarly, I think that Republicans should be forced to defend their opposition to civil unions rather then merely be permitted to express their opposition to gay marriage.

Their opposition to the former demonstrates their cruelty.

Posted by Rich | August 19, 2007 4:27 PM

"In fact, anything that smacks of responsible adult thinking about sexuality and procreation makes them uncomfortable."

Or it could just be that they are uncomfortable with the idea of creating human life and then destroying it because of a deformity.

Posted by Mark Adams | August 19, 2007 4:50 PM

More let's-get-to-the-effing-point questions:

Should married people be allow to use birth control?

How many years in prison should a woman spend for having an abortion?

How many years in prison should a doctor spend for performing an abortion?

Why is abortion bad but okay in cases of rape or incest? Why make an exception?

Posted by Chris | August 19, 2007 4:59 PM

It's a no-brainer. Repub abstention policies result in more unwanted pregnancies than Dem birth control policies. But in a "Christian nation" dogma trumps reason, and faith means accepting something one knows isn't true.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 19, 2007 5:27 PM

Given the recursive nature of political interplay, I don't see many of these questions being critically asked. Practically speaking, candidates and officials get to screen their questions and they're not going to open up to inquiries that are too specific to spin broadly.

Posted by Thomas | August 19, 2007 5:49 PM

And ask them if they repudiate the "unitary Executive", so fabled in song and story. Ask them if they support torture. Ask them if they believe in fairy tale economics. Ask them if they believe that people should tell the truth to Congress. Ask them if they believe in the FISA court.

The Republican Party has a recent history of cowardice and totalitarian impulses. Ask them if they're ok with that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 19, 2007 6:31 PM

It's easy to say, Mark Adams, that a life should not be destroyed because of a deformity. But a blastocyst is not a person, and caring for a child with a severe chronic illness--in a society that provides little support--is an extraordinarily difficult enterprise.

Unless you have specific experience of this sort or would be willing to undertake the care of such a child to prevent an abortion or the destruction of a blastocyst, you should perhaps keep quiet.

Posted by THS | August 19, 2007 7:12 PM

The IVF question is an excellent one, and one I've been asking for quite a while. BryklynLibrul's excellent and touching (if reduplicated) comment above exemplifies the issue: if you are convinced that oocyte fertilization is the start of an inviolate human life, you simply should not be willing to abide IVF as it is practiced almost everywhere in the world; embryo storage and pre-implantation diagnosis in particular should be a no-no. But even the nutjobs who somehow are still afraid of condoms aren't willing to face telling people they can't have assistance with procreation. The simple fact is, our society loves babies. This is a good and a necessary thing. So they fight the abortion doctors and the stem-cell scientists - who can easily be portrayed as Frankensteins and Bond villains - and not the desparate families.

Italy, as I recall, adopted an IVF law mandating the implantation of all fertilized oocytes (under Vatican and Berlusconi pressure). I don't know what the law did with respect to pre-implantation diagnosis, and I suspect compliance with the law is poor (there are excellent medical reasons to fertilize extra oocytes and not to implant too many; quietly terminating excess embryos in a Petri dish without generating records would be pretty easy).

P.S. While we're on the subject of "Every Sperm Is Sacred", what about the result that about half of fertilized oocytes fail to implant?

Posted by Warren Terra | August 19, 2007 7:48 PM

"
"In fact, anything that smacks of responsible adult thinking about sexuality and procreation makes them uncomfortable."

Or it could just be that they are uncomfortable with the idea of creating human life and then destroying it because of a deformity.
"

Exactly! Far better to wait for the kid to die naturally when the family can't afford the medical bills necessary to save it's life!
That's what jesus would want.

Posted by Maynard Handley | August 19, 2007 8:47 PM

A friend underwent IVF. She solved the problem of what to do about the "extra" fertilized eggs by having the doctors implant all of them.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 19, 2007 9:03 PM

Jeffrey Davis, I sincerely hope your friend's pregnancy is going/has gone well, and that all involved are hale, happy, and hearty.

