Dean in General

I was reading Bench Memos and saw this post about some silly speech Howard Dean was making. It's nothing unexpected: President Bush is evil, he has opposed everything good and decent, it's his fault that black and poor people were hurt by the hurricane, so oppose John Roberts because he will make all these things worse.

You know, standard Dean crazy-talk that he can't seem to stop. (And yet one of my fellow grad-students can't believe that it's evidence of the Democrats being controlled by the far-left elements)

It wouldn't be anything unusual, but one thing in the speech caught my attention (emphasis mine):

He has argued that politicians, not individual women themselves, ought to control women's reproductive health care.

What has Bush argued for, exactly? "The government should mandate what sort of pre-natal care a woman receives! Sonograms? When we say you can have one, woman. Pap smears? You'll need your congressman's permission first, you hussy."

No, actually, Bush just puts forth a pro-life perspective. (Aside: I find it very ironic that the left complains about Bush because of his hostility towards "women's reproductive rights," and yet some on the right, liberal Republicans and the far-right, say that Bush isn't really pro-life at all . . . which is it, guys?)

What do we mean by "reproductive health care" anyhow? It's a catchphrase that people use so as to not say "abortion." But it's so very misleading. It's not like anyone pro-life is saying no to sonograms and pap smears. They're just arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to kill your unborn child, thus aborting your pregnancy.

And just how does that fall under the auspice of "reproductive health care?" I mean, if I get a nose job and a face lift, is that dermatological health care? Something my ENT specialist should be concerned over?

My point is simply that this isn't about "reproductive health care" at all, because abortion doesn't fall under such a title. But then again, I doubt we'll ever hear anyone from NOW or NARAL actually saying that the government should protect their "right" to kill their unborn children.

Maybe a little rhetorical honesty would be refreshing. Or frightening. I can't decide which.