[wondering]

Do any of you who consider yourself liberal or pro choice have difficulty with government healthcare subsidies which help people buy health insurance that cover abortion?

I am pro choice, but I can understand how a person who is pro life would not want government money to go toward abortion. They consider it murder and do not want to be a part of that.

As I understand, it is already illegal for government money to go toward abortion. Without the Stupack amendment, government subsidies appear to be indirectly supporting abortion because they help a woman buy health insurance that covers abortion Whether directly or indirectly supporting abortion, government subsidies that help a woman buy such insurance seem to be illegal, from what I see.

It seems that the Stupack amendment stops the illegality by making insurance companies that cover abortion inaccessible to anyone receiving government subsidies.

Am I correct in thinking that the Stupack amendment allows a woman to have access to abortion coverage if she does not receive government subsidies , provided there are insurance companies that continue to offer it?

It sounds like any woman today who can't afford health insurance is without abortion coverage. Providing the House Healthcare bill with the Stupack amendment passes, she is still without abortion coverage, but she may be covered for other conditions with the help of government subsidies. This seems to be legal and aligned with pro life beliefs, but not the pro choice options which I support.

What are your thoughts? Do you see a conflict here as I do? If not, stating your case will be appreciated. If you do see a conflict, do you see a possible resolution?

[PBVBROOK]

The right to have an abortion under most circumstances is the law of the land. While I understand those who see it as murder, we must go with the law. Consider: A pacifist considers war murder yet we don't allow them to not pay taxes on the pretext that they should not be compelled to have their tax money violate their sense of moral compass.

Medical care is medical care. To deny care to a person seeking a legal and perhaps vital service (health of the mother) just to cater to those who disagree offering a largely religious argument is against the basic tenants of our system of governance.

The right to life crowd should continue to pursue their remedy in the halls of congress. No problem. But to deny one person an established right because it offends the religion of another is patently wrong.

The key to the argument is that abortion is legal. It is sometimes necessary. It is always personally tragic for those involved. But if the government wants to be in the health care business (and they have for a couple of hundred years) they should insure that this health care business is run by law and not by someone's church. That is what Iran does. It allows religious leaders to decide what is legal and illegal. I am a Christian. I detest abortion. I am pro-choice. And I believe that government money must go to pay for abortions when a woman and her doctor determine that she ought to have one.

[Todd D.]

First of all, I am both anti-abortion and against government involvement in the health care industry. That said, this thread assumes both abortion's legality as well as government-funded health care, so I will answer under those assumptions.

Under most circumstances today, an abortion is not "medical care" in the sense that we are talking about here. It's elective surgery. If we are to concede that the government has a role in providing medical care to its citizens, then that care should be limited to that which is MEDICALLY necessary. I would have no problem with a medical procedure to save the life of a woman faced with ectopic pregnancy, or some other situation where the health of the mother is in very real danger. Let's be honest though, that is not a majority of abortions. To suggest that a 21 year old that is faced with a broken condom shouldn't receive support (not necessarily financial support, mind you) from her community is pretty horrible, but to say that she should receive a taxpayer-funded abortion? I don't buy that any more than I would buy the idea that breast augmentation should be covered by a public health care system. That's not medically necessary, therefore it should not be funded by the public.

[PBVBROOK]

I'm not sure I like the augmentation example. Clearly there are lifetime consequences in having a child that are not comparable with a life of small breasts. Besides. The government already pays for breast reconstruction surgery and even nose jobs in some circumstances.

Is abortion medical care? Sometimes. In the obvious cases such as rape, incest and the health of the mother, certainly. What about the case of a 13 year old girl pregnant from consensual sex? Do we force her to bring a child to term? If not then what is the age? Clearly a case can be made for her being too young to mother children.

Making the argument that abortion is elective surgury requires that we also conclude that care for pregnant women is also elective care. There is no pressing need for any one woman to become pregnant. Pregnancy is almost always elective. Now we go further. Should government insurance pay for birth control? That is not a 'necessary' expense in the narrowest sense of the word. There are many religious people who denounce the use of birth control seeing it as not much different than abortion. If we are to cater to the moral compass of those who eschew abortion should we not also cater to those who oppose birth control by refusing to pay for that too. And then there are the religious who feel that innoculations are forbidden by their religion. Fearing that they might be offended by the fact that their tax money goes to vaccinations, should we cause the government to stop paying for that too? On to end-of-life care. Perhaps the best example. How about pulling the plug or witholding food and water? I have had to make this horrible choice and I can tell you I would not appreciate the government taking away options from me to kowtow to some religious group anymore than I would want to have the government making the decision for me.

