Abortion, Women’s Health and Health Reform

KT- thank you for the wonderful hit piece on Sanford. I suppose since you boycotted any stories on Acorn you will also boycot the stunning revelations regarding Climategate. Funny, The NYT said they wouldn’t post the emails because of the way they were obtained..but ovecourse had no problem posting sara Palin’s illegally hacked emails. Liberal double standard at it’s finest. What else would you expect from the NYT. Hopefully, you will try to be objective KT and post a story about this shocking revelation.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read

It isn’t hard to see the theme.

Any concerns from the left, say a public option or female reproductive health, are really no big deal in the “big picture” and should be jettisoned for the “greater good”.

Our betters are here to help us.

Levine’s final paragraph starts “I do not mean to understate the importance of the abortion debate taking place.”

The only thing missing was Larry David’s “Having said that”

Karen, you’ve been very consistent and fact-based in arguing that the practical effects of Stupak may well have been over-stated. I argued with you a bit and you definitely brought some facts that made me stop and think.

But where do you stand on the big moral issue here? In a lot of ways my feelings about Stupak come down to this: a woman seeking an abortion, a legal medical procedure, really shouldn’t be lectured to by an insurance company or the government. Seems to me that the last thing somebody facing this decision needs is the outright hostile moral judgment of the Stupak ammendment, leveled against them by a government agency that’s first priority shouldn’t be moralizing but providing equal protecting under the law.

A couple of things:
.
Given the fact that the Hyde Amendment has been in effect for decades, and passes overwhelmingly, this does not seem to me to be setting some kind of precedent. I guess I’m guilty of precisely what P-NNTO accuses me of: I’m looking at a very big piece of legislation here, and this seems to me to be something of a side show. While the fight itself is probably worth having, I just can’t believe that anyone would (or should) base their vote on health reform on the question of whether it does or doesn’t include the Stupak Amendment.
.
Second–and this is why being in Washington can make you pretty cynical–this is precisely the kind of fight that I’ve seen organizations gin up over and over again (not just on this issue, but also, for instance, on guns). They overstate the real-world significance of a piece of legislation in part because it helps their own fundraising. As some commenter (Jay Ackroyd, maybe?) pointed out the other day, the worst thing that could happen to the anti-abortion groups would be for Roe v Wade to be overturned; the worst thing that could happen to the pro-choice ones would be for the Hyde Amendment to be overturned.
.
Again, I understand why it is important to have the fight, but I think it is part of my responsibility as a journalist to remind my readers–with evidence–why it doesn’t really matter as much as the interest groups want you to think it does.

Intelligence coupled with commonsense should relay to one that a women’s right to choose will continue as is and is just a wedge issue by the Enemies of Healthcare Reform to fracture, because a house divided, cannot stand!

Advanced Souls will not get involved in personality conflicts but are only concerned about the work — the Plan for Humanity. There is so much to be done. Time is running short. And, only the good of the Whole matters, and not the individual parts.

“The New Age will not be ushered in and find true expression of its latent energies through the medium of old and patched up forms, or through the preservation of ancient techniques and attitudes. It will come into being through entirely new forms and by means of the intelligent discarding of old modes of religion, government and economic and social idealisms. It is always difficult for the (Servant of Humanity and Goodwill) who is working in the world of human affairs to strike the happy medium between sound physical plane techniques in expression and the measure of the vision which he sees; it is never easy to adapt and to relate the old to the new, thus producing that which the present requires. The task of the disciple, (servant of humanity) as you can see from the three words—old, new and present—is therefore primarily concerned with Time. This right comprehension of the time element requires the eye of vision, plus right interpretation of that which it sees (or envisions).” [Discipleship in the New Age II, Alice A. Bailey]

More importantly, “we (are Higher Selves, the engery of light and love) are the Change we have been waiting for”. We must get too it!

