Keeping social policy out of economic legislation
As much as we would like to separate federal and state spending policy from social issues, it appears that budget bills, stopgap or annual, will continue to define government policy.
During final-hour negotiations for a six-month budget bill to prevent a temporary shutdown of the federal government, President Obama dug in his heels and refused to allow a Republican amendment to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. Good for him.
Regardless of one’s position on abortion, the organization of community clinics provides services to women and men that many simply could not afford, such as cancer screenings for early detection when treatment is cheapest and most likely to be successful.
The duplicity of lawmakers, who claim to be interested only in cutting government spending, is obvious when they push to do away with such organizations, fully aware that denying treatment to people without medical insurance, often the working poor, actually costs the government more money in the long run.
Whether or not one approves of funding for family planning, such education and services, in many parts of the country, are difficult if not impossible to obtain. Even pro-choice advocates would like to see fewer abortions. So how would that work if fewer people receive education about safe and effective ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy? The amount of misinformation that has always circulated among teens is responsible for most of those unfortunate incidents. And way too many young people are justifiably afraid to tell their parents. This doesn’t even take into account victims of incest or rape.
One would think that in this enlightened age, with so much information available to some populations, we would no longer be harboring the kind of discrimination that drives young people into hiding and denial. Before Roe vs. Wade became law, pregnant teens were sent away by parents desperate to prevent friends and neighbors from discovering their shame. Girls spent several months away from home and without the support of their families and friends. Often they lived in homes for unwed mothers, where the babies were given up for adoption as soon as they were delivered. Most of these homes were funded either by donations from the adoptive parents or religious organizations. Some were on the up and up, but in many the pressure to complete the adoption was so overwhelming that girls who wanted to keep and raise their children were coerced into giving them up.
The new generation of lawmakers that would overturn Roe vs. Wade and the new healthcare system weren’t around to see the misery of illegal abortions and unwanted children or forced adoptions. For better understanding, “The Girls Who Went Away,” a small book by Ann Fessler, should be required reading for those who never knew what actually went on. The book chronicles cases from interviews with unwed mothers and their adopted sons and daughters, whose pain was equal to that of their mothers. Written without bias, for or against abortion or adoption, it is a real eye-opener for those who never experienced such pressure and shame or knew a friend caught in that situation. This is part of our history; we should acknowledge it and try to avoid past mistakes, often made with the best of intentions.
Is it possible for lawmakers to focus on the very real economic problems we face without burdening budget legislation with social policy favored by a narrow constituency? Do they try to attach such measures to so-called “must pass” bills because they haven’t enough support to stand on their own? It would appear so.
These days, our legislators are beholden to a few supporters whose special interests they must defend. And so they seem to think they can ignore the rest of us with impunity. Do too few of us vote? Or is it that we’re unable to donate significant funds to campaigns that cost increasingly prohibitive sums? Where does this end? We’re approaching the limit beyond which only billionaires can support their own candidacies. It has been estimated that Obama will raise a billion or more for his re-election campaign.
Perhaps we could save some of this money and influence peddling by shortening the length of campaigns and hence the amounts spent on them. Wouldn’t that be swell? Of course, we’d get plenty of flack from media outlets, some of the same folks who voted to eliminate funding for public radio and television. Aren’t these the folks who favor political slogans and sound bites over in-depth reporting of economic, scientific and world issues?
A serious attempt has been made to reduce or eliminate earmarks at both state and federal levels. That’s a solid start. And if enough people (read voters) demanded it, maybe we could get rid of all the partisan amendments that are completely unrelated to the bills to which they’re attached. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s how we got loaded guns in national parks.