Health care includes many personal choices. We all want those choices to remain available to us. We want to generally be seen as master of our own health care choices. In order to do this we have to conclude that not all people will make choices that we find fit our views on morality. So we have to pay for some stuff that offends some people. To do otherwise establishes us as a mere theocracy. Not much different from Iran tho certainly less focused.

[Todd D.]

I'm not sure I like the augmentation example. Clearly there are lifetime consequences in having a child that are not comparable with a life of small breasts. Besides. The government already pays for breast reconstruction surgery and even nose jobs in some circumstances.

Do they pay for them when there is no pressing medical need for them to be done? Genuine question. I would assume that reconstructive breast surgery is done under Medicare for women that have undergone masectomies, not necessarily "elective" in the same sense that we're discussing here, and certainly nowhere near as controversial.

Is abortion medical care? Sometimes. In the obvious cases such as rape, incest and the health of the mother, certainly. What about the case of a 13 year old girl pregnant from consensual sex? Do we force her to bring a child to term? If not then what is the age? Clearly a case can be made for her being too young to mother children.

And again, I have no problem with a medical procedure to protect the actual life of the mother. In the case of, say, a 9 year old, clearly you can say that carrying a child to term would more than likely carry serious medical complications with it. No issue there.

Rape and incest I'm a little fuzzier on, since first-generation incest doesn't tend to carry an increased risk, and rape, while obviously horrific, doesn't carry the threat of medical complications (though obviously psychological and psychiatric care would be necessary).

Making the argument that abortion is elective surgury requires that we also conclude that care for pregnant women is also elective care. There is no pressing need for any one woman to become pregnant. Pregnancy is almost always elective. Now we go further. Should government insurance pay for birth control? That is not a 'necessary' expense in the narrowest sense of the word. There are many religious people who denounce the use of birth control seeing it as not much different than abortion. If we are to cater to the moral compass of those who eschew abortion should we not also cater to those who oppose birth control by refusing to pay for that too.

Good point. Perhaps birth control medication shouldn't be covered either. They're not altogether that expensive anyway.

On to end-of-life care. Perhaps the best example. How about pulling the plug or witholding food and water? I have had to make this horrible choice and I can tell you I would not appreciate the government taking away options from me to kowtow to some religious group anymore than I would want to have the government making the decision for me.

Right, but that isn't paying for health care, that's the making of a decision. I agree that should be left to the individual (or, in your obviously tragic case, the proxy). That's not really what we're talking about though. Obviously the greater abortion debate is whether it should be legal, but in this specific case we're conceding to its legality, and asking whether it should be FUNDED by the general public.

Health care includes many personal choices. We all want those choices to remain available to us. We want to generally be seen as master of our own health care choices. In order to do this we have to conclude that not all people will make choices that we find fit our views on morality. So we have to pay for some stuff that offends some people. To do otherwise establishes us as a mere theocracy. Not much different from Iran tho certainly less focused.

First of all, that's some serious hyperbole to jump from "Passing the Stupak Amendment" to "We're an Iran-style hypocrisy". I'm pretty sure there are a few other bits in between before we get to that level.

Secondly, again we're not talking about the choices themselves. At least, not here. The abortion debate is a bit tricky because it depends on whether a fetus is a human life. If it is, then most would concede that you don't have the right to "choose" to kill another life, but again the definition as life is tricky. Beyond that, these choices are not controversial. Even amongst the opponents, very few argue that birth control should be ILLEGAL, they merely say that it is immoral to use it. Ditto for breast augmentation. Nobody is saying that you don't have the right to choose what to do with your body (again, depending on your view of a fetus). What's being debated is whether or not others that disagree with you should be forced to pay for it.

Heck, I know this thread assumes government-funded health care, but this is actually a prime example of a big problem with such a system.

[PBVBROOK]

Nobody is saying that you don't have the right to choose what to do with your body (again, depending on your view of a fetus). What's being debated is whether or not others that disagree with you should be forced to pay for it.

And that is precicely the point. The question is not about excusing an individual from paying for a proceedure. The question is to what extent to we allow our concern for certain religious/intrest groups to determine the behaviors of others.

Clearly we would all oppose imposing on the entire nation, rules against Sunday traveling yet a substantial number of Americans consider it sinful. It is even more absurd to excuse them the amount of their taxes that go for government operations on Sunday. And far more absurd to shut down the government on Sunday in deference to them. But this is exactly what we are asking the government to do in the case of abortion. We are, in effect, imposing the moral values of certain (mostly religious) people on all of us.

Should the government forbid the spending of taxpayer money on warfare to appease the pacifist? On public education to appease the libertarian? On vaccinations to appease the Christian Scientist?

