The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health
Nov 7th, 2009 | 122 responses
Religious zealots succeed in making low-income women the sacrificial lamb for health care reform:
Abortion opponents won a huge last-minute concession late Friday night after Democratic leaders agreed to grant them a vote on an amendment that would effectively bar insurers that participate in the exchanges from offering coverage for abortions.
[...]
Leaders reluctantly made the decision after working for days to broker a truce that would garner a blessing from the Conference of Catholic Bishops. But the church, according to members and aides, wouldn’t accept a compromise crafted by Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth that would have established a body to make sure private insurance companies don’t use federal funds to pay for abortions.The move came as something of a surprise, but aides predicted it would be enough to break a deadlock that has paralyzed leaders for days as they scrambled to build the 218 votes they need for the health care bill, as well as a procedural measure to green light its consideration.
The Rules Committee is expected to give Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit private insurers from using federal funds to pay for abortion or allowing companies that participate in the exchange from offering coverage through those plans. Given the strength of the anti-abortion vote in the House, the amendment should pass when it comes to the floor and will therefore become part of the broader bill.
Ezra Klein calls it “a very bad deal to pass a very good bill.”
The final compromises before a bill comes to the floor are never very pretty. This one, however, is worse than I anticipated. …
The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
… The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate “abortion plans” is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.
I don’t think there are words adequate enough to describe how outrageous it is that a religious organization, representing a specific doctrinal set of religious beliefs, can walk into Congress and hold a piece of legislation hostage to their wishes. It’s just beyond me. Booman remarks:
I didn’t realize that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was a political party with elected officials in Congress. Now I know.
What I would like to know is if they have a tax exemption. If they do, they shouldn’t. It should be yanked asap.
I don’t even understand how this can be constitutional. Abortion is legal. This amendment will make it impossible for poor women to have an abortion. How can that not be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
122 Responses to “The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health”
I knew somebody would spout something wrongful about abortion after last night's votes.
(Just as I knew certain militant fringists would be quiet until the issue eventually surfaced!)
[sigh]
There is no “right” [sic] to a federal abortion entitlement — obviously.
Leo, you're right and the militant fringists, again, as usual, are wrong.
There is no “right” [sic] to a federal entitlement, and the militant abortion absolutism related to this wrongful demand itself is defective in multiple ways.
Sadly (or sickeningly, if more people choose descent in such manner), the militance is not surprising.
It was predictable — just a matter of time, or timing, and “reason” or excuse for it to emerge from below.
* * *
“my statement that as long as they don't practice irresponsible sexual relations it shouldn't be an issue still stands, as does my statement that I do not think its a moral obligation of anyone to pay for the stupidity of others”
Of course. Among all the possible examples of federal abortion entitlement demands, these are cases that are among the least respectable. These people are behaving irresponsibly, un-PC as this may be. (And to dispel the next, related, worthless militant demand, no, as a result, the public is not “required” or “obligated” to provide support for the child that has been conceived by these irresponsible people.)
“Non-government subsidized plans could offer what they want.”
That was established quite some time ago, in fact. I posted links to the text on numerous occasions.
Leo, the Stupak amendment is actually more clear, and better in other ways, than the earlier Capps amendment (which was the basis for the final version of the main bill voted on last night). If Kathy's remarks are frustrating, try Capps's remarks, instead; she was critical of the Stupak amendment and her (critical) remarks can be found here:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/07/c…
Postscript: Among Capps's critical remarks about the Stupak amendment was a breathtaking piece of typical liberal hypocrisy:
“Comprehensive health insurance reform legislation is not the place to be re-debating federal abortion policy, nor is it the place to dramatically expand or contract access to abortion services.”
Infanticide is murder, no matter what the “law” of the land is. There is such a thing as the Natural Law, and unnatural creatures like KKattenburg cannot be expected to understand this.
Dave, I respect your right to an opinion and I fall somewhere between your view and Kathy's. I', pro-abortion up to the point where a mental synapse is possible for the fetus, the point at which I see human life as starting, then I become pro-life. However, I cannot condone your reference to Kathy as an “unnatural creature” anymore than I could condone her saying the same of you. This label is uncalled for, and I think you should rephrase it. I would have no problem had you said “an overly partisan progressive creature”, but she is no more unnatural than you are.
“Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Abortion is legal. It doesn't matter if “some folks” think it's murder and don't want their dollars funding it. There are folks in your state who believe capital punishment is murder and don't want their dollars funding it.”
Typical liberal hogwash. Life for the guilty and death for the innocent.
“is legal. It doesn't matter if “some folks” think it's murder and don't want their dollars funding it. “
Now, Ms. Kattenburg, I'll use the very same argument you used on me in another thread.
SLAVERY USED TO BE LEGAL AS WELL. DID THAT MAKE IT RIGHT?
I'm sure many “liberal” abolitionists did not want their tax dollars going to support slavery supporting institutions.
Long time no see, Green! Glad to see ya again!
“ANY risky behavior, including sex, skiing, biking, swimming or driving a car, you are making a choice to subject yourself to higher risk of preventable illness and injury.”
If driving a car, swimming, or biking were to give you a gift when your were done that demanded care, education, or love you'd have a point. If swimming brought another human life onto the planet, you'd have a point. Taxpayers should not pay for sexual choices.
I agree with Leonidas, dave….
I disagree with Kat 99.9% of the time (until she wisens up and uses better logic – tee hee).
But to call her an unnatural creature is uncalled for. Let's keep it civil, bro.
You should apologize.
TO STEVEK: “Don't you have a clue? The rest of your reply was unrelated ranting.”
He typically rambles partisan rants in a noncohesive manner. I suppose you get used to it. If the Democratic party were to pass a bill that allowed the use of invalids as kicking posts, he'd be right there to defend it. He is a partisan, not a logic-weilding pundit.
You're a real class act JD.
Pro-life Democrats were responsible for the health care bill passing the House. I would have rather adopted a single payor health care system but let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Both pro-choice and pro-life zealots often lose all sense of proportion. Pro-choicers should recognize that this bill brings us closer to poor women getting much better health care even though it doesn't include abortion coveratge. Pro-lifers fail to recognize that even with the Stupak Amendment, improved access to health care would mean fewer rather than more abortions.
“Thats utter silliness. If a private company or individual wants to provide an insurance service for profit or out of philanthropy there is no reason to prevent them from offering this service in a free society.”
You're missing my point, and in fact, MAKING my point. Those of you who have employer-provided insurance are on the dole. All of you. You all get a government handout freebie that others, like me, don't. The federal government, through a selective tax treatment, pays $2,000 a year of your insurance. Hence by your logic, no procedure that is the result of your high risk choices should be covered. It's your responsibility. Why should we pay for your irresponsible bike riding? So you saying no insurance company that pays for abortion services should be allowed in the exchanges is no more sensible than my saying no insurance company that pays for ER care for risk takers should be. It's a stupid idea. Insurance companies are allowed “in a free society” to cover any legal procedure.
No, Andy, it is you who are trying to create this false distinction in which one legal procedure is denied by law from coverage but others are not. You think tax money should not be allowed to cover, or partially cover, abortions. It is just as sensible for me to say tax money should not be allowed to cover the results of ANY risky activity. The point I'm making, just to clarify, is that denying the ability of private insurers (who form the exchanges) to cover legal procedures one by one, is exactly the “government takeover of health care” that you teabaggers have been yammering about. It is YOU who want the government to micromanage what private corporations can offer.
Good to see you too Jefferson. I'm making two points that don't seem to be getting through.
First, MOST Americans have their insurance paid partly or fully by the federal government. As I pointed out to Leonidas, everyone who has emploiyer-provided health insurance gets $2,000 a year in federal help through tax code v.s. those like me and my employees who work in the most productive segment of American business, entrepreneurial small business. They get the mine, we get the shaft. So that huge segment of Americans had better be careful what they wish for when we start denying the right of PRIVATE insurers to cover any legal procedure if tax money is involved. So, first point, the GOP now is pushing for government control of the insurance offerings to MOST Americans (about 70% when you include those like you with 100% tax provided coverage, and those like the 25% or so who have government subsidized insurance through employers).
Second point is to Leonidas' point about unwanted pregnancies being the result of irresponsible behavior. That's certainly not true in all cases (not just rape and incest either, but contraceptive failure and misuse). On the other hand, some behavior, for example eating cheeseburgers, is ALWAYS irresponsible behavior from a health standpoint. Is that next? No tax money for procedures that result from other irresponsible choices. I intentionally exaggerated by including risky but fun things we all do. But my point is deadly serious. The case could just as easily be made that the taxpayer should not be required to patch up people who ski, bike, rock climb or scuba dive. No one HAS to do those things, just like they don't HAVE to have sex. If we want to make a procedure illegal, go ahead and change the law. But to sneak in a sleazy amendment about denying the right of a private insurance company to cover one legal procedure is ugly and opens the door to unforeseen consequences.
