Abortions won't be paid for with Obamacare

[bascule]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/09/2009-11-09_prochoice_advocates_furious_over_abortion_amendment_in_health_care_bill_.html

 

The bill that passed the House will not include support for abortions.

 

Republicans: no tax money for abortions, we need it for the war!

[The Bear's Key]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/09/2009-11-09_prochoice_advocates_furious_over_abortion_amendment_in_health_care_bill_.html

 

The bill that passed the House will not include support for abortions.

 

Republicans: no tax money for abortions, we need it for the war!

Because abortion's such a divisive issue lacking great potential for humanity (unlike stem cell research), I think it's a good enough compromise where abortion's legal but the woman must pay for her own abortion in normal pregnancies, or even buy medical coverage that does.

[DrP]

It should be about personal choice with abortion. Allot of people are against it so forcing them to fund some-else’s abortion is unfair. Also if it is funded you will get people not worrying too much about contraception because they know they will be able to just go and get a free abortion afterwards anyway. If they know they have to pay for it then they might think twice before getting banged up without caring about the consequences.

[iNow]

I think it's a good enough compromise where abortion's legal but the woman must pay for her own abortion in normal pregnancies, or even buy medical coverage that does.

The challenge here, TBK, is that the fight was not only to restrict public funds from covering abortion, but ALSO to disallow privately purchased insurance from covering them. I'd be fine if the public option did not cover them, but for them to legislate that private companies cannot simply sickens me.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/compromise-reached-on-hea_n_349309.html

All day on Friday, House leaders struggled to reconcile the pro-life and pro-choice wings of the Democratic Party. Over the last several weeks, the pro-choice bloc, consisting of nearly 200 Democrats, had gradually come to terms with an amendment authored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.).

 

The intent of the amendment was to keep the debate about health care rather than abortion and it would make clear that -- as is current law -- no federal funds would be used for abortion. "Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation," wrote Capps at the time.

 

But that wasn't enough for pro-life Democrats. On November 3, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) offered a more conservative compromise, one that restricted abortion in a bunch of extra ways and would require at least one private plan in the exchange not to cover abortion.

 

In reality, most insurance plans -- even using pro-life numbers -- already do not cover abortion.

Story continues below

advertisement

 

Still, pro-choice Democrats swallowed the compromise -- while saying they'd go no further. Health care reform, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a staunch pro-choicer and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, should not be a vehicle to drive a pro-life social agenda.

 

That's when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) re-entered the debate. Stupak is a longtime pro-life advocate and had been pressing his concerns upon House leadership. On Friday, Ellsworth withdrew his compromise language from negotiations, according to several House sources, sending the debate back to the starting line, where Stupak was waiting.

 

Stupak, in meetings with Pelosi and other members of leadership, pressed to include, instead, his own amendment that would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak's plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covered abortion.

[Mokele]

All rights, ALL, begin and end at the right to control one's own body. Take that away, and nothing else matters.

 

Either you're pro-choice or anti-freedom. Period. There is no other option.

[foodchain]

All rights, ALL, begin and end at the right to control one's own body. Take that away, and nothing else matters.

 

Either you're pro-choice or anti-freedom. Period. There is no other option.

 

Also is might not be widely known that the constitution does not act on a person until they are actually born I think. Makes double homicide when a pregnant women gets killed sort of weird though, more so in conjunction with abortion.

 

I am against late term that is for sure, unless its medically required.

[The Bear's Key]

Also if it is funded you will get people not worrying too much about contraception because they know they will be able to just go and get a free abortion afterwards anyway.

No, DrP, you're treating it as simple choice like running out to get more eggs from WIC. A much simpler task is to just get the morning after pill, wouldn't it? Hmmm...if that industry were caught lobbying to make abortion illegal, then it'd be a good lesson for both sides in the economics of politics.

 

The challenge here, TBK, is that the fight was not only to restrict public funds from covering abortion, but ALSO to disallow privately purchased insurance from covering them. I'd be fine if the public option did not cover them, but for them to legislate that private companies cannot simply sickens me.

In that case I agree with you.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/compromise-reached-on-hea_n_349309.html

On November 3, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) offered a more conservative compromise, one that restricted abortion in a bunch of extra ways and would require at least one private plan in the exchange not to cover abortion.

........

Stupak, in meetings with Pelosi and other members of leadership, pressed to include, instead, his own amendment that would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak's plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covered abortion.