The government should stay out of this and allow the decision to be between a doctor and patient. And treat it just like any other proceedure.

[Huntster]

The right to have an abortion under most circumstances is the law of the land.

So is the right of interstate travel.

So, you need to buy me a car. I'll even settle for a domestic car, being patriotic and all.

I'll take a corvette, please. Make it blue. Don't worry about the insurance. I'll pay for that, being that I'm a nice guy and insurance is mandatory and all.

Thanks!

[Kylie]

Good point. Perhaps birth control medication shouldn't be covered either. They're not altogether that expensive anyway.

Well, if I were looking at this simply on the terms of investing, it's MUCH cheaper to invest in covering birth control than it is to cover pre-natal care and abortions... at least that's how I'd see it, and if we're going through preventative care so nothing results in abortions, this would be the route to go, for money-spending sakes, anyways.

As far as the expense of birth control, this mainly depends on the type of BC you use.

[PBVBROOK]

Sorry Hunster. Bad analogy. But going with it... we provide the highways at taxpayer expense already so your privilege of traveling is paid for by the taxpayer. No need for the car. You can walk. The sidewalks are paid for by the taxpayer as well.

Also. Travel is not regulated based upon the religious beliefs of some individuals. Of course if you want to close the interstates to Sunday travel to avoid offending some orthodox individuals you might be closer to a good example.

[Huntster]

Sorry Hunster. Bad analogy. But going with it... we provide the highways at taxpayer expense already so your privilege of traveling is paid for by the taxpayer. No need for the car. You can walk. The sidewalks are paid for by the taxpayer as well.

No need for taxpayer funded abortions. The federal government has spent untold hundreds of millions providing the right to abortion, giving grant money to Planned Parenthood to provide pro-abortion counselling, and strong-arming facilities into providing them against their wills.

Also. Travel is not regulated based upon the religious beliefs of some individuals.

Neither is abortion. It is perfectly legal throughout the entire course of the pregnancy, right up to the moment of birth.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Of course if you want to close the interstates to Sunday travel to avoid offending some orthodox individuals you might be closer to a good example.

Sorta' like forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?:

Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago warned of "devastating consequences" to the health care system, insisting Obama could force the closure of all Catholic hospitals in the country. That's a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for. It couldn't happen, could it?

You wouldn't think so. Only, I am increasingly convinced that it could. If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."

The bishops are not bluffing when they say they'd turn out the lights rather than comply. Nor is Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis exaggerating, I don't think, in vowing that "any one of us would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow—to die tomorrow—to bring about the end of abortion.''

Whatever your view on the legality and morality of abortion, there is another important question to be considered here: Could we even begin to reform our already overburdened health care system without these Catholic institutions? I don't see how.

Go ahead, Liberal. Do it.

Make my day.

[PBVBROOK]

Make your day? I was just laughing at your joke. First you say:

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Then you post a very long quote including:

Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago warned of "devastating consequences" to the health care system, insisting Obama could force the closure of all Catholic hospitals in the country. That's a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for.

and

The bishops are not bluffing when they say they'd turn out the lights rather than comply. Nor is Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis exaggerating, I don't think, in vowing that "any one of us would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow—to die tomorrow—to bring about the end of abortion.''

concluding:

Whatever your view on the legality and morality of abortion, there is another important question to be considered here: Could we even begin to reform our already overburdened health care system without these Catholic institutions? I don't see how.

My seemingly confused friend.....religion has EVERYTHING to do with it.

I want to thank you though. It is much easier to destroy your arguments when you post the very information necessary to do it. It saves me a quick google search. You are not alone. Give a conservative enough rope....



Oh. I almost forgot. Abortion is not completely unregulated. There are limits and the supreme court has upheld some of them.

[Huntster]

My seemingly confused friend.....religion has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with the current legality of abortion. Indeed, abortion is, again, perfectly legal throughout the entire course of the pregnancy, right up to the moment of birth, despite the opposition of most religions. But it will damned sure "have something to do with it" if you try to force the Church to perform abortions in their hospitals.

Then the shit hits the fan.

So do it. Force the issue.

I dare you.

Oh. I almost forgot. Abortion is not completely unregulated. There are limits and the supreme court has upheld some of them.

I never wrote that they're "not completely unregulated". I wrote that they are "perfectly legal throughout the entire course of the pregnancy, right up to the moment of birth."

Do you deny that?

I'll cheerfully quote and link Roe regarding the legal extents of state regulation if you wish.

[PBVBROOK]

Why are you so rude. You DARE me? Wooooooo. I scared now.

