Thursday, November 12, 2009

Pre-existing issue confronts Dems


Alexander Burns of Politico wrote an interesting piece http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29393.html about how a flare-up of the abortion issue has affected the current push for passage of health-care reform legislation. The crux of the story is that Democrats are finding themselves split over what restrictions, if any, should be imposed on abortion funding in whatever health-care bill emerges from Congress. The centerpiece of this clash is an amendment offered by Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak and approved by the House that would, essentially, prevent money from being spent on abortions through a proposed national health insurance exchange or a public-option plan. The real question is, should the government be in the business of paying for abortions? While I would never support a complete ban on abortions, I don't see why the government, or any insurance program connected to the government, should be paying for them. I wouldn't object to coverage of abortions in the case of rape, incest or threats to a woman's health, but I think it's highly distasteful for the government to have a role in providing abortions to people who use the procedure as birth control, often because they were too stupid, lazy or irresponsible to take precautions against pregnancy in the first place. At the same time, I could make the argument that people's tax money is used all the time for things they oppose or object to on moral grounds. For instance, I think the proposal to spend $300 million to build a maglev people-mover at Cal U. is ridiculous. And I've been sickened by the horrible waste of Americans' tax dollars to finance the war in Iraq. But no matter what abortion-funding restrictions are included in the health reform legislation, women will still be able to undergo the procedures. They just might have to dig into their own pockets to do so, and abortion-rights advocates can feel free to help those who are short on funds.

Labels: , ,

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, but insurance pays for Viagra and not for contraception, does it not? So if we assist men to be able to make babies, why not assist women who don't want to have babie, for legitimate reasons?

November 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM  
Blogger Lori said...

How do we get people to be responsible? Abortion as birth control is irresponsible and very dangerous. Lets not forget it is a surgery procedure. Abstinence is very effective and I don't mean the Christian kind, I mean the responsible kind. There is always a risk of pregnancy. (We drive too fast we could wreck, we drink too much we get sick etc.) We have a choice not to participate in those activities as well. Balance the risk and be willing to accept the responsibility for the outcome. No government bailouts.
Women seeking help in an unfortunate circumstance as in rape or incest need to be given more choice and support.
Who should pay for that will be forever debated.

November 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Hey X, give it another shot with a little less of the "colorful imagery." ;-)

November 12, 2009 at 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are more categories than "rape/incest victims/mother's health" and "irresponsible/stupid/lazy" for why women get pregnant unintentionally. Contraception is not infallible. I take my birth control pills religiously, and have ever since I started using them at the age of 18. When I was 22, I got pregnant. I happened to fall within that 1% of birth control pills being 99% effective. I was not a victim of rape or incest; my health was not at risk at the point when I had an abortion; and I was not irresponsible, stupid, or lazy. I was not using my abortion as birth control. It was the logical action for me when my birth control failed. I am grateful I had the choice to have my abortion without any kind of hassle, harassment, or other horror stories you hear from some women who have had a bad experience with abortion, but it would have been nice to have that procedure covered by my insurance. I don't know how to "get people to be responsible," but I do know that abortion is a legal medical procedure that should not be restricted on moral grounds.

November 12, 2009 at 2:58 PM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

Great post, Brant. I agree all the way. (Which I don't always do...)

November 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Hells Gate said...

ANON I hope God forgives you,cause you was out having sex and wasn't ready to be a parent. God bless your soul. may you never forget the horrible crime you committed on the unborn.

November 12, 2009 at 10:38 PM  
Anonymous VICTIMS said...

ANON IF YOU KILLED YOUR UNBORN WHY DON'T YOU POST YOUR REAL NAME? ARE YOU NOT HAPPY? DO EVER WONDER WHAT LIFE WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE WITH A CHILD? GOD FORGIVES YOU, BUT HE WILL NEVER FORGET. I MYSELF WAS VICTIM. MY GIRLFRIEND OF 3 YEARS ABORTED A BABY AND HANDED ME THE BILL WITHOUT MY SAY SO. I TOSSED HER OUT OF MY LIFE FASTER THAN A USED TOOTHPICK! MAY THE UNBORN TEAR AT YOUR SOUL FOREVER!

November 12, 2009 at 11:02 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

This is kinda funny:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A chagrined GOP Chairman Michael Steele has told Republican National Committee staff to immediately stop providing RNC employees with insurance for elective abortions — an option that Republicans strongly oppose as Democrats try to pass a health care overhaul bill.
“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Steele said in a statement late Thursday after learning of the abortion coverage from a news report. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”
Steele instructed staff to inform the insurance carrier that the RNC wanted to opt out of elective abortion coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. She said the policy has been in effect since 1991.
A memo earlier from RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay to the organization’s members said Steele was taking the matter very seriously and “has been engaged by phone on this issue.”
The GOP platform traditionally includes strong anti-abortion language. All House Republicans, except one, voted for an amendment imposing restrictions of coverage for abortions in the health care bill that passed the House last Saturday. Inclusion of the abortion restrictions prompted an angry backlash from liberal House Democrats, and some are now threatening to vote against a final bill if the curbs stay in.
The memo said the RNC received a phone call from a reporter on Wednesday asking whether the RNC’s health care policy, through Cigna, covered elective abortions for employees. On Thursday, Politico.com published a report citing two sales agents for Cigna who said the RNC’s policy covered elective abortion.
The Cigna employees said the RNC didn’t choose to opt out of abortion coverage when given the opportunity, Politico.com reported.

November 13, 2009 at 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lori, help us out on this one for abstinence.

What is the distinction between "Christian" and "responsible?" What is a faith-based behavior with regard to abstinence, over against a non-faith-based one?

November 14, 2009 at 9:26 PM  
Anonymous My lords soldier. said...

anon @ 9:26

You know I think it's great that people stick to what they believe in. Even if it is religion. Lori that guy is picking a fight.. don't listen.

November 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM  
Anonymous NAZI SOCIALISM said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917328.ece

it's about lowering health care cost read it!

OBAMA CARE will take you to the promise land! OF home inspectors. Amen!

WHY/ 1. lower insurance cost
\ 2. big brother machine

November 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402459_pf.html

they say it's going to make another faa but for rails... isn't there enough govt? it's not about the power grab, it's about control.

November 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Nazi, you do realize, don't you, that the story you posted is about England and has nothing to do with our country?

November 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Big Brotha said...

Yes I know. We are only about 12 years behind them. Cams on street corners, health care, and now home inspections. I hope i'm wrong.. but 2 out of 3 I have the odds.

November 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lori, still waiting for an explanation. Thanks.

November 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home