A look at bipartisan coalitions

		Eye on the  Capitol  John Huebscher

For the next two years, Wisconsin will continue its recent tradition of "divided government" in which Republicans and Democrats share power. Only proposals that have bipartisan support will become laws.

This will happen in one of two ways. One such way is for the Republican majority in the legislature and Democratic Governor Jim Doyle to agree on the issue at hand. Another way is if enough Democrats join Republicans to pass a bill by a two-thirds majority, sufficient to override the governor's veto.

In such an environment, both parties will strive to convince the press and public that their ideas are the most reasonable. One measure of such reasonableness is the degree to which legislators in the other party support it. Thus, bipartisan coalitions will be desired commodities this legislative session.

Not all such coalitions are the same. Some will be more meaningful than others.

Kinds of coalitions

The ultimate coalition is unanimity. Some bills will pass with no opposition or only one or two "No" votes. These bills will usually be of a technical nature or address an issue on which there is little or no difference of opinion.

Other coalitions, in which several legislators in the minority party will join the majority, cover a narrower range of the spectrum.

This often happens on a budget bill if a member of the minority party can get funding for a pet project or small program that does not incur the objection of the majority. Such bipartisan coalitions will produce a majority but generally fall well short of the two-thirds needed to override a veto.

'Centrist' coalitions

The more significant bipartisan coalitions are those that command a majority of both parties. Such coalitions are generally "centrist" and represent genuine compromise in the sense that neither party gets all it wants.

A tell tale sign of such compromises is that while most legislators of both parties support the compromise, some in each party do not. Generally, though not always, the dissenters will include the more liberal Democrats and the more conservative Republicans.

A governor will be much more likely to sign a bill passed by such a "centrist" coalition that includes a "veto proof" two-thirds majority in both houses. Even support that falls just short of a two-thirds vote will be hard to resist, if it has genuinely solid backing from both sides of the aisle.

Common good

Proposals that have broad support are not always wise. But if they command the agreement of large numbers of Democrats and Republicans, they are more likely to reflect genuine concern for a broad array of interests in the society.

To the extent they do, these proposals are also more likely to further the "common good" which the Catechism defines as "the sum total of social conditions that allow people, as groups or as individuals to reach their fulfillment."

When told a plan is good because it has bipartisan support, citizens might find it helpful to assess the make up of that bipartisanship as they form their own opinion on the matter.

John Huebscher is executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.

Women:
Why must they suffer in our 'progressive culture'?

	Guest commentary  Greg Wagner

Why must women be the guinea pigs of our "progressive culture?" Why must it be the woman's body that bears the brunt of the "advancement of science"?

On Jan. 13 at the state Capitol, I listened to 10 women, speaking on behalf of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, give testimonies on the suffering they have born at the hands of an abortionist.

Abortion industry lies

Before their abortions, all of them were told the same thing, "having an abortion is no big deal." Now, 10, 20, and even 30 years later, all of these women spoke of their disrupted marital relationships, alcoholism, drug addiction, sleeplessness, nightmares, depression, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, a sense of hopelessness, shame, or guilt. All of them agreed they would not have had an abortion if they had known all the facts.

This is the first great lie of the abortion industry. Unfortunately, post abortion syndrome is a painful reality for all of these women.

The second lie of the abortion industry is to tell women that it is not a baby being killed. No, they said, it is only a blob of tissue. Modern technology (i.e., ultrasounds) has proven that what exists in the womb from the moment of conception is a miracle of life.

Next, the abortion industry denies that the unborn baby feels pain during the abortion procedure. Fetal development studies now clearly prove that the unborn child feels pain. So the abortion industry in their great compassion is now considering the possibility of anesthetizing "it" prior to the abortion.

For the last 32 years, the abortionists have cleverly disguised their massive destruction under the well conceived lie, "women need the freedom to choose." What about a woman's right to the truth?

Morning-after pill

Soon the FDA will make a decision as to whether a woman should be told the truth about the so-called morning-after pill.

Peggy Hamill of Pro-Life Wisconsin recently wrote of this drug, "We know the morning-after pill can harm women. Some of the health side effects include nausea, ectopic pregnancy, and blood clot formation. It offers no protection against STDs, including AIDS. Importantly, there are no long-term studies to show whether women will be permanently damaged or risk such diseases as cancer from these chemicals being given in such high doses."

In spite of the drug's potential harmful effects, the FDA is considering whether to allow it to be sold as an over the counter drug. Why isn't women's health a concern that will trump the right to "choice"?

Stem cell research

The onslaught to women's health continues as we enter the debate on embryonic stem cell research. In order to accommodate this research, the scientist needs human eggs to fertilize.

In an article in the National Catholic Register by Daniel Kuebler, the author explains that a regimen of drugs is given over a 10-day period in order to successfully harvest 10 to 20 eggs. "This is done while the woman is sedated or on painkillers."

He goes on to explain that "one of the biggest risks involves the drugs that stimulate the ovaries. Often, this can cause ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, in which the ovaries swell and become painful. Severe cases, which occur one to 10 percent of the time, can be life threatening. Blood clotting, kidney failure, and fluid accumulation in the lungs are all serious side effects . . . "

Women are paid to have this procedure done. So, "it will be the poor and uneducated, desperate college students and so forth" who will be the victims of science.

Costs of abuses

There is no way to quantify the real cost of this abuse to women. There have been 45 million babies aborted, half of whom are women. Estimates range that 4.5 to 7.5 million women are suffering from post abortive syndrome.

We have no idea of the number of women who will suffer the effects of the morning-after pill and the experiments being done on embryonic stem cells.

Man's role

In the past, men have been lost in the middle of the abortion debate. How could a man answer to a post abortive woman who might say, "how dare you judge me? There is no way for you to know how I felt when I was alone, scared, vulnerable, poor, and pregnant!" And the woman was right.

However, we now know that there is more to this story. We as men can now follow the words of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, when he says, "the only honest stance . . . is that of radical solidarity with the woman."

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Ore., in Laywitness Magazine, perhaps says it best: "Men who are truly 'men' in the best sense of that word could never allow their beloved, or even a casual friend, to suffer this grief or to side with the heartless abortion industry which simply says, 'Get over it.'"

Men who are who are worth their salt will stand up and speak out on behalf of women being attacked by the abortion industry.

Greg Wagner, Cross Plains, is respect life chair of Knights of Columbus Council 3924.