Situations can often get complicated and we further complicate them when we obfuscate for our own advantage. The situation with supply chains is both complicated and simple at the same time. Of course, anyone that can grasp that paradox isn’t likely to appear as a talking head on television anytime soon.

The latest in a long line of supply chain issues is baby formula. It would seem that people should be able to get by without it, but that is one of the areas where talking heads can be purposefully obtuse. Not all women can breast feed and not all of them want to. It’s that whole bodily autonomy thing rearing its ugly head again.

Abbott had to shut down its production when some children were getting sick. The FDA intervened because that is what they are supposed to. It was not that dissimilar from when Bluebell shut its factories down for a short time. Formula is just slightly more important than ice cream. Yet, the concept is the same. When people get sick you have to find out what is going on.

People love to complain about these things and they love to point the finger, but ultimately they really don’t want to do anything about it. The Republicans have recited the chorus of their favorite hymn these days: blame Joe Biden. As we know, the president of the United States spends countless hours each day pouring over supply chains and individual products. It’s not like he’s doing anything else.

So, the House of Representatives got the ball rolling by passing a bill to help with supply chain issues. Whether the Senate will also pass it is unknown. The Senate would struggle to pass a bill asserting that water is wet. You have a 50-50 split which is difficult enough. Then, you have the 60 vote filibuster threshold, Joe Mancin and Kirsten Sinema, and the craven politics of Mitch McConnell.

Nearly 200 Republicans in the House voted against a measure to alleviate these issues. They decided the problem doesn’t need government intervention. That’s fine as a philosophy but the likes of Jim Jordan have blasted Biden and the Democrats on Twitter for not solving the problem. His tweet says it all.

What do you suggest Jim? If you vote against nearly every measure to solve the problem then you either don’t really care about Americans and their formula shortage or you just want to exploit the problem for political gain. Of course, there is a third door here, but far be it from me to point it out. You could actually govern. You could say that the Democrats’ plans are all wrong and we should do something else instead. In this case he has tried nothing and he’s all out of ideas.

Fox News has a solution. See, the problems stem from the fact that we are giving too much formula to those babies on the border. You know the ones I’m talking about. They are the ones the Trump administration cravenly ripped from their mother’s arms so they could put them in cages. Well, we should just take their formula and give it to American babies.

These illegal children don’t deserve it. Let’s ignore that the numbers we are talking about are much lower than what they were under Trump. According to the report, 22,500 children are being held at the border. Even if every last one of them was an infant needing formula, we are talking about less than one percent (about 0.6%) of the total number of babies in the United States. Jonathan Swift would be proud. This is your “pro-life” party ladies and gentlemen.

The Jesus we learn about in the bible and on Sundays fought for the little guy. He healed the sick. He made it so that the blind could see and the deaf could hear. He hung out with the dregs of human society and invested his efforts in helping them.

Then, we get to abortion. That’s where we have a bit of a separation. The church preaches that life is sacred whether it is at the beginning or the bitter end. It preaches that all life should be valued whether they be saint or sinner. Obviously, ending a pregnancy doesn’t fall into that paradigm.

Yet, there has always been a tension between the faith teachings of any church and the way a secular society has to be run. It has always been a challenge to keep God in our lives and yet not to intrude on the beliefs of others. A moral law cannot be based on religion alone. It must be backed by common sense, basic human decency, and a universal agreement of its existence.

This is a serious moment in our nation’s history. It demands seriousness on all sides. The Declaration of Independence said we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are God-given rights it said. We were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Life is the first and the most basic human right.

However, to call oneself pro-life implies that those that are opposed to a specific viewpoint are anti-life. The reality is that we are talking about one narrow definition of life and one point in the life continuum. The truth is that there are any number of issues and times in our lives when the question of life is paramount. What does it truly mean to be alive? Are there basic human necessities everyone is entitled to? If so, what are they?

If we are entitled to life then it is absolute at every juncture. It is absolute when I commit a crime. It is absolute when we have wars of choice. It is also absolute when I lack the basic necessities of life. It is absolute when I am hungry. It is absolute when I don’t have a roof over my head. It is absolute when I need health care and don’t have insurance. Any conversation about life has to include a discussion about the quality of life. We must agree on a minimal quality of life if we are to call ourselves pro-life.

When one calls for the birth of a child and then offers nothing in support of that child once it is born then they cease to be pro-life. They are pro-birth. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as a viewpoint. You just don’t get to claim a higher moral ground or have sole appeal to a higher moral authority.

If we are to be strict constructionists then we would have to strike down the equal protections clause in the 14th amendment except for those groups specifically named in the constitution. That would include mixed race couples, LGTBQ+ individuals, in addition to those rights of privacy not explicitly stated in the constitution.

As appetizing as that may sound to some, it puts a qualifier on life. Your life is only fully actualized if it fits into this tiny box we defined in 1789 and after the civil war and reconstruction. Otherwise, you are invisible and you do not get to love who you want or be who you want to be.

Most people are well-meaning folks. They really don’t want to hurt anyone and think making such limitations helps those folks. I’m just trying to imagine Jesus of Nazareth saying the same things. I really can’t. In order to keep the faith I do have I refuse to.