“I guess I’m guilty of precisely what P-NNTO accuses me of: I’m looking at a very big piece of legislation here, and this seems to me to be something of a side show. While the fight itself is probably worth having, I just can’t believe that anyone would (or should) base their vote on health reform on the question of whether it does or doesn’t include the Stupak Amendment.”
.
You feel the same way about a public option, no?
.
You concede it is a fight worth having but just not now?
.
You mean for the left not now, for the right evidently now is the time.

There is no reason for a Stupak amendment when the Hyde amendment is the law and nothing in the bill changed that.
.
This is all political to try to kill the bill as there seems to be no problems with Insurance companies and Medicare, Medicaid following Hyde.
.
I would like to know the real reasons Stupak wanted to do this when he knew the Hyde amendment would prevent government dollars from being spent on abortion.

Explain to me how 1,000,000 abortions a year helps women health, reproductive?, or not. Explian to me how the mates of these 1,000,000 women are helping the helath of these women.

It seems to me that abortion is a cop out, easy answer to a complicated social issue, all wraped up around responsibility that doesn’t exist.

Once again it takes a male and a female to get pregnant and the woman pays the price no matter how she chooses. Abortion is hardly health care.

Here. This might explain why KT and any journalist with any integrity stays away from the ACORN stories your side has been pushing for a couple of years now.
.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004047850

At the heart of the argument presented is a basic reminder. We’re talking about poor people and what it will take to lessen the stratification which separates the comfortable from the hopeless.

While I think that the arguments regarding ‘fungible’ funds are grossly dishonest, I’m among those who prefer not to torpedo the entire health care bill over the language.

OTOH I think that certain factions within the Democratic party ought to get their a$$es primaried off the stage even if it means a few more R seats. Those seats are already worthless.

I watched the debate in the House when the Stupak Amendment was brought up. Many of the House Republicans were citing abortion statistics, which basically said the rate of abortion fell when the responsibility of paying for the abortion itself was placed on the woman.
.
I mean it makes sense to me if I am held accountable for my actions, in this case an abortion, and when I make choices such as having unprotected sex, then I may think twice about it.
.
Are there any links which substantiate this claim Karen? Are there any studies which show the claim by Republicans that the instances of abortion fall when the responsibility is placed on the woman to find the money herself and not simply be given the money by State or Federally funded programs?
.
In the article you cited it simply shows the percent of births avoided by health care reform that focuses on improving women’s reproductive care.
.
In this paragraph for example:
.

“This suggests that health care reform could lead to a substantial reduction in unintended fertility. Consider that there are 12.4 million uninsured women of childbearing age. Suppose that health care reform ended up providing health insurance for 10 million of them. Each year, roughly 7 percent of all women this age give birth, amounting to about 700,000 births to this group of women. If their rate of fertility were cut by 9 percent, then 63,000 unintended births could be avoided if health care reform is enacted.”

.
“Health care reform COULD lead to a substantial reduction in unintended fertility”. A suggestion that “potentially 9% drop in unintended births could be avoided”.
.
Let’s simply compare the two. What percent of “unintended births” would be avoided if we focused on responsibility? And what percent by focusing on the statement above of 9% of unintended births would be avoided.
.
I would also like to see a fact check of this claim as well, that there would potentially be “a 9% drop in unintended births”. Does Levine cite his source? Can you find his source to make this claim?

The first rule of journalism is that all data proves that liberals need to compromise on every issue.

The “real-world perspective” of Phillip Levine would suggest that Stupak is simply full of sh-t. This isn’t about being pro or anti-abortion. This is about common sense.

When the Hyde Amendment is already in place, would a rational anti-abortion legislator prefer to kill health care legislation that will result in a net reduction in abortions simply because one can play six-degrees-of-fungibility with federal funds? Avoiding an unwanted pregnancy in the first place should always be preferable to either aborting an unwanted pregnancy or bringing an unwanted pregnancy to term.

There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from Stupak’s amendment. Either the amendment’s supporters don’t really care if there are more abortions in America as long as they don’t financially contribute to paying for them or that the supporters are full of sh-t and want to sink the bill without taking the political heat.

But rather than rush out and demand an explanation from Stupak’s office, KT concludes that this is (yet another) battle not worth fighting.