That said, the choice she made is not necessarily a trivial one. I'm not a medical person, but my understanding is that, if too many of the embryos implant and form viable pregnancies, real danger can result, both to the mother and to the fetuses.

One option is to fertilize fewer oocytes and not to attempt to select the best embryos for implantation. This approach will certainly avoid ethical concerns about disposing of unused embryos (or permanently freezing them, which amounts to the same thing). However, this option comes at a cost, as it decreases the likelihood of a successful pregnancy from each attempt, raising important issues about the increasing age of the mother and, of course, the high expense of each attempt.

Posted by Warren Terra | August 19, 2007 9:42 PM

Clift is right -- steer away from the moral issues and ground them in real policies that affect peoples' lives.

Agree. But insist on reciprocity. The Democrat's preference is that moral decisions be taken away from the American People's Constitutional powers and dictated to the public by the Courts.

To be fair, ask the Democrats which Court decisions and Mandates imposed by individual judges that are created not written into law and the Constitution should be given for the people to decide.

With no more "Dodge" about total feality to lawyers dressed in robes or "burning the Constitution as recreated by new Court interpretation" than Republicans should be allowed to use total feality to Jesus and "roasting in hell" as arguments.

Should the States decide on abortion and gay marriage and legality of Muslim polygamy of consenting adults?

Should Congress and State legislatures and the executive branches they have oversight of be allowed to determine what is needed for good order and discipline in prisons?
Or resist judges mandates to impose taxes through decrees and "findings" that create expensive new programs?

What about the court-imposed "morally the proper thing to do" racial preferences programs the public never is allowed to vote on?

Republicans believe we are not Israel. The Courts are a co-equal branch here, they do not sit above the executive, the legislative.

Ask the Democrats if they believe the Courts, even with Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, are morally superior to the People and their Elected Representatives. If not, what must be taken away from the judiciary that they have grabbed in augmenting their power in the last 50 years.

For the Republicans, their moral problem seems to be grounded NOT in slavish love of activist lawyers in robes, but their bootlicking to the wealthy and corporatists. They should be asked what specific policies they support to end the transfer of most of America's GNP and productivity growth gains into the hands of a wealthy few - as even the well-educated, skilled, and hard-working no longer seem to be part of that "Rising Tide that Lifts All Boats" and who have come to believe that "Trickledown" from above has the look and aroma of urine..

Posted by Chris Ford | August 19, 2007 10:38 PM

Ask them if they support torture. Ask them if they believe in fairy tale economics. Ask them if they believe that people should tell the truth to Congress. Ask them if they believe in the FISA court.The Republican Party has a recent history of cowardice and totalitarian impulses. Ask them if they're ok with that.Posted by Jeffrey Davis

Anyone that doesn't support torture in certain hypothetical situations, let alone coercive interogation techniques - is a despicable person and moral coward, as ethics classes scenarios have revealed. The only decision point is how many innocent people you are willing to let die before recognition occurs that your morals against torturing or interrogating evil people in fact enables and facilitates their evil.

Usually it comes down not to ticking time bombs but if people morally thought inflicting great pain was justified in stopping a kidnapping. Would you break the bones of a kidnapper with a baseball bat to stop him from abducting, raping, and killing a child? All say "yes" in exercises. Even if the pain you inflict to save the kid is "torturous" to the kidnapper? "Yes". Now, would you convict a cop or soldier that tortured to save the same child by torturing a member of a kidnap ring or to find US soldiers being held for a few days captivity by Islamist terorists to make creatively bloody Jihadi videos - that violated some "law" in saving the victims? Almost all said they would vote to acquit in those ethics exercises....Many said as well that "medals should be awarded" and any lawyer that indicted them or sued them tossed out of work..

