[snip}
>A struggle for national health care is a necessary, worthy, and practical
project that we should be doing. And if people would like to enjoy the
material benefits of universal health care, I don't think that people would
reject national health care simply because it includes coverage for
abortion. Max talked about elevating class over cultural politics. A good
point. Moral condemnation of aboriton is a cultural question, which
shouldn't be elevated over class politics: struggles for material benefits
of national health care. If anti-abortionists reject national health care
because it includes abortion, it will be just another instance of the
anti-abortion side's use of 'abortion as litmus test.'
>
>On the other hand, I am quite certain that pro-choicers will endorse a
single-payer national health care, with or without abortion. ..[more snip]
It will give you an indication of how far behind on keeping with e-mail I am that I only now have read this post. Yoshie is, of course, right in the first paragraph quoted above. Unfortunately, she's wrong in the second. Four years ago, NOW came out in opposition to Proposition 186, the California single-payer initiative. Their excuse was that it didn't explicitly cover undocumented immigrants (or Oregonians either, for that matter), but the reality was that the dominant powers in the Democratic Party, including NOW's "pro-choice" candidate for Governor, were opposed to any attempt to infringe on the profits of the insurance industry.
Tom Condit