Allow me to translate the theme of this discussion to you Paul:
American women, shut up, sit down and let your betters decide your private health issues for you. As women you are too emotional to make a major decision affecting your life on your own.

Too bad that only one half of the responsible party is the one being held accountable though.

Oh I agree with you queen, “responsibility” should be placed on both the male and female.
.
The other unfortunate thing is, our society has relaxed our morals, for the most part because of the Liberal / Progressive ideals that all individuals should be allowed to do whatever they choose with regards to sex, the stigma that once was prevalent when an un-married woman became pregnant in the first place is no longer a stigma.
.
Even at that time, pressure was put upon the male to “do the right thing”. When abortion became easy, this stigma has quickly faded into the far recesses of old morals and ideals of the past. The “free-love” generation / baby boomers have brought us this from their 1960′s movement. Fortunately I see the GenX’ers of today who are not in favor of “free love” and free wheeling sexcapades. They for the most part or the ones I am most familiar with have rejected it. Of course I think AIDS has had a major impact on it all as well. At least un-protected sex is no longer considered to be a rational choice. You may end up with something more than just a baby as the outcome of your actions.
.
This is why my opinion is so strong on why the responsiblity should be on the individuals who acted. It is a choice. If I choose to have sex, I am responsible for my actions. Not the Government. If anything, it should be the parents of those who become pregnant to pay for the abortion before the tax payer, in those cases where it is someone younger in particular. For the older crowd, suffer for a month or two until you can pay up the $400 bucks. Then the next time you jump into bed and have unprotected sex or go without birthcontrol, you may just think twice about it.

Thanks for the reply Rusty.
One of my big concerns is the issue of maternal/fetal health. Too often it seems that the argument against abortion start and ends with the idea that if the female in question weren’t such a slut, she wouldn’t be pregnant. But since she was and now is, she needs to just live with it.
But there is a whole other area out there. It pertains to women who perhaps wanted to get pregnant, but through medical issues the pregnancy has gone very, very wrong. Perhaps the mothers life is at risk. Yes, that happens. Perhaps the fetus has a profound medical issue(s). Yes, that happens too.
What about these instances? Is the woman just SOL at this point? Should she be made to carry a pregnancy to term that would result in her death at worst or at best jjeopardize her long term health? Should she be made to carry a fetus to term that a doctor has determined has such profound birth defects will not survive the birth or long after? Should she be forced to pay potentially thousands of dollars in medical expenses out of pocket because these situations can be considered an abortion?

As I read the Hyde Amendment it forbids use of federal funds for abortion use. Are you folks then arguing that this new health care reform is a federal government program? If not, then your argument that there is no need for the Stupak Amendment is at best disingenuous.

Levine’s argument may have some merit but I would be careful of his trend line analysis. His assumption that the 9% reduction would go on forever is specious. Currently according to study by a public health institute nearly 60% of those women in child bearing years already receive free contraceptive care at over 8200 family planning centers across the country.

What is generally omitted from this conversation is the serial aborter. All the numbers give the impression that all abortions completed are one and done. I have not seen any data as to how many use abortion as birth control.

Sex education of all sorts is now taught down at the middle school level and the availability of contraceptives (male and female) is more prevalent than ever. What is less prevalent is personal responsibility. The liberal talking point of having only safe and rare abortions is bogus and it is fair to have a discussion as to whether the public should shoulder the burden of the this “right”

Sure. Republican policies have been proven disastrous and totally intellectually bankrupt, therefore liberals must always compromise on everything.

On the other hand – I can see the logic that, realistically, the side who is trying to enact large, potentially game-changing legislation will be the side that has to compromise. Because the other side’s desired outcome is “nothing happens.”

(By “other side,” I mean the GOP + most of the blue dog Dems + Joe Lieberman.)

Progressives should fight knowing that they’ll need to compromise on some things. But the message from the media seems to be: Progressives should save everyone some time and give up everything immediately.

Also, I agree with Stuart that Stupak sets a terrible precedent. If Congress can decide which parts of my medical care will and won’t be covered, it means Beck and Palin were basically correct.