All societies believe in fairy tale economics. Lefties believe in from each according to their ability to each according to their means, and that differences in pay and success across race, class, and gender lines SURELY means discrimination - because all people and all cultures are equal, and of equal value....The Japanese once believed that a square foot of real estate in Tokyo was worth 3,000 dollars. Jewish Transnational Progressives believe that all trade and human movements should exist in a Borderless World, guide by a Wise Elite (hint, hint) and ruled over by unaccountable ministries and International Law so the "mobs" no longer can disrupt what is best for all humanity. Sort of a warmed-over Dictatorship of the Proletariate.

No President has "believed" in the FISA Court. Not even Jimmy Carter. For the record, The People and Their Representatives are in frequent disagreement with dumb laws they seek to change and minimize the enforcement of. (If statutory rape laws on the books were strictly enforced we would have an additional 40-45 million Americans in jail or with felony records.) And the Executive has an even better defense than a 16-year old couple doing sexual acts - that the Constitution specifically authorizes the Executive to monitor and thwart the malignant intents of foreign agents as a Commander in Chief (military sphere) task.

The argument that all people should tell Congress, or the nice cops "the truth" if they demand it is not valid if it infringes on the civil rights of individuals or the Rights given to the respective Branches.
The Executive has no right to send FBI agents up to the Hill to investigate "the truth" of who in what backroom cut a deal to raise Congressional benefits.
Congress has no authority to subpeona judges and their clerks to see who said what and when regarding the chamber deliberations by which a law passed by Congress that was overturned in District and let stand in the Appeals Court with what Congressional Bulls called "an inadequate reasoning".
Same with Executive Privilege despite assertions by smarmy self-righteous pols like Gingrich, Delay, Feingold, Schumer that they are only interested in "Finding the Truth" about Hillary's assassination of Vince Foster, Clinton's "travel office lies", and nefarious Alberto firing 6 'fire at will' lawyers.

The Republican Party has a recent history of cowardice and totalitarian impulses.

Most "Nanny State Laws" that seek to control the American People's behavior - for their own good - come from liberal Democrats. As for cowardace, close to 75% of US soldiers call themselves Republicans or Independents. 80% say they are more conservative than liberal, only 7% say they are more liberal than conservative. 72% call themselves "strong Christians".

The lowest rates military service happen to be with secular progressive Jews and Gentiles - the true cowards if you wish to depict any group as not doing their "fair share" since 9/11.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 19, 2007 11:32 PM

Jewish Transnational Progressives believe that all trade and human movements should exist in a Borderless World, guide by a Wise Elite (hint, hint) and ruled over by unaccountable ministries and International Law so the "mobs" no longer can disrupt what is best for all humanity. -- Chris Ford

Is it impolite to ask Yglesias to ban particular commenters?

Or maybe disemvowel them?

Posted by Warren Terra | August 19, 2007 11:50 PM

"Unless you have specific experience of this sort or would be willing to undertake the care of such a child to prevent an abortion or the destruction of a blastocyst, you should perhaps keep quiet."

THS, I am willing to undertake the care of such a child in order to prevent an abortion. I can be reached at markadams {at} gmail {dot} com .

But my point was that it might be possible to be opposed to such procedures for reasons other than being opposed to "anything that smacks of responsible adult thinking about sexuality and procreation makes them uncomfortable."

Posted by Mark Adams | August 20, 2007 12:00 AM

Errr, make that:

But my point was that it might be possible to be opposed to such procedures for reasons other than being opposed to "anything that smacks of responsible adult thinking about sexuality and procreation."

Posted by Mark Adams | August 20, 2007 12:29 AM

Jewish Transnational Progressives believe that all trade and human movements should exist in a Borderless World, guide by a Wise Elite (hint, hint) and ruled over by unaccountable ministries and International Law so the "mobs" no longer can disrupt what is best for all humanity. -- Chris Ford
Is it impolite to ask Yglesias to ban particular commenters?
Or maybe disemvowel them?
Posted by Warren Terra

Is it impolite to ask which other totalitarian speech codes you wish to impose? What part of the transnationalism and globalization debate do you seek to stifle, Warren? Do you have a problem with criticism of Elites working a dictatorship of the Proletariate?
And why?
What are your motives to prevent discussion or debate?
What other matters, or groups, do you feel are off-limits?
Do you feel Communism should get an immunity amulet that forbids criticism, as Stalin and Trotsky believed?
Do you believe that criticism of Muslims, Corporatists, and Christian Right, as well as transnational Jewish progressives should be prohibited?

