One more lunchtime thing. I tend to like consistency, especially consistency of position. So while I’ve been eating my lunch, I’ve been thinking about this article about the GOP attempting to expand abortion restrictions under the guise of fiscal restraint. Now, I’m all for fiscal restraint. I also recognize the moral aspects of the abortion issue, and I would tend to agree that, for 100% elective abortions, there needn’t be government funding. But beyond that? If it is not the place for the government to have “death panels”… if it is not the place for the government to be the gatekeeper for health-care decisions… if the authority for who determines my appropriate medical care is my personal physician (all three of which were Republican positions during the health care debate), then it is not the place for the government to be the arbiter of when termination of a pregnancy is medically necessary or not. That decision must be that of the personal physician in consultation with appropriate specialists, based on their knowledge of the patient. Argue for anything else, and you’re being inconsistent.