Today abortion – tomorrow contraception and HPV vaccine.

On the other hand I could argue that policy that results in over 1 million abortions a year has been proven disastrous and totally intellectually bankrupt. I would also not call it progressive.

“If Congress can decide which parts of my medical care will and won’t be covered, it means Beck and Palin were basically correct.”

If by intellectually bankrupt means you can’t understand it then yes you are correct. The Hyde Amendment has been in effect for decades meaning Congress has already told which parts of medical care is covered.

And only a surprise to the liberals is yes Beck and Palin were basically correct.

Phillip B. Levine: “The small group of women who decide to abort after their first trimester — perhaps for reasons of fetal health ….”

Dismembering and killing a human being in the womb is “for reasons of [his/her] health”? Killing is “health”? Interesting.

Can we also get this loon to elaborate on the thoroughly debunked and discredited “global warming” hoax?

freeinpa ” “Beck and Palin were basically correct.”

.
Hardly, Beck and Palin take no responsibility at all for society, there view is the strongest survive. They could care less for the weak, poor, disadvantage of all kinds, and society as a whole. Their concern is for themselves and their immediate family, and in Palin’s case I have doubts about that.

But that is another issue.

Are you folks then arguing that this new health care reform is a federal government program?

It is a big bill. To the extent that the bill touches on federal programs, the Hyde Amendment applies. To the extent that it doesn’t involve a federal program the legal, private medical decisions of individual citizens are none of your business.

It is clear from the remarks of Rusty and Textee, the Stupak Amendment is an attempt to achieve by subterfuge, what cannot be achieved in the light of day: restricting the right of citizens to obtain a legal procedure.

Make no mistake, I have no problem with those who are against all abortions. If abortion-rights activists want to argue that all abortions are wrong, they are free to have that debate. The proper method would be to try to amend the Constitution to ban the practice.

However, they know that that is a debate that they cannot win. The majority of Americans do not believe that a blastocyst is a human life worthy of protection. The majority of Americans believe that, at some point during pregnancy, a fetus becomes sufficiently developed to require against non-emergency abortions. Until then, it should be a legal procedure that and the government should butt out.

The effect of the Stupak Amendment might be minimal in practice. However, it is being deceptively sold to the public and that is objectionable.

allthingsinana

I was referring to Art Peppers response that if Congress limits some medical care that Beck & Palin were correct in that government panels would be set up to ration HC.

And I disagree with you assessment. You view their wanting people to be self-sufficient and responsible for themselves and their families as uncaring.

The liberal bent of caring for the weak and unfortunate is a farce. Liberals care as long as its with someone else’s money. For example, Bush was being castigated by Sarah Jessica Parker, the marginal Hollywood actress, for reducing eligibility to food stamps which impacted members of her family. She campaigned what a heartless bastard Bush was. Completely lost on this under-talented over-indulged actress was that maybe she should help ease the burden of her family. She lives a high life in the upper east side of NYC but wanted others to care for her family. Come to think of it not too different from Obama who rails about “social Justice” while he has family members in Africa with little in life.

Caring doesn’t mean just whining about injustice.

And that is what they are arguing is for the government to butt out. And butt out means federal tax dollars are not to be used to support it.

Its legal, you want it, pay for it- no government!

Thanks for reading and understanding my argument, Art Pepper, that’s the correct interpretation of what I said.

freeinpa “Caring doesn’t mean just whining about injustice.”

Correct it means providing for, things like affordable health care. It is not enough to say the poor is always with us. It is not enough to say abortion is wrong, it is too bad your pregnant, tough sh!t. It is not enough to say you have that child, but I do not care if you can feed him, care for him, give her health care, give her an education, a decent chance at life.

I know, I know she should have been responsible, but he and she wasn’t; now what?

Private health issues? Did you say “health?” Hmm, given the overwhelming support for health exceptions, I’d say the issue is not at all related to women’s personal health issues. …major decision affecting your life… And, of course, the life of the child. But who’s keeping track of all these lives involved anyway, it’s much easier to simply simplify the issue as a matter of one life. No child. No partner. No spouse. Just the would-be mother, the only life that matters, eh?