Why would I want to respond to your red herring. Who is proposing that religious hospitals be forced to perform abortions? Surely you are not talking about the Freedom Of Choice Act. This has been around for 15 years and not a single vote has been cast on it. Although Obama touted his support for the act while campaigning (he touted a lot of stuff upon which he had not intention of spending political capital) no effort has been made to bring it to the floor.

Both the house and Senate bills will fail if there is a red cent of government money for abortion. You are getting all lathered up for no reason. But then you usually do. Sadly I think you were unaware that your fears are completely groundless.

I oppose forcing anyone to perform an abortion. Though I believe federal funds should be available to fund it, I find it disgusting to think that anyone should be required to perform an abortion. And there is no serious move in Washington to do that.

FYI. Late term abortions are illegal in Kansas. After 21 weeks a physician must certify that the fetus is not viable or the abortion is a felony. A viable fetus may only be aborted when two independent physicians certify that the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. So you see. Abortion is not necessarily "perfectly legal up to the moment of birth". For it to be "perfectly legal" a woman would have to have the right to obtain an abortion for any reason at any time. She doesn't. And as usual you are wrong again.

[Huntster]

Why are you so rude. You DARE me? Wooooooo. I scared now.

Why would I want to respond to your red herring.

To validate your power.

Who is proposing that religious hospitals be forced to perform abortions? Surely you are not talking about the Freedom Of Choice Act.

That's the one. See the link I provided above.

This has been around for 15 years and not a single vote has been cast on it. Although Obama touted his support for the act while campaigning (he touted a lot of stuff upon which he had not intention of spending political capital) no effort has been made to bring it to the floor.

Both the house and Senate bills will fail if there is a red cent of government money for abortion. You are getting all lathered up for no reason. But then you usually do. Sadly I think you were unaware that your fears are completely groundless.

I'm not afraid. I dared you to get it passed, remember.

I still do.

I'd love to see the abortion supporters shit or get off the pot.

I oppose forcing anyone to perform an abortion.

Good. That's wise.

Though I believe federal funds should be available to fund it, I find it disgusting to think that anyone should be required to perform an abortion. And there is no serious move in Washington to do that.

But it is supported by the current President, and he co-sponsored it's re-introduction in 2007:

The Freedom of Choice Act was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Jerrold Nadler, and originally co-sponsored by Congressman James Greenwood, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and Congresswoman Diana Degette. In the Senate, it was sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer, and originally co-sponsored by Senators Jon Corzine, Patty Murray, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Maria Cantwell, Jim Jeffords, Joseph Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Paul Sarbanes, and Barbara Mikulski. The bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on January 21, 2004, and in the United States Senate on January 22, 2004.

The bills were referred to the Judiciary Committees of the respective Houses. Neither bill received further action in the 108th Congress. The bills were reintroduced in the 110th Congress, but, like their predecessors, were referred to committee without further action. As of June 2009, the bills have not been introduced in the 111th Congress.
During his tenure in the United States Senate, Barack Obama co-sponsored the 2007 Senate version of the Freedom of Choice Act (S. 1173). Responding to a question regarding how he would preserve reproductive rights in a speech given to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama declared, "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
In a press conference on April 29, 2009, President Obama said that although he supports a woman's right to choose, passage of the Freedom of Choice Act was "not highest legislative priority."

He can't attempt something so stupid while putting the screws to all hospitals with his health care mess. It's just on the back burner.

FYI. Late term abortions are illegal in Kansas. After 21 weeks a physician must certify that the fetus is not viable or the abortion is a felony. A viable fetus may only be aborted when two independent physicians certify that the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. So you see. Abortion is not necessarily "perfectly legal up to the moment of birth". For it to be "perfectly legal" a woman would have to have the right to obtain an abortion for any reason at any time. She doesn't. And as usual you are wrong again.

In one state.

And, like the 1850's, it's "Bleeding Kansas". It's a war zone:

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A Kansas doctor known as one of only a few in the United States willing to perform so-called "late-term" abortions was acquitted on Friday on charges that he performed abortions illegally.

Abortions are generally considered late-term when they are performed after the 20th week of gestation on fetuses potentially old enough to survive outside the womb.

George Tiller, who U.S. anti-abortion groups consider a prime offender, was found innocent on 19 misdemeanor charges that he violated a state law that only allows late-term abortions if two independent physicians agree the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function."

Prosecutors alleged Tiller had an illegal financial relationship with the doctor that signed off on the abortions.

But Tiller argued the prosecution was motivated by pro-life politicians and said he obeyed the law.

Tiller's clinic in Wichita has been the site of mass protests by anti-abortion groups and was bombed in 1985. Tiller was shot and wounded by an abortion opponent in 1993.