Or only Jewish groups given such immunity? Israel alone of other nations?
And why?

What about all other groups that can make plausible claims of victimhood? Can Native Americans be criticized? What of other powerful and influential groups like the Black Caucus, the Saudi Lobby?

Do you advocate "banning" or criminalizing people that criticise Muslim groups, Warren Terra?
How about those CAIR lawsuits for passengers disturbed by behavior of the passengers belonging to the certified Victim's Group of Muslims?

Do you seek to conceal the Networks that run the NGOs, create the new International laws and conventions?

Why, Warren?

What about other Elites that are out trying to win and implement their agendas?

Well, nice try at being the Thought Police, Warren! It would be amusing except for the obvious truth that little Stalinist pricks like you actually killed more people than the Nazis did, over a longer period of time.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 20, 2007 2:37 AM

For the record, IVF/PGD does not entail the termination of a pregnancy -- in fact, it allows couples whose DNA carries mutations that result in serious diseases to screen for healthy children and therefore avoid termination during the second trimester, when CVS and amniocentesis often identify those diseases.

For the record, my four-year-old son is not "deformed," he's disabled. He's cognitively normal but lacks motor neurons and therefore can't move. He's very medically fragile (just spent the month of June in a New York hospital) and his care requires round-the-clock vigilance: pulmonary treatments, nutrition through a feeding tube, etc. My wife and I are deeply involved in the minutiae of his care, despite the demands, in her case, of a full-time job, and in my case, of freelance work plus the rearing of healthy, active two-year-old twins. We make tremendous sacrifices but our son is worth it: a bright, social, delightful child who charms all his therapists and friends.

I can't imagine a family more pro-life than ours. Which is why decisions about family planning should remain with the family rather than with those who froth at the mouth about the moral rights of a blastocyst but have absolutely nothing to say about the lives of disabled children. I should know: I grew up in an evangelical Protestant family in the South, and I know how utterly silent even my own parents are on the subject of these children -- it's beyond vile.

If you're pro-life, then surely you're willing to pay much, much higher taxes in order to support the exorbitant medical costs of disabled children, not to mention the millions of healthy yet uninsured children in this country, right?

I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | August 20, 2007 5:20 AM

Anyone that doesn't support torture in certain hypothetical situations, let alone coercive interogation techniques...

If I were to build a hypothetical castle in the sky, could I live in it and be happy? I know I could hypothetically, but what about literally?

Posted by Rambuncle | August 20, 2007 10:27 AM

If you're pro-life, then surely you're willing to pay much, much higher taxes in order to support the exorbitant medical costs of disabled children, not to mention the millions of healthy yet uninsured children in this country, right?

Absolutely, no question. Of course, with proper universal health care, the costs wouldn't be quite as high.

You're right to demand the consistency, but wrong to assume that no pro-life person has it. And yes, stem-cells and IVF go together. Assuming everyone who disagrees with you is like your Southern Baptist relatives is as weakminded as, well, the Southern Baptists when thinking about you.

Posted by Marcel | August 20, 2007 12:25 PM

Marcel --

Many in the anti-choice community may well desire universal healthcare -- or at least healthcare for our most vulnerable, such as disabled children -- but they are shockingly silent when it comes to expressing it publicly, let alone pushing for public policies that would rescue the many children who die each year because of poor or no healthcare coverage. I'm still waiting for the Southern Baptist Convention to put forward a strong initiative that advocates higher taxes that can save children's lives. The SBC has loudly crusaded for its anti-choice philosophy over the years, and in the case of embryonic stem cell research, has promoted a strong anti-life position. Not exactly in the spirit of Christ's teachings.