“The majority of Americans do not believe that a blastocyst is a human life worthy of protection.”

I admit that I have never seen this question put to the public, but assuming that you maybe correct.

The majority elected G. Bush twice, and the majority supported the start of the Iraq war, were they correct?

Just a thought on your rationalization.

allthingsinana…

Well I guess if you can’t make your argument you revert to the traditional liberal playbook. Bash an opponent. Bush nor the Iraq war have anything to do with abortion. However, since you want to make an inane comparison I will humor you.

Yes given the alternatives electing Bush twice was the correct thing to do. Kerry is the protypical liberal politician empty and arrogant. Despite his airs, as it was proven he was a worse student than Bush. So if liberals contend Bush is stupid he still is steps ahead of Frenchy Kerry. He has wealth albeit by marriage (twice). He married well but has done nothing of substance with his stead in life.

The intent of the Iraq War was right (which was agreed by many Democrats at the time) however the execution was disappointing.

So do I understand you correctly that the war was wrong and innocents were killed? If so abortion has been a 40 year Iraq war for liberals. By comparison Bush looks right again.

Correct it means providing for, things like affordable health care

You confuse providing with conscripting others to support irresponsible behavior. Letting folks to live without responsibility and continually bailing them out is not caring but cruelty.

Maybe teaching sex ed and handing out free condoms and condoning promiscuous lifestyles does have some downside. Libs complain conservatives want to control everyone’s bedroom. Yes when it results in liberals wanting to control our wallets.

freeinpa-
Allthingsinaname’s point was that majority sentiments do not inherently imply truth or justice. That the majority of Americans allegedly do not consider a pre-born child to be a human life does not suggest that it is not a life, that was his point. He used two examples in which square1 was likely opposed to the majority view-point to illustrate that citing majority opinions does not give weight to your argument.

I never argued majority opinion of abortion so I am not sure what either he or you are trying to say. Especially his Bush/Iraq majority and an “alleged” majority comparisons. He most likely pulled a stat out of a body orifice to make an argument on a blastocyte which is French for a human (I have no idea if its true or not).

And he asked for my rationalization for whether I agreed with the majority which I gave as a separate matter of Bush and Iraq

He twisted 2 other posts about the Stupak and Hyde amendment and what was legal. I merely stated that the procedure is legal and anyone chooses to have that procedure can— just not with taxpayer money. The rest of the nonsense the both of you go on about had nothing to do with my post or even the issue he raised.

As I said above, the liberal playbook re-direct the subject when the logic goes against you.

btw I’m actually mostly in favor of the HC bill (at least the House version), based on what I know about it. Not perfect but I think better than the status quo.

Letting folks to live without responsibility and continually bailing them out is not caring but cruelty.

Well that’s the Republican mindset in a nutshell.

Holy crap, freep! He was responding to square1! Chill…

freeinpa, Well I just got off work to read your comments, I do not see where I bashed anyone on this forum. I made my argument, you can except it or not. It was not directed at you but at square1, who I am sure understood where I was coming from.

I am surprised that you, who is opposed to abortion, so you claim, would not see the valid point that I made, that the majority, if there is one is not always correct. That is why it is important to consider the minorities point of view.

Who twisted two other posts about Hyde and Stupak, I never even mentioned them.

I will say it again and again. The far left and the far right are the same people to me, you guys are so hung up on being right that you are wrong.

freeinpa,

I am not talking about bailing out anyone, I am talking about supporting those babies we do not want to abort. Take your damn pick either you oppose abortion on a moral ground and see the necessity, of caring for those newborns, or you oppose it on as a political statement, without any compassion, or responsibility on your part. Which is it?

KT

Yes that was me.

I just can’t believe that anyone would (or should) base their vote on health reform on the question of whether it does or doesn’t include the Stupak Amendment.

You mean Stupak here? Or Baucus? That they shouldn’t base their votes on the presence of the side issue of how many women have access to this coverage?