Skip to main content

Did "tax-funded abortion pills" cause the Newtown tragedy?

Of course not. But this is the kind of nonsense we get when people shamelessly piggyback on a tragedy to score political or culture war points. We also get this kind of analysis when someone is paid to analyze events on cue but has nothing of substance to say regarding something terrible and complex.

Watch Mike Huckabee's statement here:



I understand Huckabee is trying to make a larger point about the culture, rather than drawing a direct line from the ACA's contraceptive mandate-- which does not mandate taxpayer funding of abortion pills, by the way-- to the Newtown massacre.

Still, this is what happens when a tragedy occurs:
  1. We extrapolate from an isolated event and determine that it encapsulates, or is the ultimate representation of, something about our society that must be addressed. It is possible, however, that an event is sui generis and cannot then serve as a platform for useful long-term policy reform. 
  2. We reduce the cause of a tragedy-- which may ultimately be an unexplainable, horrible, mysterious confluence of a dozen different macro- and micro-level variables-- to a single variable, such as guns, treatment of mental health, school security, violent video games, or, in this case, taxpayer-funded abortion pills and tolerance of homosexuality. 
  3. We take our already-existing beliefs regarding what is wrong with society and how to fix it, and see the tragedy as a validation of those beliefs, and therefore a validation of our already-existing policy proposals. 
We should not under-react to events. In addition to our normal and proper human response-- grief-- something that Barack Obama, in my opinion, has done very well as president-- we should heed societal signals to act and look for trends and how they fit into the larger fabric of society and its governance. 

We should not also overreact to events. Overreacting to events is a recipe for bad policy-making, especially if the events to which we are reacting cause a kind of myopia, where we forget to consider policy options in light of larger historical, cultural, and social contexts. 

So far, the best writing I've read reacting to the Newtown massacre have been two columns from  The New York Times, one by Ross Douthat, which addresses the mystery of human evil, and one by Nicholas D. Kristof, which offers very sensible and concrete proposals for regulating guns and ammunition. 

Links:

Column in The New York Times by Ross Douthat (December 15, 2012): The Loss of the Innocents

Column in The New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof (December 15, 2012): Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?

Article about Huckabee's statement in The Raw Story (December 16, 2012): Huckabee attacks 'tax-funded abortion pills' in Newtown monologue

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, Pres