On the other hand, the foreseeable consequence of denying abortions to poor women, is more Democratic voters. Rich white women will always have access and will always be able to buy their way out of the situation you create for “lesser citizens.”
Might I suggest that in the future you take the time to read smaller items of legislation yourself before posting your “understanding” of it?
Fair enough. Point taken.
Thank you for this, JD. I appreciate it.
If driving a car, swimming, or biking were to give you a gift when your were done that demanded care, education, or love you'd have a point. If swimming brought another human life onto the planet, you'd have a point. Taxpayers should not pay for sexual choices.
lol, but taxpayers should be allowed to force women to give birth.
“but taxpayers should be allowed to force women to give birth”
Again, the logic here is that if the government doesn't pay for the abortion, the woman is “forced” to have the kid. If this is such an important point for the liberally minded, you've already got the charity to give to. We all have our priorities in giving, make this one of yours. You do not have a majority so the “we got the majority, the rest of you can suck rocks” claim doesn't work. The victim claim doesn't work, since rape and emergency exceptions are allowed. The “you don't care about the poor” claim doesn't work, because the cost is too small to be out of the reach of charity.
So, are taxpayers forcing women to have abortions, or skin-flint liberals?
Kathy, Kathy, Kathy . . . there is so much irony is this statement that how do I even begin?
1) I don't even understand how this can be constitutional. I don't like the government mixing politics with religion any more than you do. I would prefer that the U.S. Conference of Bishops not attempt to shape public policy, but I am not aware of any law that prevents them from lobbying just as any other lobbying organization, and there certainly is nothing in the Constitution that forbids religious groups from being lobbyists.
The irony, of course, is that while you seem very concerned about the Constitutionality of the U.S. Conference of Bishops trying to influence public policy, you seemed very little concerned about this new Health Care Insurance Reform law itself. Many people have argued that such a law is unconstitutional under the basis that the federal government providing health care insurance is not among the enumerated powers in the Constitution. I realize that you are unpersuaded by this argument and not likely to change your mind.
However, there is also the Insurance Mandate portion of the bill, which would force people to purchase health insurance and be liable to suffer penalties if they do not do so. This, as I understand it, is unprecedented in U.S. history. Time and time again, the federal government has provided services to the American people that some have considered unconstitutional. But this would be the first time that the federal government would actually be forcing the American people to purchase a product/service. Up until now, mandates have been done at the state and local level (i.e. car insurance, health insurance), but never at the federal level. Forcing people to purchase a product/service goes well beyond the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. If the federal government can force people to purchase health care insurance, is there any limit at all on what the federal government can force us to purchase?
2) Abortion is legal. This amendment will make it impossible for poor women to have an abortion. As I have made it known on several previous occasions, I am adamantly pro-choice. I consider abortion to be a very difficult and personal decision that must be made between a woman and her doctor. It is not that I support abortion; I simply do not want the government involved in this decision whatsoever. This is what being pro-choice is all about. It is not about favoring one choice over another, but ensuring that an individual has the opportunity to make that choice in the first place.
Apparently, this is not the pro-choice position that you and many others advocate. You seem to think that a woman's right to have an abortion extends to having others pay for that abortion. I don't agree with that at all. The freedom to do something does not imply that you are entitled to have the government pay for you to do it. I am adamantly pro-choice when it comes to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, pornography, and a host of other things. That does not imply that I would have the government force others to pay for me to obtain such things.
The idea that women are entitled to have abortions funded with taxpayer dollars goes against the entire notion of being pro-choice. Being pro-choice means offering individuals the freedom to choose between different options and not coercing them to accept any particular outcome. The requires absolute government neutrality in the matter. A true pro-choice position would argue that government should neither be funding nor prohibiting abortions. How can you demand that others respect an individuals right to have an abortion, but you yourself not respect an individual's right not to have to fund such a procedure? That is not a pro-choice position.
3) Lastly, I will say that the anti-abortion amendment was inevitable. This is what happens when you inject the government into health care. Not only are you giving the government the power to affect changes that you support; you also giving the government the power to affect changes that others support but that you do not. This is a natural consequence of government intervention.
When abortions are paid for with private money, pro-life advocates cannot argue that they are being coerced into doing anything. Since it is not their taxpayer dollars that are not funding abortions, they have not right to dictate to individuals whether they can or cannot have an abortion or limit access to abortion.
However, when abortions are paid for with public money, pro-life advocates are being forced to fund procedures that they do not agree with. One of the consequences of forcing them to pay for such procedures in that they now have a vested interest in how those taxpayer dollars are being spent. The funding for this procedure becomes been collectivised, and pro-life advocates are going to demand that if they are being forced to pay for abortions, then they're entitled limit how abortions are done, what type of abortions can be done, at what gestational age abortions can be done.
In short, by advocating that the federal government become involved in funding abortions, you and others are actually undermining the pro-choice movement. We have a situation now where abortion is legal. But by your insisting that the government be involved in the funding of abortion, you are implicitly giving the government the power to further constrain under what conditions abortion can and cannot be done. The outcome is that in your efforts to make it easier for women to have abortions (by having others paying for them), you actually are advocating conditions that will risk further constraining abortion rights.
Yes, JD, the slavery analogy has been used many times (ad nauseum, in fact) to argue against the legality of abortion.
First, the tax issue: Aside from the fact that there was no income tax at the time of slavery, and setting aside for the moment the accuracy of the analogy itself, abolitionists spent a lot of their time speaking out against slavery and politically advocating for its end. I believe that persons today who oppose legal abortion have the same right as abolitionists did back then. I don't like it, but they do have the right.
Now to the aptness of the analogy itself. There is no accurate comparison between individuals who have been born and fetal life in the womb. The fact that slaves were considered property, and not persons, under the law, does not change the fact that they were persons, in the definition of the Constitution. Indeed, the Three-Fifths provision in the Constitution was a concession to slave-owners that allowed them to gain the benefit of three-fifths of the slave population for apportionment purposes while still maintaining the fiction that they were not persons at all. Clearly, both sides in that argument knew full well that slaves were persons. No one is suggesting that we count fetuses as persons for purposes of electoral representation, to my knowledge.
Prof, clever parsing, but the fact is that social conservatives DO want to force women, all women, to have babies if they become pregnant, willingly or accidentally, whether or not they can afford to raise them, whether or not their fetus is healthy, and fully irrespective of whether those women are capable of or desirous of having a child at this time in their lives. The more extreme of those social conservatives don't want women to have the choice of using contraception either.
That's a moral argument, not a legal one. I understand that you believe abortion to be immoral. I understand that, in a moral sense, you believe abortion to be murder. Nevertheless, the word “murder” does mean something, and abortion, under current law, is not murder.
I believe the death penalty to be state-sanctioned murder, but I have to acknowledge that in some states, the death penalty is still law. In my own state, the death penalty has been abolished; in yours, it hasn't.
Leonidas, I just saw this; thank you. I appreciate your standing up for my status as a natural person.
GreenDreams,
Let's get a few things straight. To begin with, I don't need you to tell me (wrongly) what I think or believe. So quit with the “you teabaggers” crap. I am an abortion rights supporter and on the question of whether government should fund abortions or not as part of any medical care government provides or pays for, in general I think government should do that. But I have enough of a brain to realize that many – even a majority – of people in this country do not agree and I am not one to force such things down the throats of people who believe differently from me.
Additionally, what government ought to do is not the same thing as what government is required to do. Kathy apparently believes that failure to cover abortion violates the 14th amendment, which I think is poppycock, particularly since medically-necessary abortions are covered by government through medicaid and elsewhere and considering that not every medical procedure is covered by government programs.
Let rephrase that correctly, The federal government, through a selective tax treatment, steals $2,000 less of the money from your labor. I fully agree that there should be no special treatment as opposed to those self employed, but the nanny state has never been a friend of the self employed.
Blatant and silly strawman. No one has said anything of the sort. Easy to do well in a debate when you invent an imaginary opponent who's position you write yourself.
I wonder if the federal government will next take on funding the costs of the funerals of Darwin Award Winners.