He was found innocent.

Then he got dead.

[PBVBROOK]

Huntster. The abortion supporters need do nothing. They have already won. If you want action I suggest you try to get the American people to end abortion. After all. The ball is in your court.

[Huntster]

Huntster. The abortion supporters need do nothing. They have already won.

What they have "won" is an end to their society. They have killed off a significant portion of their progeny in their selfish race toward an acquisitory, sexually irresponsible culture.

If you want action I suggest you try to get the American people to end abortion. After all. The ball is in your court.

This isn't a ball game. The "rules of the game" are manipulated politically and judicially toward the anti-population ideology by elitists tired of wiping ignorant asses. They have "won". It's already too late to reverse.

[ninurta]

I think that we should stop murdering unborn babies and get the government out of the healthcare buisness.

[PBVBROOK]

I think that we should stop murdering unborn babies and get the government out of the healthcare buisness.

No you don't. Not really. I assume you are in favor of abortion in the case of the life of the mother being threatened. How about rape and incest? If you make these exceptions you are in favor of abortion. You just want to be the one who decides when.

I also don't think you believe that the government should "get out of the health care business". I assume you have no quarrel with the Public Health Service? The FDA? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? Would you have us abrogate our treaties with the various native american tribes we agreed to supply with health care? Do you want to ban Medicare and leave millions of American seniors without health care after it was promised to them and they paid for it all of their working lives? Shall we close the Veterans Hospitals? Military Hospitals? Stop providing care that military retirees were promised?

Oh I get it. We'll privatize these, right? Who pays the company? Well. That would be the taxpayer wouldn't it? Your tax money already goes to the private sector through Medicade and Medicare. They have no practitioners of their own.

I hear people say they want the government out of health care but when you really nail it down they just want to decide what health care the government pays for.

So you see Ninurta you really don't mean what you said. And if you do you you would find practically nobody to agree with you except a few very extreme and extremely confused libertarians. Confused because the libertarian who argues that the government has no right to regulate health care under the constitution and that it is a state right would also have to argue the same for abortion.

[Todd D.]

No you don't. Not really. I assume you are in favor of abortion in the case of the life of the mother being threatened. How about rape and incest? If you make these exceptions you are in favor of abortion. You just want to be the one who decides when.

"Life of the mother" is not an "abortion" in the proper sense of the word though. An "abortion" is a deliberate procedure to end a pregnancy. Saving the life of a pregnant woman where the procedure incidentaly terminates the pregnancy isn't really the same thing at all.

I know plenty of anti-abortion advocates that do not make rape or incest exceptions.

I also don't think you believe that the government should "get out of the health care business". I assume you have no quarrel with the Public Health Service? The FDA? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

The FDA isn't really a "health care" organization. It's a consumer protection organization. Even still, I've heard plenty of people suggest that the FDA should be eliminated.

PHS includes CDC, Medicare, and Medicaid. Kind of double-counting to list them both. That said, a lot of people favor either the reduction or elimination of public health care research, the ACF, AOA, etc. Not just the "confused Libertarians" either.

Would you have us abrogate our treaties with the various native american tribes we agreed to supply with health care? Do you want to ban Medicare and leave millions of American seniors without health care after it was promised to them and they paid for it all of their working lives?

You're strawmanning here by suggesting "Get the government out of the healthcare business" is the same as "Get the government out of the healthcare business [b]tomorrow...fuck the ramifications of such an act[/i]". Nobody honestly suggests that the privatization / elimination of public health care spending should be done drastically and immediately. Obviously any such plan would carry with it transitions towards a market based solution aimed at maximizing results.

Shall we close the Veterans Hospitals? Military Hospitals? Stop providing care that military retirees were promised?

Not really the same thing, since medical benefits were part of their compensation that they previously signed up for.

Oh I get it. We'll privatize these, right? Who pays the company? Well. That would be the taxpayer wouldn't it? Your tax money already goes to the private sector through Medicade and Medicare. They have no practitioners of their own.

Right, but what he's saying is that the taxpayer SHOULDN'T be paying for it, at least not in the long term.

Confused because the libertarian who argues that the government has no right to regulate health care under the constitution and that it is a state right would also have to argue the same for abortion.

Um, most libertarians DO argue the same for abortion, if they want the government to regulate it at all. The official platform of the LP is that it's not even a state issue, but an individual issue:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Source

The ones that don't (such as myself) would argue that since a fetus is a human life (which is scientifically indisputable) it is endowed with the right to be free from aggression and assault from other individuals, which abortion most certainly is. Hard to argue that government provision of health care is a protection from assault by other individuals, isn't it?