There's this commercial that's been running on television for maybe 2 months in Georgia. Every single time I see it, I think it is such a brilliant commercial. So, let me set this up for you.
The scene opens with two people in a car, one driving and one passenger in the front seat with the camera facing the two people. Not that it matters, but I think the casting for the commercial also adds to the brilliance of it. The driver is a black , mid-30s female, and the passenger is this skinny white guy in his late-20s.
So, they're driving along and the guy takes out a cigarette and proceeds to light it. The driver still faces her head forward, but you see her eyes move to her right for an instant to view what the guy is doing.
She turns her eyes back to the road and all of a sudden yanks the wheel hard to the left and takes the car off-road, changing elevation to a lower level, causing the occupants to bounce around a bit. She swerves one way and then the car heads for this huge oak tree when the guy yells out "Look out for the TREE!" And she steers the car away from the tree and back onto the road where she resumes a normal driving position without saying one word.
The guy, with the cigarette out of his mouth, yells at her, "What are YOU doing???" She answers, "You're endangering my life. Just returning the favor." End of commercial.
I bring this up because there have been battles brewing all over the country over cigarettes and the smoking public's right to smoke them where they wish, and the non-smoking public's right not to inhale the secondhand and thirdhand (after the smoker has exhaled) smoke. In Florida and California, they have banned smoking from all public areas (I'm pretty sure about this...I could be slightly wrong about Florida).
A few weeks ago, in DeKalb County, Georgia, the County Commission voted 5-2 to ban smoking in all DeKalb county government buildings, and in office buildings and restaurants in the unincorporated parts of the county. This ban is set to take effect February 1, 2003. Most Republicans/conservatives abhor this kind of "government regulation" on what people choose to do and speak-out against such bans. I am not one of those fools, however.
I say "fools" because those Republicans who are against such bans invaribly tend to be self-described "pro-life" Republicans. They are strenuously anti-abortion. And, what's the connection between the two subjects, you ask?
The connection is that while these pro-lifers want to force the mother to carry her fetus to term, they don't give a damn how unhealthy that baby might be when it is born. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the anti-abortion crowd demands that even mothers who are illegal drug users are required to bring their fetus to term. "Baby is born with defects? Ah, who cares? After all, we've saved his life. He'll be grateful."
Republicans consistently refuse to prevent the exposure of second and thirdhand smoke to the fetus in the womb of the women who choose to carry it to term. Surely these pro-life folks are well-educated into the hazards of smoking while pregnant, right? Surely they know that inhaling carcinogens wouldn't be healthy either.
Yet, how else would one explain the fact that they do not wish to provide for the safest environment possible for the fetus to grow inside the womb? Women have to visit all kinds of places that are accessed by the public...why should their children-to-be have to suffer carcinogens in the air while she is waiting for a table in a restuarant? Do people who support smokers' rights think those noxious fumes and particulates don't get down into the womb?
For that matter, if we're going to ban abortions, then I honestly think a law should be written that fines someone for endangering the life and health of a fetus by smoking around a pregnant woman. The money should be given to the pregnant woman to help her with the medical bills she will likely have to endure because some Republican didn't see the point in banning smoking to protect the unborn.
And, if the pregnant woman smokes herself, thus directly inhaling first, second, and thirdhand smoke, perhaps some other punishment should be levied. Or, is there going to be some pro-life Republican out there who will argue that she doesn't have the right to choose to have an abortion, but it is HER right to smoke, by G-d?
There is a slew of evidence that supports the position that mothers-to-be should not smoke during pregnancy because doing so can cause a whole range of problems for the fetus, from birth defects and problems later in life to higher infant mortality rates. Go ahead, Republican pro-lifers...give me an argument that says you disagree with this fact. You go ahead and argue that smoking is "okay" for the pregnancy...please...make my day.
All I want is for Republicans to start being consistent in their stances on things. If you are going to argue that it is a "life" inside the womb that warrants protecting, then you also must ensure that life can be the healthiest it can be. And, that "life" shouldn't be forced to suffer cigar and cigarette smoking against what would certainly be its will.
| Bill Simon - Thinking Outside The Box Bill Simon is the creator, editor, and publisher of The Political Vine. He has been a Republican since 1990 and been active in Republican politics since 1996. Professionally, Bill runs a political research services firm called Political Intelligence, Inc. and has another venture called ID Builders that helps political and business clients promote and market themselves using effective and innovative promotional products. He is single and lives with his adopted 90 lb. Yellow Lab named Brewster. |