An Abortion Carried Too Far

See the lobby from the Catholic bishops also concerns me in that I'm wondering if they'll target contraception next. Now if you WANT to see a national health care crisis, there's going to be nothing like a new baby boom on top of a lack of abortion coverage. Suggesting that the single and free of heart might need to be more responsible is one thing, but telling an entire country that married couples shouldn't have sex unless they want a gazillion kids is quite another.

Then we get back to exceptions for abortion coverage that even most right-wingers would not have much (if any) issue with. Cases where the mother could suffer extreme health problems (but probably not death) wouldn't be covered. Multifetal pregnancy reduction (easier to Google with that term, and much more common than I first thought) would not be covered, yet there is no restriction on fertility treatment. (Not that fertility treatment would be a requirement for multiples, but it does increase the odds.)

I'm pretty sure that an ectopic pregnancy would be covered, since that is something that would result in death, but the wording of the amendment seems to place on conditions on whether or not death to the mother would be an exception where abortion could be covered. I do know that the Catholic church does allow for abortions in cases of ectopic pregnancy, since my mother has been a nurse working for St. Vincent's Hospital since before I was born. The wording of the amendment is just bad.

In our present (screwed-up) health care system, where do poor women get abortions now?

Are you telling me that poor women are not getting the abortions they want now?

I thought privately funded places like Planned Parenthood existed for that very reason.

Am I missing something?

Do you really think they won't think of a way to target PP even more than they do now, JD? The Republicans of Missouri have been working really hard to make certain that no family planning money from the state can go to them under any circumstances.

My understanding is that while abortion is legal it has become increasingly difficult to find access to it, thanks mainly to anti-choice groups, many of which are radical in the extreme. Maybe someone else has more info on that.

From the NPR article:

"A recent poll taken by Catholics for Choice shows that most Catholics support abortion coverage in health care reform, especially in cases of rape, incest and fetal abnormality. Furthermore, 68 percent of Catholics say the church would be wrong to oppose the entire health-care reform plan merely because it includes coverage for abortion."

As we can see, this lobbying effort by the catholic bishops isn't even in synch with thier parishioners, which is a dynamic that seems increasingly prevalent when it comes to special interest groups influencing government at the expense of fair representation of the people. Sep of church and state comes to mind also.

By the way, if abortion access becomes sufficiently difficult, then it hardly matters whether or not it's legal, and that I'm sure is the rationale (and i use the term here very loosely) of the more rabid anti-choice folks. That said, access to safe abortion for the very wealthy will continue to be available, even if abortion becomes illegal.

"The bill passed by the House prohibits a woman from getting an abortion even if she pays for it if any of the insurers involved receive federal subsidies. "

That's not true. I've already wasted too much time on multiple threads trying to convince others, so I'm not going to do that extensively on yet another thread. You have to read the amendment (as with all legislation) very carefully.

The amendment allows plans that cover abortion to be part of the exchange, as long as the insurance provider provides another plan that is equivalent except that it does not cover abortion (and presumably costs slightly less), and someone receiving federal subsidies cannot buy the plan that covers abortion. Of course that wouldn't help poor women, which is why the amendment also allows for supplemental "rider" insurance to be purchased on top of a base plan, regardless of whether that base plan is subsidized or not. The rider insurance is likely to be cheap (since it only covers one unlikely and relatively inexpensive procedure, compared to other costs), and easy to add on the base plan (the insurers have an incentive to make it as easy as possible).

Therefore, the amendment does not unreasonably restrict access to abortion. It simply maintains the status quo, which is that tax-payer money should not go toward abortion, while still allowing those who want the coverage to get it without undue burden.

"Sep of church and state comes to mind also."
This is lobbying, which allows everyone, regardless of whether they represent their constituents beliefs (see AARP on the balanced budget amendment and unions on card check for more information), or whether they live directly on federal funds.

The first amendment is not being violated here, put it to rest.

the catholic bishops isn't even in synch with their parishioners

I have no God in this debate, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the whole basis of the Catholic Church that they provide teaching and spiritual guidance to their practitioners?

In other words, the Church is not a democracy, and does not take polls to determine what its position should be on various moral issues. I may not agree with it (and I don't in this case), but I respect them more for standing up for a core belief they have stated over and over and over again rather than caving in to populism that contradicts their tenets.

I thought privately funded places like Planned Parenthood existed for that very reason.

