Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lillia Gajewski's avatar

The problem with the Republican Party is the same as with the Democrat Party. They play to the extremes and so any attempt by a politician to moderate to the middle gets hijacked.

For example, another problem with IVF is that it produces embryos, which to the "pro-life" crowd means more abortions. So it's a nonstarter for two reasons for the religious right: the money issue and the abortion issue. Trump recent reconciled that by suggesting that six weeks is too early to set an abortion ban, and you should have seen the comments on Twitter. Losing their minds. Trump is now "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." Never mind that 80% of the country thinks six weeks is too early for a ban. These people are their own worst enemy.

Expand full comment
David A. Westbrook's avatar

Zaid, nice piece, and I think you are right. Two small objections: it's hard to say that buying something that one does not have is a "tax." I'm typing wearing fancy eyeglasses. A tax? Other people have better eyes . . . inequality, even differential impact, are not enough to call something a tax. Second, and more importantly, while it is nice for government to work "for" people like your friends, I think Trump was making a different point: society, the nation, has trouble forming families. The reason to support IVF in these situations is that families, young children are a public good, perhaps the ultimate public good (without which the polis dies). I would venture that at least some of the resistance to supporting IVF is that it seems like another at best transfer to individuals, feeding at the trough, etc. The actual dollar cost, as you point out, isn't driving this. Framing the issue more publicly might garner more support. As always, keep up the good work.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts