Reaction to Senate’s health care vote on abortion
December 9, 2009Jon Brooks Comments OffThe Senate yesterday rejected a health care amendment on abortion that mirrored the restrictive Stupak amendment passed by the House. The amendment bans federal subsidies that would be provided for individuals’ health insurance from being paid to any insurer that offers coverage for abortion. Abortion rights supporters were stunned and dismayed that the House, with its large Democratic majority, passed the amendment. Whether House Democrats can pass the bill without the restrictive abortion language is an open question.
Some reader reaction to the Senate’s rejection of those restrictions from the New York Times and Washington Post web sites:
The more relevant open question for me: the House didn’t have the votes for (the bill) without the Stupak amendment. Will the same hold true for the final bill? Was Stupak’s bloc just playing politics the first time around, or will they hold true on this principle?
—————————————————————————————————————-
The Senate has just passed a bill with a proverbial “poison pill” inside. By rejecting the Stupak amendment, the Senate has ensured a failed conference with the House. The House will not accept a bill without this language, so in essence this one decision by the Senate has defeated the heatlh care bill….Yesterday in the Senate vote, the abortion lobby won, but in doing so, they have caused all Americans to lose because their narrow self-interest has now doomed the health care bill for sure defeat.
—————————————————————————————————————-
The restriction that would prohibit “the use of federal money for any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger” is a reasonable one given the history of the abortion issue in the US. It is regrettable that so many Americans on both sides of the issue are willing to put at risk major legislative initiatives of grave importance to the country which only remotely relate to abortion in order to advance their side.The proposed restriction is not a bad one, it seems to me. It is fair to both sides. Let someone create a charitable organization that will provide funding for abortions that don’t qualify for fedreral funding – those who support abortion for all can contribute to it and get a tax deduction. Those who oppose abortion can know their tax dollars are not going to support it. Get this issue behind you and move on. It is issues like this that seem to render the US a nearly ungovernable nation.
—————————————————————————————————————-
The argument against federal funding of abortions because of one’s personal objections to paying taxers to fund what is morally objectionable is specious and disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst. I am morally opposed to capital punishment, yet my tax dollars fund executions. I objected to the Iraq invasion, yet my tax dollars continue to subsidize that effort. I’m sure that if I though about it, I could find other morally objectionable situations that my tax dollars are funding but I cannot make a claim to the IRS for a refund.—————————————————————————————————————-
Abortion is an elective procedure. There are some cases when abortion is medically indicated such as an ectopic pregnancy, or if the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother, or the fetus has a condition incompatible with life. At that point, once abortion has crossed the line from elective to medically indicated, any health care option should pay for it.
—————————————————————————————————————-
I think the issue has to do with the fact that the entire House is up for reelection next year whereas only a third of the senate is. Ostensibly pro-choice Republicans like Leonard Lance and Mark Kirk voted for it as insurance against primary challenges while many newly elected conservative Democrats didn’t want an additional albatross around their necks come election time.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Abortion is something that I think should definitely be covered. At least at the present time. People do debate about whether they think it should be legal or not, but since it is right now, I think that gives every reason for it to be covered. However, if abortion was not legal I think it would make no sense for it to be involved in a plan. If something illegal is going on why would it be part of a health care plan?
—————————————————————————————————————-
As a Catholic, I am tired being used as a pawn by the Republican party. If they were truly against a women’s right to choose they would’ve by now had the legality changed. Twenty of the last 28 years, and 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans were in control of judicial appointments, but they did nothing. It is evident that they don’t want that issue to go away. They use it to thwart almost every issue. Its use against health care is the latest scam.
—————————————————————————————————————-
The restriction that would prohibit “the use of federal money for any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger” is a reasonable one given the history of the abortion issue in the US. It is regrettable that so many Americans on both sides of the issue are willing to put at risk major legislative initiatives of grave importance to the country which only remotely relate to abortion in order to advance their side. The proposed restriction is not a bad one, it seems to me. It is fair to both sides. Let someone create a charitable organization that will provide funding for abortions that don’t qualify for fedreral funding – those who support abortion for all can contribute to it and get a tax deduction. Those who oppose abortion can know their tax dollars are not going to support it. Get this issue behind you and move on. It is issues like this that seem to render the US a nearly ungovernable nation.