Reading bascule's first link I got the impression the ban's for government funded...

 

Under the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), abortion would not be paid for in plans offered by a government-run insurance system. Also, people who took federal subsidies to buy insurance would not be able to use the money to buy such coverage.

 

But I'm still unsure of the bill's outcome. Depends on what they mean by "exchange" in your link.

 

In any case, if it turns out you're correct, I'd guess it's part of various sneaky attempts to indirectly begin phasing out abortions in small increments.

[DrP]

A much simpler task is to just get the morning after pill, wouldn't it?

 

If they realise they have a chance of being preggers that is. They might be more inclined not to care and to "take a chance" that they haven't concieved, safe in the knowledge that if they have, it won't matter because they can just get an abortion.

 

I am 100% PRO choise. But I don't think it should be encouraged as a contraception option.

[SH3RL0CK]

All rights, ALL, begin and end at the right to control one's own body. Take that away, and nothing else matters.

 

Either you're pro-choice or anti-freedom. Period. There is no other option.

 

That is a very strong statement to make, and the fact you do not at all acknowledge other viewpoints makes me believe you really haven't considered the pro-life viewpoint; nor considered what really is a human "right". I would suggest you reconsider this statement in light of the real world difficulties that often accompany this medical procedure.

 

There are many, many problems with your position here mostly due to what I see is an uncompromising position...

 

Is it really that absolutely, completely unreasonable to consider the baby as a different person because s/he has a completely differing genetic makeup than the mother? And after about 5 months of pregnancy could even survive without the mother at all (if absolutely necessary)?

 

Would you say that there is never ever a reasonable restriction on an abortion?

 

Would you say that parents have no say and no rights to even be notified if their minor were getting an abortion? That abortion providers need not or even shall not notify authorities of suspected child sexual abuse on the part of, say, a step father? What if it is clear that said father is basically forcing the underage girl to have the abortion against her will?

 

Would you say that a woman has a right to abort a fetus at the 9-month stage simply because she wants to hurt her ex (i.e. no medical reason to do so)? When does the father have any say (if at all)?

 

Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with this strong of a pro-choice stand and though I am in general pro-life, I do acknowledge the many valid points from those who are pro-choice. I do believe that there are valid reasons for an abortion, but surely you will agree that there can be valid reasons to deny or restrict this medical procedure as well.

[Sisyphus]

Only a moron would not worry about contraception because they can "just get a free abortion." That doesn't seem realistic to me. Unless, I guess, they've had no sex ed whatsoever (or "abstinence education," which is the same thing). It's also hard to imagine someone who would only get an abortion if it was free, unless they're both desperately poor and seriously crazy, in which case they really shouldn't have unwanted children...

[DrP]

Only a moron would not worry about contraception because they can "just get a free abortion." That doesn't seem realistic to me.

 

That's because you are a well educated person with morals that you have either picked up or have been taught or whatever... there are MANY morons out there. Some people just don't care - and they arn't the type of person that would be reading this forum.

 

You get the cases in the UK where girls get themselves up the duff just so they can get moved up the housing lists and get more benifits and a free flat. They see it as an advantage to have a child because their benefits increase. Not all of them, but alot of the really moronic ones do.

Edited November 10, 2009 by DrP

[john5746]

I think a woman's right to her body is paramount, but that doesn't mean any medical procedures to her body must be free or covered. I do think providing abortions to the poor would be the economically smart thing to do, but I guess politically it just would not pass.

[Mokele]

Is it really that absolutely, completely unreasonable to consider the baby as a different person because s/he has a completely differing genetic makeup than the mother? And after about 5 months of pregnancy could even survive without the mother at all (if absolutely necessary)?

 

So, by your logic, cancer surgery is illegal. Different genetic makeup, therefore it's a person by your rules.

 

Would you say that there is never ever a reasonable restriction on an abortion?

 

Yep.

 

Would you say that parents have no say and no rights to even be notified if their minor were getting an abortion? That abortion providers need not or even shall not notify authorities of suspected child sexual abuse on the part of, say, a step father? What if it is clear that said father is basically forcing the underage girl to have the abortion against her will?

 

Last time I checked, parents do not *own* children's bodies like pieces of meat. And a parent's decision cannot override their child's in this matter - that's basic medical ethics.

 

Would you say that a woman has a right to abort a fetus at the 9-month stage simply because she wants to hurt her ex (i.e. no medical reason to do so)? When does the father have any say (if at all)?

 

Strawman. Show me even one, single incidence of this happening. One. Go on, show me one.

 

You can't, because people do NOT undergo major surgery just to piss other people off - especially when there's only 3 places in the entire US which will perform that surgery. Or were, until anti-women loons shot one of the doctors.

 

I do believe that there are valid reasons for an abortion, but surely you will agree that there can be valid reasons to deny or restrict this medical procedure as well.

 

The only "reasons" for restricting it all trace back to simple misogyny.

 

 

 

Do you support equal rights for all, or not? It's as simple as that.

[SH3RL0CK]

So, by your logic, cancer surgery is illegal. Different genetic makeup, therefore it's a person by your rules.

That isn't at all my point (nor what I believe) - you seem to be letting emotions get in the way of logic and from seeing differing viewpoints.

Yep.

Many people, myself included, say with equal conviction that you are wrong. Quite simply wrong. I'd like the opportunity to review the evidence with you, but you aren't listening to me.

Last time I checked, parents do not *own* children's bodies like pieces of meat. And a parent's decision cannot override their child's in this matter - that's basic medical ethics.

And yet parents are responsible for making medical decisions for their children. A 13 year old should not solely bear the burden of a complicated medical decision and a medical doctor will never perform a procedure without the input and agreement of the parents (or a court order). Show me any other medical procedure where a medical doctor would ignore the parents...

 

Strawman. Show me even one, single incidence of this happening. One. Go on, show me one.

my point is that the father needs to be taken into consideration.

 

You can't, because people do NOT undergo major surgery just to piss other people off - especially when there's only 3 places in the entire US which will perform that surgery. Or were, until anti-women loons shot one of the doctors.

Really? I certainly can find cases where the father did not want the abortion, that would be so trivial I won't even waste my time bothering. But then, in your world the father isn't at all important, is it?

 

 

The only "reasons" for restricting it all trace back to simple misogyny.

Not at all true. How about protecting life? How about protecting women from the consequences of an abortion? Here you completely deny any positive motivation from the pro-life side. And what do you say about the many women who are pro-life, is this also misogyny?

 

 

Do you support equal rights for all, or not? It's as simple as that.

 

It isn't at all that simple. If it were, there wouldn't have been such a heated political debate for the past 40 years.

 

I should have known by your original closed statements that your mind is made up on this issue. There is no point in debating someone with a closed mind. So I'm finished with this thread. Call it a victory if you like, but I think everyone loses.

[A Tripolation]

So, by your logic, cancer surgery is illegal. Different genetic makeup, therefore it's a person by your rules.

 

Oh, I love this arguement. Such a favorite amongst pro-choice groups (as if we're not all pro-choice to some extent).

Thing is Mokele, I would consider cancer surgery illegal if the cancer cells would turn into a human within 9 months.

 

And do you really feel that the father ought not and have ANY say over whether or not his contribution will get the chance to become a human? That's just plain misandry right there.

All I'm saying is that if I got a girl pregnant, and she wanted an abortion, I would fight against it with every fiber of my being. Why shouldn't I be allowed to? What if I assume all expenses and she gets to have nothing to do with the child?

 

I find it hard to believe that this doesn't have a semblance of humanity.

 

If cancer cells looked like that, and would leave your body in nine months, I would be against removing them.

Edited November 10, 2009 by A Tripolation

[Mokele]

That isn't at all my point (nor what I believe) - you seem to be letting emotions get in the way of logic and from seeing differing viewpoints.

 

What logic? There's no logic. There's only an assumption, with no empirical basis, about the start of personhood. Why should the law force everyone to adhere to your view, rather than letting people decide for themselves?

 

And yet parents are responsible for making medical decisions for their children. A 13 year old should not solely bear the burden of a complicated medical decision and a medical doctor will never perform a procedure without the input and agreement of the parents (or a court order). Show me any other medical procedure where a medical doctor would ignore the parents...

 

And if the parents wanted their kids neutered? That's OK with you?

 

my point is that the father needs to be taken into consideration.

Really? I certainly can find cases where the father did not want the abortion, that would be so trivial I won't even waste my time bothering. But then, in your world the father isn't at all important, is it?

 

Let's say you and I agree to build a supercomputer at home. One day we meet and collaborate to decide the specifications.

 

Then, for the next nine months, I drop my job to part-time, spend all of the money for components, and do all of the work. Unfortunately, this results in too much economic hardship for me, and I call it off and decide to sell it.