No problem Kathy, I dislike your political positions most of the time, but I have no ill feelings towards you as a person, in fact I kinda like you and we would get along well I think if we actually met, as long as we weren't talking politics and maybe even then as well. Of course I don't think I'd let you near my jukebox. =P
P.S. My mother would probably love your tastes though.
In music, or politics?
That's a good answer to the wrong question. We were/are discussing funding for abortions, not legality. I'm holding back on my unconventional idea in that arena, to keep from getting too far off topic.
“And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”
Apparently, lefty bloggers like Kattenburg have memory capacity problems. Maybe there will be something in the bill to help treat the condition.
I am going to side with Leonidas and JD here, despite the fact that I would go much farther, and write into the penal laws of each state that if a doctor provides an abortion for a woman without being able to demonstrate that the woman's life was at risk, the doctor and the woman should go to prison for the highest level of murder in the respective jurisdiction.
At this point, this doesn't take anything away from women when they are in need, as defined by their health, or rape and incest. But what it does is prevent people from having to fund something that they consider to be immoral. Though abortion is constitutionally protected, and regardless of whether it should be or not (not at issue here), the Constitution does not mandate that it be protected. The analogies to war and capital punishment are inapposite because those two things, that is national defense, and enforcement of judgements, are listed as things the Government MUST take care of.
PBJFan,
You sound like you have very strong beliefs regarding abortion. I happen to be pro-choice, but I can understand why someone who genuinely believes abortion is murder could not bring himself/herself to support the pro-choice position.
However, the final sentence of your comment (which I highlighted above) is something that really struck me.
I happen to know several pro-life libertarians. They believe, as you do, that abortion is murder. And because they believe abortion is murder, they believe it is one of the rare instances in which the government should intervene to protect what they believe to be the fetus' (or child's) right to life (how exactly they would have the government intervene, I'm not entirely sure).
However, these libertarians maintain a consistent pro-life position. This means that they do not believe it is right for any person to kill another person unless it is in self-defense. As such, these pro-life libertarians also tend to be adamantly antiwar on the basis that innocent people are killed during war. When thousands of innocent men, women, and children were killed as a result our government's “shock and awe” campaign on Baghdad (a city with 5 million people), pro-life libertarians did not absolve the government of these needless deaths the way that many pro-life conservatives did.
So while I consider myself to be pro-choice, I can at least respect the pro-life position. But I would expect a little bit of consistency on the part of people who claim to be pro-life.
If one is going to argue that the killing of a 8 week old fetus is murder and should be punished but that the killing of an 8 year old child who dies as a result of our government dropping a bomb on him/her is not murder and should not be punished . . . then that person is inevitably opening himself/herself up to criticism that he/she is being selective in what constitutes murder and in what constitutes a pro-life position.
Just as an FYI, and not to be rude at all, because I don't mean to be, but, it's not PBJFan, but rather PJBFan. The PJB is for Patrick J. Buchanan, of whom I am a fan.
You are right, I have a very strong opinion on abortion. However, I am not consistent in that a) I believe that the death penalty is a correct and proper punishment for all people, juvenile or otherwise, who commit some crimes, including levels of homicide, rape, child molestation and other crimes, and b) while it is regrettable, the vast majority of those civilians killed in war are not killed intentionally, the way a pre-born baby is in an abortion. To compare deaths of civilians in war is inapposite precisely because it is not an intentional killing, and frankly, while not palatable, the loss of people in war is inevitable and readily excusable.
I find the “consistent life ethic,” as your friends appear to abide by, to be an absolutist position without any hint of nuance, whereas I see that my opinion does have some nuance. Just as I am willing to make exceptions for the murder of the pre-born, i.e. when the life of the mother is at risk, I understand that not all killing is immoral, nor inexcusable in other situations. The consistent life ethic position takes the position that no life may properly be taken.
Please do not, however, take my position as one of libertarianism. I absolutely am economically libertarian, but I am incredibly socially conservative. Think a debt hawk version of the second President Bush. I find the libertarian position to be intellectually consistent, but I also find intellectual consistency to be overrated as it generally leads to absurd results.
Darn! And here I was hoping that you were a peanut butter & jelly fan!
Anyway, sorry about the switching of the J and the B.