Many women's health clinics (which provide many other reproductive and gynecological services besides abortion) have shut down because of anti-choice violence or threats of violence. The ones that remain often are subjected to harassment from anti-choice activists who confront women going into the clinic (again, many of whom are not even pregnant and/or are not going into the clinic for an abortion) and call them baby killers and murderers.

The rider insurance is likely to be cheap (since it only covers one unlikely and relatively inexpensive procedure, compared to other costs), and easy to add on the base plan (the insurers have an incentive to make it as easy as possible).

AD, if a woman does not have the money to pay for basic necessities like food, housing, clothing, etc., how likely is it that she will be able to afford rider insurance? You say the rider insurance is "likely to be cheap" -- which means you really don't know. And if you're wrong and the rider insurance is not cheap (which of course is a relative term anyway), your incorrect guesstimate is not going to be any problem for you. You also say that "insurers have an incentive to make it as easy as possible." Why? What's the incentive? Encouraging poor women to spend a few extra dollars? (It's going to be cheap, right?)

"As we can see, this lobbying effort by the catholic bishops isn't even in sync with their parishioners, which is a dynamic that seems increasingly prevalent when it comes to special interest groups influencing government at the expense of fair representation of the people. Sep of church and state comes to mind also. "

Well why should it be? Assuming the church is not simply acting as a lobbying group for it's members, but rather speaking as to it's religious standards, isn't that the way it should be. Mind you I'm not religious but the idea that religious tenets should be voted on just seems off. If that's the case why not the "Church of We Made it up to Give Us Something to do on Sunday". You wouldn't have to worry about following any tenants because they are all bs anyway right?

Sure I'm BSing, but you get what I mean. If religion is to be taken serious by anyone then the principles have to be pretty firm and not subject to polling data.

The reasoning in itself is contradictory and unfair to women who cannot afford abortion procedures.

Exactly, what is fair about the government taking your money to pay for an abortion of a pregnancy you are not responsible for just because someone else hasn't been very successful at life and can't afford it? If its not rape or a danger to the mother let the parents be responsible for their own actions. If they have to actually be accountable for their own acts, maybe they would have more sense and make wiser decisions. I'm not in favor of rewarding idiocy.

I applaud the Catholic Church for running a network of hospitals and promoting universal health care coverage. At the same time, I am appalled that representatives of Catholic bishops successfully lobbied the House of Representatives to take its anti-abortion issue to the ultimate extreme.

Why should a religious group be allowed to lobby for one and not the other? Seems hypocritical.

AD, if a woman does not have the money to pay for basic necessities like food, housing, clothing, etc., how likely is it that she will be able to afford rider insurance?

People have to eat and have shelter, last I heard having sex (unless rape) was voluntary.

You say the rider insurance is "likely to be cheap" -- which means you really don't know. And if you're wrong and the rider insurance is not cheap (which of course is a relative term anyway), your incorrect guesstimate is not going to be any problem for you. You also say that "insurers have an incentive to make it as easy as possible." Why? What's the incentive? Encouraging poor women to spend a few extra dollars? (It's going to be cheap, right?)

I think the incentive should be for them to make responsible decisions and be held responsible for their voluntary actions and not hold the taxpayer hostage to the sexual choices of the parents involved.

Many women's health clinics (which provide many other reproductive and gynecological services besides abortion) have shut down because of anti-choice violence or threats of violence. The ones that remain often are subjected to harassment from anti-choice activists who confront women going into the clinic (again, many of whom are not even pregnant and/or are not going into the clinic for an abortion) and call them baby killers and murderers.

You tell them Kathy, we all know they should be protesting at the personal home of wall street execs and harrassing and confronting those folks, right! Or maybe harrassing the military offices and calling the soldiers names!

That sarcasm being said, I don't condone any threat of violence by left or right, but they have as much right to protest as Cindy Sheehan, or Greenpeace, Code Pink or any leftie group.

Leonidas quoted this:

I applaud the Catholic Church for running a network of hospitals and promoting universal health care coverage. At the same time, I am appalled that representatives of Catholic bishops successfully lobbied the House of Representatives to take its anti-abortion issue to the ultimate extreme.

...and commented:

Why should a religious group be allowed to lobby for one and not the other? Seems hypocritical.

It doesn't just seem hypocritical, it's incredibly hypocritical. Basically Patrick is saying that religion should be part of our political process as long as its to advocate for a position that he agrees with.