 

If I decide to sell it, why should you get any say in it? You didn't contribute anything except the plans - I did all the actual work, put in all the money, and it's my economic future it's damaging.

 

 

Same thing. Why should you get any say over her body? Especially if she's the one taking all the costs.

 

Oh, and nice strawman, so I'll repeat it more clearly for you - find me a single case where a woman has terminated a third-trimester pregnancy to 'get back at a man'.

 

How about protecting life?

 

So you never step on bugs?

 

"Life" is not a metric of personhood. Cells in a culture dish have "life".

 

How about protecting women from the consequences of an abortion?

 

What consequences? It's as safe as any other medical procedure, the supposed breast-cancer link is a flat-out lie, and most women's only psychological problems with the decision are only due to society's reactions and pressures.

 

And what do you say about the many women who are pro-life, is this also misogyny?

 

Ahh, this old fallacy, that women can't be misogynist and can't support the patriarchy. A woman runs Playboy, does that make it suddenly not objectifying? Ann Coulter suggested women shouldn't be allowed to vote, does that make the suggestion not misogynistic?

 

It isn't at all that simple. If it were, there wouldn't have been such a heated political debate for the past 40 years.

 

Yes, it is. Simple issues that have obvious right answers turn into long debates all the time - look at gay marriage, or civil rights in the 60's.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And do you really feel that the father ought not and have ANY say over whether or not his contribution will get the chance to become a human? That's just plain misandry right there.

 

Really? So your wife should be able to say "No, you can't have chemotherapy, you need to go back to work so I can have the money you'll make before you die"? You support that?

 

Because the moment you allow someone who is physically unaffacted to make decisions for someone else's body, you have effectively deprived them of personhood and reduced them to a walking incubator.

 

Why should a woman have to carry a child which may endanger her health (physical or mental), just because a guy she may not even have a relationship with anymore wants a kid?

 

All I'm saying is that if I got a girl pregnant, and she wanted an abortion, I would fight against it with every fiber of my being. Why shouldn't I be allowed to? What if I assume all expenses and she gets to have nothing to do with the child?

 

Because it's her body. Simple as that.

 

Why can't we harvest organs for the sick out of the healthy? You've got a spare kidney, give it to me. Now.

 

Oh, I love this arguement. Such a favorite amongst pro-choice groups (as if we're not all pro-choice to some extent).

Thing is Mokele, I would consider cancer surgery illegal if the cancer cells would turn into a human within 9 months.

 

Missing the point for $400, Alex?

 

The point is that you cannot simply use genetic difference as a criterion for personhood. A cancer is genetically different, as is a tapeworm in your intestines.

 

The point, which you missed, is that the "pro-life" crowd never actually sits down and decides what a person is, never considers it logically, never examines the consequences, and never admits that these definition of 'person' are arbitrary social constructs.

[A Tripolation]

and never admits that these definition of 'person' are arbitrary social constructs.

 

Oh wow. EVERYTHING is an arbitrary social construct. If you want to view it all nihilistically like that, then your "inherent human rights" are just manifestations of your wants and needs on a material level.

 

And many people HAVE defined what they consider a human.

For me, it's when the fetus (which matches human DNA to around...oh...100%), starts to develop into a recognizable human. Now, I realize that's not all science-y, but it still fits into a general area of development.

 

Mokele, this is how I see it.

So, let's say that there was some sort of species that was just as primitive as a fetus, and they would turn into a human in nine months. If they belonged to no one, and I decided to kill them all, going by "pro choice" logic, I'm guilty of no crime whatsoever. I can do what I want so long as it harms no humans. That's my right.

[Sisyphus]

I think the "life begins at conception" people and the "no abortion has any moral implications" people suffer from the same fallacy, which is assuming that their definitions of when personhood begins are not arbitrary. Of course, there are a hell of a lot more of the former than the latter, which is why it's called "pro-choice." For most of us it's about acknowledging the ambiguity, and letting people decide for themselves.

[gre]

Why can't the pro and anti abortion folks just come to an agreement in-between.. How about after 2 months... no abortion. Why can't there be compromise?

 

And really, where do you draw the line?

 

How do you know aborting a fetus of 2 months is so much worse than ejaculating and killing 1 billion+ sperm cells? How do you know the sperm cells (1/2 a person?) don't have a will to survive (or whatever a 2 month fetus might have)?

