The Baucus Bill Protects a Woman's Right to Choose

I'm not a fan of the Senate Finance Committee's bill that cleared committee earlier today, almost entirely because it lacks a public option. I believe that without a strong public option, the notion of health-care reform will be little more than a myth. But in a turnaround, the Baucus bill today did not restrict any government funding of abortions for women who can't afford them. And that's a good thing. Nearly 36 million women voted for President Obama last November, and I'd venture to say that most of them did so with the assumption that a pro-choice candidate would protect this particular right. I understand that not all Americans, albeit a minority, do not share my view on this particularly sensitive issue and loathe the notion of their tax dollars, no matter how few and no matter how indirectly, will be funding abortions for low income women. But we don't get to cherry-pick which programs and priorities our tax dollars fund. Millions of Americas have strong conviction that we should not fund fighter jets or tanks, but I think it's a good idea that we continue to do so. Abortion is a legal right in this country and a function of the medical system to which women are entitled. If it becomes available only to women who can afford it, we lack the equal protection our government supposedly guarantees. Even when the topic is controversial, it's always good when we continue to defend the rights of those who need it. True health insurance reform needs to ensure that procedures are covered even if a minority disapproves.

The Nobel Peace Prize: Sending the wrong message

I congratulate a truly surprised President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but I am concerned that, for him, it's an award given too soon. There is no doubt in my mind that President Obama is precisely the type of person for whom the prize is intended. I would have been certain he'd win this award at some point in his career, just not this early. But while Obama may be a worthy recipient of the prize, the country he leads is not.

If the Nobel Peace Prize was, as the President said, a recognition of America’s efforts, then we most certainly do not deserve it. America deserves an award for facing an unprecedented challenge of global reach and choosing a path of apathy. We deserve an award for resisting innovation to grow our economy and protect our planet. If there were a prize for dividing as a society when we need to unite behind a common purpose, surely America is the top choice.

Peace requires progress. And as Americans and as a country, we have spit in the face of progress, we have placed roadblocks in its path like errant schoolboys vandalizing property – simply because we can. Peace requires thinking big; and America in 2009, despite the brilliant and ambitious rhetoric of President Obama, is almost entirely about thinking small. Part of the problem is that, like a spoiled child, America almost never gets told it’s doing something wrong, at least not by the people who matter. In fact, quite the contrary, we get rewarded with things like the Nobel Peace Prize.

This sends the wrong message. It says we’re doing something right, it says we don’t need to change our ways. The rejection of Chicago for the 2016 Olympics – which was a loss for America – was such a statement. It was a austere world body saying, “America, you’re no longer #1; you’re no longer better than us.” And they were right, but of course we didn’t get the message back home. We used it to further criticize our nation’s leader, instead of criticizing our outmoded ways.

America needs a wake-up call, not a prize for our indifference.