6a00d8341c90b153ef019aff400d15970c

Me (while in the military): Well, why can’t we do it this way. This person is malingering and really needs to be “not in the Marines.”

My superior: You really don’t want to. This person might be a screw-up but he is well connected and you really don’t want to start a “congressional.”

In Hawaii, where I was stationed, we lived in fear of “congressionals.” Some enlisted person or another would get what he or she perceived as bad care and before you new it, a letter from a congressperson’s staffer would appear on the commanding officer’s desk.

Dear Captain (blank),

This is to inform you that one of our constituents feels that the care they received  was substandard. Please provide in writing the circumstances surrounding this incident. 

Signed, 

Congressman Foghorn Leghorn

This letter would initiate a chain of events that resulted in all productive activity stopping until all of the minute details could be compiled into a mountain of paperwork and sent “up the chain.” The reality was that the Congresspeople probably could care less about what actually happened but, being the representative of the people, wanted to respond (or be seen as responding) to their constituent. The actual effect was to keep us from doing what we were being paid to do, provide quality care to the troops, and instead focus on the distraction.

This past week our Congressman, Bradley Byrne, responded to what he perceived his constituents wanted. He voted aye on a blank check for congress to “investigate” Planned Parenthood’s role in, I don’t know, having a disturbing lunch conversation regarding embryonic tissue donation. (If you want an in-depth discussion on the ethics of the use of cells in scientific discovery, a good source is this book.)

The investigation, though, seems not to be investigating the use of embryonic tissue in medical advances (think rubella and varicella vaccine) but, very specifically:

Requires the Panel to investigate and report on:

  • medical procedures and business practices used by entities involved in fetal tissue procurement;
  • any other relevant matters with respect to such procurement;
  • federal funding and support for abortion providers;
  • the practices of providers of second and third trimester abortions, including partial birth abortion and procedures that may lead to a child born alive as a result of an attempted abortion;
  • medical procedures for the care of a child born alive as a result of an attempted abortion; and
  • any changes in law or regulation necessary resulting from such findings

Congressman Byrne, please don’t let them turn this into an expensive distraction. Let’s investigate how to make it REALLY difficult for these entities to procure fetal tissue by making pregnancy termination rare. I would ask that Congress use the  “any other relevant matter” clause to investigate the real causes of our abortion crisis and these should include:

  1. In states that have not expanded Medicaid, working parents are only eligible for Medicaid if their incomes are below 61 percent of the poverty line (about $11,900 for a family of three), and jobless parents must have incomes below 37 percent of the poverty line (about $7,200 a year for a family of three). In most states, Medicaid coverage is not available at all to adults without children. This large group of people does not have easy access to long-term effective contraception and thus is more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy and seek out pregnancy termination. How are these states responding to the challenge?
  2. Health coverage during the period before pregnancy allows women to receive preventive care like regular doctor visits, birth control, information about making healthy food choices, tobacco cessation programs, and substance abuse services that decreases their own health risks and makes it more likely that their babies will be born healthy if and when they become pregnant. For example, research shows that prenatal care for high-risk pregnant women reduces the incidence of costly premature births. In states that have not expanded coverage. these people only seek care after they become aware of their pregnancy and make a conscious decision to go to the doctor’s office. They are more likely to have a fetus with a problem and seek out termination. What are we doing to provide access to women prior to conception in the states that have not accepted expansion?
  3. By accepting the Medicaid expansion and eliminating gaps in coverage, the state administrative costs are reduced because the states  no longer have to process enrollment and disenrollment for women who move on and off Medicaid coverage based on pregnancy, thus reducing the size of government and saving the state needed tax revenue that could be returned to the taxpayers. In those states not accepting the expansion, how are they justifying this needless expansion of bureaucracy?

I expect my response soon.

Signed, your constituent and a taxpayer.

Advertisements