Abortion And Health Reform: A Real Issue

Taxpayers are already subsidizing most abortions. Since the federal government provides tax shelters for employer-provided health insurance, any abortion coverage in those plans are subsidized by all tax payers. This argument is another piece of right-wing nonsense to subvert health core reform. If Rep Bart Stupak and his other anti-abortion colleges were intellectually consistent (meaning honest), they would demand that all employer-paid insurance that allowed abortion should lose its tax exemption. Of course, we know how well that proposal would be received.

The GOP and those who should be like C Street member of the family Stupak, want to claim they are champions of individual rights and free choice. they oppose health care reform on the grounds that it is a government takeover, and then in the same breath demand that the government prevent private insurance companies as well as a public option from offering coverage that would include abortion, whether it is paid for with private money or not.
.
This is just plain outrageous. And frankly Scherer you are the one that is despicable here. You imply that it is the administration that is shifting decades old policy, when it is the GOP that is trying to use health care reform to expand their insidious reach into the bedrooms of every American citizens. To suggest the government should prohibit the inclusion of abortion coverage because they’ve put together a service to compete with private insurers is absurd and would truly represent a government take over of health care.

How dare they even consider allowing a public option to cover a legal medical procedure. What could they be thinking?

“Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortion,” writes Cardinal Justin Rigali in an Aug. 11 letter to members of Congress.

Last we heard from Cardinal Rigali he was complaining about BHO speaking at Notre Dame.

The amount of juice the USCB has should be measured in thimbles.

dee, The facts are not in dispute: Current policy, dating more or less since 1976, is that the federal govt stays away from abortion, with the exception of rape, incest and life of mother. This is true in the military, in medicaid and in insurance for government employees. (It is also mandated for the DC government.) What the Dem House envisions as a public plan is a clear shift from that.

The merits of that shift are another issue.

For supporters of abortion
.
Your own prejudices are shining through….

Is abortion legal in this country?

Michael continues his campaign to show an equivalency between the gross distortions of the Republicans and the statements made by our President. I call shenanigans.

…only for those women who can afford it. Ditto for justice…and HC too.

Is it a good moment to remind everyone that Henry Hyde was a hypocritical scumbag?

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/cov_16newsb.html

I consider myself pro-life but to me this is a situation where we either are or we aren’t. Either abortion in this country is completely legal (minus disgusting procedures like partial-birth) or it’s not. If it’s legal, then the government funds it. If it’s illegal, the government does not. So what’s it gonna be?
.
Though I don’t like my money going towards something like this, I’m sure anti-war citizens didn’t like their money going towards that cause either.

Actually, federal employees did, in 93 and 94, have access to the same reproductive services options as do over 80 percent of American workers. The ban on plan provisions permitting abortion reimbursement was reestablished by Gingrich’s House.

This issue does not just apply to health care reform proposals that include the public option, of course. This entirely fake issue (as noted above, the federal government now subsidizes private plans that include abortion) will not be sustainable under any planned changes, including the “co-ops.”

But abortion is such a trivial element of the health care reform process, is settled law for two generations and is widely supported by Americans, that I find the media obsession with the issue quite disturbing. You don’t see them getting wanked up over Viagra or other recreational drugs.

Michael, this post infuriates.

The MSM has done a terrible job of describing our health crisis. You have latched on to the “teabaggers”, ignoring town halls where the attendees who want reform outnumber the naysayers who have showed up to protest. The people who have suffered greatly due to lack of coverage get scant coverage. There is no sense of urgency about the looming crisis.

All the MSM wants is fireworks so they can gin up ratings.

I’m not saying abortion might not become a real issue but since the MSM is already ignoring large parts of the debate in favor of easy slogans throwing abortion into the mix just creates more controvery. Which of course is all the MSM really wants.

Abortion is such a minimal issue in the health debate that it doesn’t deserve to be included. You’re only playing into the hands of the fringe mob.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

I believe it is morally wrong for people to have any more than 3 children, because having more than this will lead to significant overpopulation related issues in the future and because parents with more than 3 children are unable to provide those children with the attention they need and deserve. Therefore, I don’t believe that coverage for anything beyond a fourth pregnancy should be provided under any government plan or any private plan available in the exchange to which federal subsidies may find their way.

Now, I don’t really believe this but we can see where this BS leads. I don’t want abortion to sink any chance we may have for significant healthcare reform but a) how can you prohibit covering a legal medical procedure, b) how can you prevent subsidies from finding their way to covering medical expenses for abortions, and c) even if the public plan – if there is one, of course – doesn’t offer abortion coverage, are you going to tell all of the private plans in the exchange that they can’t offer it well because somebody they cover who receives federal subsidies for health insurance costs might use those funds for an abortion?

Either make abortions illegal or treat them like any other medical procedure. I know the Hyde Amendment is the precedent here but that doesn’t mean you should continue following a stupid precendent.

And the anti-choicers can save it. Most of those same folks cheered on the billions we spent blowing up brown people in the Middle East. My tax dollars paid for that and I didn’t want them to…but I really had no choice, did I?

It would be naive at best to think that the main issue here is the legality of abortion. It is not …. if it were, there would be no need for this discussion since we would all accept that it is established law of the land.

Elective surgeries such as tummy tucks and the like will be far more (financially) expensive than a typical abortion, yet, the uproar you will get from a publicly funded tummy-tuck won’t even compare to a publicly funded abortion.

Publicly funded abortion on demand (murder) won’t fly in the U.S., at least no today. The government realizes that, and they are wise in doing so.

“How dare they even consider allowing a public option to cover a legal medical procedure. What could they be thinking?”
.
They aren’t.
.
This thing is sad and tired. Bottom line: it is legal. Period.
.
If that bothers you that bad either get the law changed or move out of the country to somewhere it is not. Off the top of my head I’m guessing that’s Mars. You know, where Bachman lives, within’ shouting distance of Palin’s house.

Fortunately, Obama and his administration are smarter than you, they realize that the “it’s legal, and if you don’t like it go jump in the lake” argument will not work. Hence the need to tread softly. I dare Obama or any other president for that matter to state categorically that federal funds will be used for abortion on demand … they won’t try it, they know it is a sure bet to lose. That kind of wacko case will only fly in Pelosi-land and a few other places in America. And don’t kid yourself, Pelosi does not represent main-stream America, she is on the extreme fringe, the same way Bachmann is way out there.

Making that case won’t be a question of having a backbone or not, it will be simple folly in the America of today, and I sure am glad it is. They know better.

Walking, can you link to examples of Pelosi being on the extreme fringe the same way (i.e. factually incorrect/insane) “the census is a government plot” Bachmann is on so many issues? Seriously, I don’t even think Pelosi is all that liberal and I don’t understand the demonization of Pelosi and her “San Francisco values”. What’s wrong with San Francisco?
I also think it may be helpful to look at the issue a little differently – I don’t think “abortion on demand” helps the discourse. I personally prefer to ask if abortion should be against the law. I would assume then, that people in Texas and Florida (big death penalty states) should be executed in the name of “life”. So far, I haven’t found any of these pro-crime people able to state who should be punished and how for having/giving an abortion. It seems the logic is make it illegal and people will stop having them, and if they still do, just pray for them. Or something.

I’m not advocating they do any such thing. (I’m also not purporting to be smarter than the Harvard graduate 1st Black President). What I am saying is that the vitriolic rhetoric around this subject is at it’s very best, useless. If the public option ultimately is to be a real alternative health insurance for people, it can have restrictions (and should) but it is pretty much impossible to fully ban abortion from it as a legal matter because it “is” legal.
.
Now how people decide to spin that for personal or political purposes is a different story. Put another way, a woman is told by her doctor she cannot bring pregnancy to term, it will kill her, but her government insurance won’t pay for the procedure. In what court do you think that will pass? Exactly.
.
I didn’t think I needed to be that articulate in my bashing of an old subject. I’ll be more careful next time.

Michael, thanks for pointing out that Katie Couric is now at CBS and no longer with the Today show. BTW, could you also point out that Steve Spurrier is now the coach at South Carolina and no longer at Florida? Thank you.

Well she is in favor of partial-birth abortion being legal, and voted against the 1st Gulf War due to environmental reasons. I realize the 1st Gulf War did cause environmental damage but to me the people of Kuwait are more important. I don’t think I’d consider her to be “fringe” but she is definitely solidly liberal.

I would only find this convincing if all money were considered to belong to the government, and therefore any money the government does *not* take via taxation is the equivalent of a government subsidy.

In other words, the government *not* taking money that belongs to the taxpayers is not the same as the government *giving* money to the taxpayer. It is simply the government refraining from taking funds. So, the fact that insurance plans are not taxed does not mean that taxpayers fund them. The government is not giving money for abortions; it is simply not taking the money in the first place, so whether the money is used for abortions or not remains a decision made by the private insurance providers.

First, contra deconstructiva, legality and accessibility are (to state the obvious) different things. Abortion is legal for everyone, and it is accessible to anyone who can afford it, who has a plan that covers it, or who can find a way to finance it through family, friends and charities.

Second, simply because something is legal does not mean that the government should fund it. I have always thought it was a nice way to recognize that a substantial portion of Americans find the practice fundamentally morally repugnant and would be aghast at the notion that their money pays for it. They would feel complicit, very directly, in the taking of an innocent human life.

I’ve always thought highly of those who could be pro-choice and, at the same time, not wish to require pro-lifers to pay for what they abhor. Are there not independent organizations that could provide the funding for those who seek abortions but cannot afford them? All of you who are pro-choice, would you be willing to send $100 to a charity so that anyone who seeks an abortion can afford one?

maurice, federal funds already can be used for abortions when the health of the mother is at issue. So the scenario you describe is a bit of a red herring.

And to “ban” funding for abortion in the public option is not to deny that abortion is legal; it’s simply to say that we recognize that this legal procedure is a matter of great moral division within our country, and we as a people are going to be sensitive to that and not require those who fundamentally abhor abortion to pay for it.

I understand the pacifists-pay-for-the-military objection, and I acknowledge that objection has force. I don’t find the parallel particularly strong, because the military serves for a national security that we all enjoy, and the vast majority of that funding does not go toward the taking of lives. But I recognize it’s a tough case, and I’d be happy to explain why I think they’re different another time.

[...] Michael Scherer from Time commits the unforgivable sin of suggesting (and explaining more fully in Time) that protesters are not [...]

I didn’t realize supporting doctor’s making medical decisions, versus congress or the courts, makes you an extreme liberal (not that there’s anything wrong with that ). And not being crazy like Michelle Bachman does not make Pelosi Michelle’s opposite. I’m looking for bat-sh-t insane statements on a par with things like this:

Michelle Bachman sees a boogeyman under every bed. She is not just a conservative, she is an ignorant conservative who, based on her incendiary statements, is not practicing politics in good faith.

[...] August 24: Time: Abortion And Health Reform: A Real Issue [...]