And frankly, if you believe that the disposal of unused blastocysts from IVF treatments constitutes "baby killing," then you're obligated to criminalize fertility clinics and the amazing doctors who help thousands of American couples each year. You can't have it both ways. This is what Matt Yglesias was hinting at in his original post.

As for my "weakminded" views on the Southern Baptists: I've had over forty years' experience with these people, unlike most of the good folks who post here at Matt's site (or even Matt himself). I come from them. They are my tribe. And I know well just how hypocritical and narrow they can be when they start blathering on and on about being "pro life" when in fact they're largely ignorant of the kinds of challenges and struggles faced by a family like mine.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | August 20, 2007 1:59 PM

Unreal Veal, most certainly have women been denied care. Specifically, at Catholic hospitals which, legally protected to put belief before good medicine, do not dispense contraceptives. There are documented cases where rape victims, seeking care at the nearest hospital, find themselves denied the requested morning-after pill when it is Catholic-run. Scary but true.

Here are two good links: http://www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/PharmacistRefusals.xml

http://www.prch.org/church_and_medicine/overview.shtml

Posted by GordonsGirl | August 20, 2007 2:23 PM

This is a great way to expose their vitriolic extremism. Having said that, look for the Dems to ignore it completely and be on the defensive throughout the whole campaign.

Posted by dave | August 20, 2007 3:27 PM

"Anyone that doesn't support torture in certain hypothetical situations, let alone coercive interogation techniques - is a despicable person and moral coward, as ethics classes scenarios have revealed."

Let me pose the counter-example for discussion. The police take someone in who may be a kidnapper and torture him for days to get "information" It ends up that he was not connected to the kidnapping in any way. The torturers would likely be tried and convicted of their crimes.

Posted by JordanT | August 20, 2007 4:32 PM

THS, I am willing to undertake the care of such a child in order to prevent an abortion.

How about simply to ensure that a child w/ a serious disability has parents--or, at least, a parent. If life is important to you, the lives of children that already exist should be just as important to you as the future of a blastocyst.

If you're willing to do that, you need only contact the local office your state's family services agency. They are, almost certainly, supporting many disabled children in foster homes.

Posted by THS | August 20, 2007 6:03 PM

If funding for birth control is cut, the poor tend to have more children. And the children of the poor are more likely to be on welfare end up in jail. (thus costing the taxpayers more money) This considered, you might think all the leading conservatives would want to INCREASE access for birth control for the poor.

Hell, the right wants to cut funding for birth control AND cut funding for poor children. Are they determined to turn us into a third world country?

Posted by George Arndt | August 20, 2007 7:44 PM

How about simply to ensure that a child w/ a serious disability has parents--or, at least, a parent. If life is important to you, the lives of children that already exist should be just as important to you as the future of a blastocyst.

In other words, in your mind, in order for me to oppose destroying unborn human life and remain intellectually consistent, I have to be willing to adopt a disabled child right now?

You do realize that by that logic anyone who claims "life is important to" him or her would have to adopt a disabled child?

Posted by Mark Adams | August 21, 2007 2:50 AM

You do realize that by that logic anyone who claims "life is important to" him or her would have to adopt a disabled child?

Or at least adopt a child. Second choice would be actively supporting children who are already here and who need help or whose parents need help. Examples of such help include direct
financial contributions to individuals or relevant groups, volunteer work on behalf of children (including support for women who cannot keep their babies), or a career in child welfare, child-related research, or policy.

But even such forms of support do not begin to touch the experience of raising a child with disabilities--or, really, any child. When you advocate policy that will impose high burdens on other people (i.e., prevention of abortion in the case of severe disability, support for war), you have an obligation to show that you are willing to undertake such burdens yourself.

Posted by THS | August 21, 2007 11:36 AM

Better Questions

Comments (34)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories