Press "Enter" to skip to content

Daugaard Rolls Dice on Abortion Laws, Not Health Insurance Exchanges

By caheidelberger on 2012.01.14

Consider this: Governor Dennis Daugaard is willing to sign into law abortion restrictions that face clear and predictable constitutional challenges. He will wager over a million tax dollars on litigation to see if maybe he can get the right lawyers to throw the right sticky spaghetti at a judicial wall that tends to reject such constitutional abuses.

But when the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires South Dakota to create a health insurance exchange, Governor Daugaard says oh no, that's too uncertain, it might be overruled in court, so we're not setting up an exchange. So far, the courts have ruled more often in favor of the PPACA. The exchanges themselves don't seem to be central to the court challenges against the PPACA. Even if things like the individual insurance mandate are overturned, starting work now on a health exchange gets the ball rolling on a system that will help more consumers get insurance and lower overall costs.

Short form: Governor Daugaard will throw your tax dollars away on uncertain lawsuits to grandstand on abortion, but he won't invest effort in a more certain program to improve your access to affordable health insurance. Once again, politics trumps principle and practicality.

Published in South Dakota

caheidelberger

9 Comments

  2. hmr59 2012.01.14

    Why is it that the GOP wants government out of everything in life but the bedroom - particularly the uterus??? Freud would have had a field day with some of these people...

  3. Elliot Knuths 2012.01.14

    hmr59,

    We have to remember that Freud stated that men naturally equate abortion to infanticide, which would explain the common protectiveness of a fetus. The fact that a moral equation has been made for many years between murder and abortion doesn't help, either.

    Personal interpretations of the given facts run wild on both sides of the issue. One's answers to the following questions can almost certainly predict their stance on abortion, and the different value-systems are all represent; people will choose any of the four possible combinations to the following:

    Is murder evil/bad/immoral, unconditionally?
    Is an unborn child is a human being?

    If you answered yes to the first, and yes to the second, you're probably a pro-life person. If you answered no to the first, the second question is essentially irrelevant. You could tolerate quantification of abortion. Finally, if you answered yes to the first, no to the second, you would hold a pro-choice stance.

    The fact that the some of the greatest minds of all time have disagreed over the answers to these questions serves to show that not everyone's beliefs are the same, and that value systems vary from person to person. After all, if the greatest geniuses of recorded history disagree on a question, it's probably a pretty tough one! I think Freud may have partially attributed this difference in quantification of actions to the libido (to which he attributed most things.) The one thing I know is that he would certainly have suggested we go snort some coke after our discussion.

    Elliot

  4. Bill Fleming 2012.01.14

    Good analysis, Elliot. Norman O. Brown explores some of the same territory in his two classic books, "Life Against Death" and "Love's Body." Both very challenging reads, but in my opinion, well worth the effort.

  6. larry kurtz 2012.01.15

    Here's a contrast with abortion counseling centers where the procedure is legal under federal law but is being interpreted by state voters, whereas this voter-approved treatment exists in the shadow of oppressive federal law.

  9. larry kurtz 2012.01.20

    @TomBodett: Life begins at the moment of incorporation.

Comments are closed.