You, of course, are entitled to your views on abortion. I suppose I can agree with you that the individual civilians that are killed during war are not murder in the sense that they are not being deliberately targeted. But I still don't see how bombing a city filled with five million people (the overwhelming majority of which are civilians) is consistent with a pro-life position. But then again, as I recall, Pat Buchanan was one of the few well known conservatives that spoke out against the Iraq War, so if you're a fan of his, perhaps you also opposed the Iraq War?
That sounds pretty consistent with how most conservatives would explain their political views. However, I wonder if your economically libertarian beliefs ever conflict with your socially conservative beliefs. The reason I ask is because economically libertarian beliefs tend to be very laissez faire, while socially conservative beliefs tend to be as far from laissez faire as one can get. Social conservatives tend to support government intervention in a number of issues that I tend to classify as the traditional values and law & order issues (i.e. laws against drug use, laws against pornography, laws against obscenity). Such laws would necessarily violate the concept of free market capitalism, which is essentially what economic libertarianism is all about.
No worries on the J and B. I just like to nip it in the bud when it happens, because it is confusing otherwise.
Onto your points, I see and note that economic libertarianism and social conservative are relatively inconsistent. I just distrust government to regulate anything but morality, and I believe they can only do that somewhat well because they are elected by community consensus. But that being said, let me make one other point not made above. I believe the comparison to war is inapposite because I believe that, in defensive wars, i.e. not Iraq, we have a right to hit military targets even if surrounded by millions of civilians. That is a tragedy, yes, but it is done in our self defense.
I do oppose the Iraq war, because I do not think it was necessary, and I think that the facts prove that, and that the facts prove that the war was very poorly run. Just my two cents though.
“Pro-life Democrats were responsible for the health care bill passing the House.”
That's the part the foam-emitters are missing (this time).
That's what got the public option legislation passed, to be more specific.
Someone (Casual Observer?) made a bet with me that the public option won't ultimately survive. I was one of the few realistic people who was optimistic for its fate, at least in the House, saying that it was far from dead long after others had written it off. (I did not take the bet, on the terms he proposed, because I could not afford to pay what he demanded were I to lose the bet.) Note that the House legislation, with the public option (its core and raison d'etre for the House effort — the goal being federal takeover of health care, after all), survived, but “survived” indeed in the way that word implies — it was a close vote, not a big vote in the affirmative.
Now the effort goes to the Senate, and while I've given the lib Dems credit for the House recovery plus the momentum that the public option has regained, I must also admit that it's not big momentum (Obama can mutter about it, too, and only expect so much for results — members of Congress have been there in DC long before his arrival, and will post-date him as well), and that the Senate could easily kill, not merely diminish in substance and scope, the public option. Everyone has to look at all possible as well as likely decisions that can be, and might be, made. What if the Senate puts in a tough “trigger” rather than a bogus one? (Note that even a GOP-and-Blue-Dog-Dem”trigger lock” trigger could be picked later, if people are willing to be patient rather than childishly impatient or upset about it now, and of course most “triggers” will be equivalent of hair triggers if not simple cosmetics, only.) Now, what if the Senate removed the public option from its legislation, then told the House that it wouldn't vote for any conference legislation with a public option in it? Would the House refuse to accept anything without a public option? Would it refuse to approve anything with too restrictive or too limited a public option?
Reasonable compromise with extremist craziness was made on abortion. What about on something more broadly encompassing, and which is really the core of the lib-Dem effort, the public option as a whole? Will the House accept legislation without the public option in it, to be able to say it passed at least some legislation purporting to reform health care? Would it do better or worse in 2010 if it refused?
Those fringists who are abortion extremists now (and extend their extremism to radical feminism and crazier nonsense) have to realize there could be even more compromise as well as concession to reality and normality and practicality later. So, grow up and prepare yourselves.
“You're a real class act JD.”
Actually, you're right…Steve.
A few of those jabs were uncalled for. I think I was tired and moody when I typed that.
My sincerest apologies.
Jefferson
You are correcton the first point, Green about the “subsidized” insurance in the tax code. Very good point on that one. That's a new twist I hadn't thought of.
I have to side with Leonidas on the second. Irresponsible behavior is responsible for 93% of all unwanted pregnancies. Rape, incest (and all of the other reasons that are unwelcomed) consist of only 7% of those pregnancies. In those cases, I would still hate to see the baby murdered (as it was not his/her fault) – but I could more understand the motive.
