Dark Christianity
dark_christian
.::: .::..:.::.:.

May 2008
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

dogemperor [userpic]
Will extremist Christians break with the GOP over this?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]yatpundit)

Today, Wired's Brian Alexander begins a 3-part series on the upcoming backlash against In-Vitro Fertilization IVF).  IVF has long been a weak link in the pro-life chain.  It's easy to decry the pagan libruls who kill babies in abortion mills, but what about others who kill?  For the life-begins-at-conception crowd, IVF has not been a moral conundrum, but a political one.  The morality is simple:  The fertilized egg is growing, it's conceived, it must be life.  The politics are a bit more complicated.  Other factors are now filtering into the debate.  The notion that "leftover" embryos might be used to develop stem cell lines, or even used for cloning experiments scares heck out of the Religious Right:





Recently, the Family Research Council, a powerful conservative Christian organization, was invited by Leon Kass, the former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, to submit suggestions for new IVF rules. The Christian group demanded that "the practice of creating more embryos than can be safely implanted and brought to birth, the practice of freezing spare embryos and the practice of 'selective reduction' or selective abortion of 'defective' fetuses or of fetuses in excess of those that can be safely delivered, should all be condemned."




Further: "All biotechnologies which aid in the treatment of infertility should be restricted to use by married couples."

In effect, the Family Research Council was advocating something like a law that took effect in Italy last year.

There, all embryos created during fertility treatments must be implanted, not stored even when there's a good chance one of them carries a fatal genetic disease); IVF is limited to heterosexual couples in "stable relationships;" and donor eggs and sperm are outlawed. As a result, success rates have declined, women have had to undergo more procedures because they cannot skip steps and use their own stored embryos, and many patients have gone to other countries.

An attempt to overturn the Italian law failed this year after the Catholic Church mounted a campaign to urge people to avoid the polls and the vote failed to garner enough turnout.


Going after IVF closes a moral gap for pro-lifers, but at a very serious cost.  When the radical clerics attack reproductive rights, they're going after what is essentially a Democratic constituency.  Taking on the IVF industry means they'll have to attack three groups:  the physicians who perform the procedures, the clinics who provide the docs with an infrastructure, and childless couples with $10K-$20K in discretionary income.  Now, doctors are overwhelmingly Republican, both personally and as a profession.  The medical industry that owns the fertility clinics and hospitals pumps a lot of money into Congressional campaign coffers.  And the odds are pretty high that a couple who would spend $20k rather than adopting a brown or black baby is going to align themselves with the principles of the GOP over the Democrats.

Not only are the radical clerics attacking fellow Republicans on IVF, they're going after people, particularly the medical industry, with the money to push back.  The FRC makes a lot of noise in the right-wing echo chamber, but groups like this don't put the same amount of cash that healthcare corporations do.  To those hospitals and clinics, IVF is like plastic surgery, cash-rich and essentially unregulated.  No insurance, no medicare/medicaid, just desparate people willing to write checks.  Take that away and bottom lines are going to shrink.  In Martha Stewart terms, that's a Bad Thing.

The Congressional response to the push-back will be a no-brainer.  Most critters don't bite the hand that feeds them, and Congresscritters are no exception.  They'll publicly decry the potential abuses of IVF while allowing any legislation to regulate the business remain bottled up in committees if it even gets that far). 

After a while, the radical clerics will see their agenda going nowhere.  That's not going to make them happy; they're used to their pet critters taking their calls and doing what they want.  They've developed a level of hubris and arrogance in dealing with politicians that is going to make it difficult to accept a defeat.  We've seen this already with SCOTUS nominees, the anti-abortion crowd are the most vocal.  But the Congresscritters aren't going to take the calls.  They're going to follow the money, and that means leaving the docs alone. 

Even if Alito's nomination to the Court is confirmed by the Senate no sure thing there), abortion isn't going away overnight.  The run-up to the midterm elections is going to include a lot of yelling and screaming from the radical clerics.  The pound of flesh they want from their critters goes beyond SCOTUS.  But just like Shylock, the clerics may well find that their bargain will backfire.  The GOP critters know their base won't desert them, no matter how much the clerics scream.  The Republicans in Congress keep Bubba and his family safe from the Evil Coloreds and the Godless Homos.  They're willing to give on abortion-related issues. 

Will this be enough for the radical clerics to take their ball and go play someplace else?  It's possible.  Many of them are moral absolutists.  The volume of the complaint that GOP pols "aren't conservative enough" has increased in the last year, as the hubris of the clerics increases.  Emboldened by their defeat of Harriet Miers for the Court, they're not going to tone down the rhetoric.  In spite of this, however, they have no money to fight the healthcare industry.  Watch this one, it could be the issue that tips them over the edge.

 




[YatPundit]
YatPundit entry)

Current Mood: busy
Current Music: Randi Rhodes