Edited November 10, 2009 by gre
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Why can't the pro and anti abortion folks just come to an agreement in-between.. How about after 2 months... no abortion. Why can't there be compromise?

 

Because some people have decided that that would mean 2 months of legal murder, and others have decided that would mean 7 months of loss of fundamental rights over one's own body.

 

And really, where do you draw the line?

 

Exactly. Life began ~3.5 billion years ago, and even that wasn't a clearly defined line. Yet some parts of that life are considered "persons" in a moral and ethical sense (as they must be, for societies to exist). However, despite these parts being easy to recognize in their mature form (by the fact that they think and will, mostly), it turns out they emerge gradually! Stupid science!

 

How do you know aborting a fetus of 2 months is so much worse than ejaculating and killing 1 billion+ sperm cells? How do you know the sperm cells (1/2 a person?) don't have a will to survive (or whatever a 2 month fetus might have)?

 

More than that, what about a sperm cell and an egg cell, considered together. If nature does its thing, they'll become a person eventually! But not if the two bodies housing them never get it on, in which case they are murderers! But then, what about all the other sperm? Each, paired with each egg, is a "potential person," and millions must "die" for each that lives! What a holocaust!

[gre]

Here's another hypothetical question for the pro-life guys...

 

Let's say some country in Africa is having a food shortage & disease problems, lots of people sick and dying... suffering basically due to over population.. Then all of a sudden, this country has the option to have free abortion clinics and start offering free abortions (edit: or a "magic" pill that makes the fetus disappear) for women who want them to significantly reduce future suffering due to overpopulation.

 

Would you still be against abortion in this case?

Edited November 10, 2009 by gre

[DJBruce]

Although I a personally vehimentally against abortions. I feel that the subject comes to rest to much on a person's own subjective interpratation of when life begins. Thus, I feel that I cannot force others to not have abortions simply based on my beliefs. However, as there is no consensus on the issue I do not really feel that it is right for the federal government to take sides on the issue, and so was quite happy that the Stupak Amendment was accepted.

 

Although it was accepted in the House bill there are rumblings that Nancy Pelosi, the devot Roman Catholic that she is, will make sure that the Stupak Amendment is removed in confrenece commitee.

[foodchain]

Here's another hypothetical question for the pro-life guys...

 

Let's say some country in Africa is having a food shortage & disease problems, lots of people sick and dying... suffering basically due to over population.. Then all of a sudden, this country has the option to have free abortion clinics and start offering free abortions to women who want them to significantly reduce future suffering due to overpopulation.

 

Would you still be against abortion in this case?

 

It should be easy for people to simply use condoms. I managed to use condoms and while being sexually active I have never produced children I was not ready for thanks to them. They are easy to obtain and with a few simple guidelines to stick to completely make this problem for the most part go away.

 

Though condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted viruses.

 

Using abortion in this manner would simply be gross. Overpopulation is a real problem that needs to be addressed in a manner that does not involve abortion being a contraceptive measure on any scale, that simply makes humanity more like pond scum, no offense to pond scum.

[iNow]

Although it was accepted in the House bill there are rumblings that Nancy Pelosi, the devot Roman Catholic that she is, will make sure that the Stupak Amendment is removed in confrenece commitee.

 

And, if they do that, there is a very real chance that the health reform bill itself will not / cannot pass.

[DJBruce]

Here's another hypothetical question for the pro-life guys...

 

Let's say some country in Africa is having a food shortage & disease problems, lots of people sick and dying... suffering basically due to over population.. Then all of a sudden, this country has the option to have free abortion clinics and start offering free abortions to women who want them to significantly reduce future suffering due to overpopulation.

 

Would you still be against abortion in this case?

 

I would be against this use of abortion just as much as I would be against killing baby girls to meet child restrictions. As I said in my opinion I view abortion to be wrong under virtually all circumstances. If there were such food shortages in a country I would hope that the adults would do the responsible thing, and take proper percations against bring a child into the world they know they cannot raise.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And, if they do that, there is a very real chance that the health reform bill itself will not / cannot pass.

 

I have a feeling that the healthcare reform will not pass under any circumstances. All the republicans have to do is string this out for another two to three months, and then mid-term election season begins. This will mean that many congressperson who is considering voting in favor of the bill will be under great pressure from their opponent as they seek to be reelected. Also if they can hit another vacation then their might be another tea party resurgance which would just bog down things more.