Equating eating a cheeseburger, although similar, is in no way the same as unprotected or promiscuous sex. Eating unhealthy does bring problems later in life. But it does not bring a life into the world for which you have to spend 18 years loving, nursing, feeding, and teaching. If a PRIVATE insurance company wishes to cover that legal procedure, let them. But I absolutely do not want my tax dollars supporting something I see as murder. And the rich vs poor approach is tired. Liberals use it for every single cause they can – when not busy using racism. NO woman should be allowed to murder – rich, poor, white, asian, or whomever you wish to sub-categorize. Are you trying to tell me that poor women do not go to Planned Parenthood right now? Come on, bro.
“lol, but taxpayers should be allowed to force women to give birth.”
No, the tax payers want people who don't want babies to keep their legs closed.
Don't rock climb if you are afraid of heights.
Don't go into the ocean if you can't swim.
Do not have sex if you cannot afford the child.
It REALLY is that simple.
Kathy…. The slavery “analogy” was not an analogy. It was a turn on your own words used to say homosexuals are in the same boat as black Americans – you used “slavery” to say that those for it then are the same as those against same-sex marriage.
Abortion is more akin to slavery. Human beings were abused and killed while others looked the other way – and they are/were both perfectly legal.
“you believe abortion to be murder. Nevertheless, the word “murder” does mean something, and abortion, under current law, is not murder.”
The Supreme Court determined (somehow) that murder committed inside a woman's uterus was none of the government's business under the guise of “privacy”. That was very much like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion – not what the liberals were after – but the ends were the same. The Supreme Court did NOT say it was not murder. They said that whatever it was was behind the veil of uterine-privacy.
“I believe the death penalty to be state-sanctioned murder, but I have to acknowledge that in some states, the death penalty is still law. In my own state, the death penalty has been abolished; in yours, it hasn't.”
Let me guess. You think all war is murder as well? When the government kills to defend the nation, either from a foreign power upon it's borders or from a psychotic individual upon it's citizens – it can hardly be called murder. Even Biblically (which I know you hate hearing) justifies this by governments – not by people. Your state abolished capital punishment – that's great. That's the way it should be – your state does what your state's citizens think is best. It's always better to err on the side of life, instead of death.
PS. My state hasn't executed anyone since the early 50's and it was also abolished in 1965. I'm cool with that, since we are all armed. The death penalty is not needed when the would-be criminal dies in the act.
No, actually it's the opposite, JD. Forced pregnancy is more akin to slavery than abortion is. Abortion isn't akin to slavery at all. When a woman can choose and have an abortion if she needs one, she has control and autonomy over her own body and what happens to it. That's precisely what slaves *don't* have. And as a matter of interest, women living as slaves in this country committed a serious violation of law when they had abortions or killed their babies at birth. They were stealing the master's property — and also making a dangerously subversive political protest against slavery.
It REALLY is that simple.
No, it REALLY is NOT that simple. Women become pregnant and need abortions for all kinds of reasons, and to boil them down to “They couldn't keep their legs closed” is obscene both in terms of its accuracy and in terms of what it says about your opinion of women. No man who respects women could say a thing like that. Don't even bother trying to argue that you do, too, respect women, because those words are about as disrespectful as it gets.
Your window of experience and imagination is paper thin, JD. You really should do something about that. If you truly cannot come up with any reason for an unwanted pregnancy other than “not keeping their legs closed,” then you shouldn't even be debating this subject.
I have to side with Leonidas on the second. Irresponsible behavior is responsible for 93% of all unwanted pregnancies
That is a lie. Absolutely untrue, and not even knowable. Your presumption is breathtaking.
But I absolutely do not want my tax dollars supporting something I see as murder.
And I absolutely do not want MY tax dollars supporting something that *I* see as murder — namely, war and the death penalty.
You think all war is murder as well? When the government kills to defend the nation, either from a foreign power upon it's borders or from a psychotic individual upon it's citizens – it can hardly be called murder.
Of course, the way you frame the reasons for going to war is distorted and biased in favor of war. But aside from that, who are you to tell me that I shouldn't consider war to be murder, but you have every right to consider abortion murder? My opposition to war is no less legitimate or valid than your opposition to abortion. Only difference is, I don't get to choose not to fund it with my money.
My state hasn't executed anyone since the early 50's and it was also abolished in 1965.
Obviously, I am mistaken in thinking that you live in Texas. I remember you telling me that one time, but I must be wrong.