- 18 Nov 2009 14:19
#13240081
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?
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?