EconomyBeat.org » abortion

Reaction to Senate’s health care vote on abortion

Jon Brooks — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:11:03 +0000

The 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.

Health care reform – The big abortion compromise

Jon Brooks — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:55:52 +0000

The Democrats moved the health care ball a little further down the field this weekend, when the House passed its comprehensive reform bill by a slim margin. In order to gain the necessary votes, however, Speaker and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi had to allow the inclusion of a restrictive abortion amendment.

From CBS News:

The provision would prevent women who receive subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion — inside or outside of the proposed national health insurance exchange. It would also explicitly ban abortion coverage from the government-run plan, or “public option.” While it does not explicitly prohibit private plans on the exchange from offering abortion coverage, insurers would have little incentive to offer abortion coverage, since most customers on the exchange would pay with subsidies.

Online reaction has come fast and furious today. Just a sampling of user opinion, from the abortion section of the health care feedback forum on the New York Times web site:

I am against the war and our current prison system, but my taxes go to it regardless. We spend trillions of dollars on weapons and operations that will actually or have the potential to kill real live people and lots of them…But we can’t fork over a couple hundred or a thousand dollars for a woman to have a legal medical procedure? It doesn’t make sense to me.
————————————————————————————————————————
All women have a choice on whether or not to take a risk on getting pregnant, therefore that is all the choice they need on whether to get an abortion…Being poor is not an excuse for being ignorant.
————————————————————————————————————————
I hope someone in the IRS is taking a good hard look at the Catholic Church and other religious groups that claim tax exemptions and see if this kind of lobbying and other politically partisan activities is consistent with (them)…This is offensive to pro-choice voters and I will not be voting anytime soon for any candidate who caved in to this kind of religious bigotry.

————————————————————————————————————————
I’m tired of hearing about pro/anti abortion. We need to work together to prevent unwanted pregnancies through more effective and more palatable contraception methods AND to strengthen social /financial support for families with young children; our society makes it tough on young mothers and young children. A careful look at other first world countries will show better methods of helping people parent their children, such as fully paid childcare. And medical care paid by the government… Let’s talk about what’s possible, not about what a few women do with their bodies.
————————————————————————————————————————
I am pro-choice but yet I wholeheartedly support the abortion amendment to H.R.3962. I know that I will enrage many abortions supporters with my rationale but I believe abortion to be a discretionary expenditure (except of course in the case of rape, incest, pregnancy-related life-threatening maternal illness, and certain serious congenital or acquired in-utero fetal malformations/disease). This country is facing a budget crisis and health care costs need to be reigned in; the allocation and utilization of taxpayer dollars to undo what is essentially the unintended consequence of a voluntary act seems wrong…
————————————————————————————————————————
I’m a Pro-Choice Catholic…though believe (abortion) should not be treated lightly, (and) is in fact a grave and serious moral problem, I also believe that the state cannot prove that it has enough of an interest in restricting abortion. In other words…we have the freedom *from* the government taking away the right to an abortion, not a freedom *to* have an abortion. The government should neither deny nor aid procurements of abortions.
————————————————————————————————————————
After years of fighting for a woman’s right to control her own body, a Democratic President & Congress votes for this medieval legislation? I tell you, Senator Clinton would never have allowed this to happpen had we elected her President.. I feel completely betrayed by my own party. That applause was rifle shot, years of work being gunned down.
————————————————————————————————————————
Anyone who believes this provision will be in the final bill should contact me. I have some land to sell them. Pelosi did what was necessary to get votes to pass. But in the end, a group of Dems will put the House and Senate versions together behind closed doors, and compromises such as this will be left on the floor. Politics at its worst.