And one more point about that quote...how can one possibly argue that the Church's position (or that of Stupak or the other reps who voted for the amendment) are being extremists when their position is to uphold the Hyde Amendment which has been part of federal law for decades?? And in case anyone didn't notice, Obama has also come out in favor of this kind of language in the bill, to keep the status quo with regard to taxpayer funding for abortion. Are you appalled at his 'extremist' position as well?

Others have already covered some of the other rebuttals- adelinesdad summed up the mistatement of what the bill actually allows or disallows, and a EEllis and others have pointed out that a church takes a moral position based on theology, not a democratic representation of the political viewpoints of its members. I would also point out though that the majority of actually practicing Catholics (those who attend Mass regularly) DO oppose abortion. It's when all nominal Catholics are surveyed that the opinions more closely mirror the population at large, and no wonder, since there are tons of people who consider themselves Catholic by their heritage and not by their beliefs.



One final point I'll make is that the bishops' statements about closing Catholic hospitals has to do with whether or not conscience waivers remain in place. Since there is a vast network of hospitals funded by the Catholic Church which provide needed health services in many, many communities that are otherwise not served, their voluntary participation in the healthcare system should not be met with a slap in the face by being forced to provide a service that is morally repugnant to the providers who work there. Those who believe that abortion is both morally permissible and necessary are free to provide that service.

"You say the rider insurance is "likely to be cheap" -- which means you
really don't know."

Give me a break, Kathy. It's impossible to "know" what will happen in the
future with certainty. But that doesn't stop us from making decisions,
enacting legislation, and Obama signing trillion dollars spending programs
based on what we think is "likely" to be true. Would it help if I put the
words "very, very, very" before the word "likely"? Please give me an
example of any substantive prediction about the future that any liberal has
made to support any public policy that you know with certainty to be true.
Otherwise, let's not further complicate a debate that has already gone on
too long (5 threads and counting) by bringing up such petty objections.

"What's the incentive?"

Even if the coverage is cheap, the insurance company still makes some profit
off of it, otherwise they wouldn't offer it. Therefore, they have an
incentive to try to get people to buy the supplemental coverage, and to make
it as easy as possible to sign up.

"how likely is it that she will be able to afford rider insurance?

I didn't make any judgment on whether a particular poor woman would be able
to afford it, except to say that it would be cheap (in the range of a few
dollars a month would be my estimate). So yes, the poor woman will have to
pay for the abortion herself, either out of her own pocket or through the
(very, very, very likely to be cheap) supplemental insurance which she still
may or may not be able to "afford". I understand you think that is a
travesty, but it does not address my one and only point, which I will repeat
again: the Stupak amendment does not restrict access to abortion any more
than it is currently restricted. Poor women currently don't have access to
government subsidized abortion, so the amendment maintains the status quo.

the Stupak amendment does not restrict access to abortion any more
than it is currently restricted. Poor women currently don't have access to
government subsidized abortion, so the amendment maintains the status quo.

Fifty million Americans don't have access to health insurance. That is the status quo, too. I understand that denying poor women access to health care (by not subsidizing it, which effectively denies access) is the status quo, but expanding that status quo to new legislation the entire purpose of which is to reform health care delivery and provide access to it for Americans who don't have it is not necessarily a logical conclusion. At any rate, it fails to persuade me either as a moral or a practical argument.

KK: I object to the use of the term "anti-choice." It's Orwellian double-speak of the first order, because it seems to imply that those who speak out for unborn children are painting women with unwanted pregnancies into a corner, leaving them no options. In fact (except in cases of rape and incest), there are at least three other options: 1) abstinence; 2) conception control, and 3) adoption. As for the Roman Catholic church pushing through its views on contraception, I suppose the Chicago Cubs could also win the World Series -- possible, but unlikely to the nth degree.

If religion is to be taken serious by anyone then the principles have to be pretty firm and not subject to polling data.

Exactly, and precisely the reason the lion's share of Christian churches still oppose the recognition of gay "marriage." Long-held convictions (as in two thousand years or more) aren't subject to the latest polling data. But hey, that other debate is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish....

Look: let's boil this thing down shall we?

If unwanted pregnancies are being forced on one sector of the population by another, then the one doing the forcing shall be responsible for the consequence$.

So we resolve the national conundrum with abortion in this way: We have a registry where if you want to vote on the abortion issue one way or another, you have to sign your name on a restricted register only viewed by the IRS and whether or not you are for or against it. If you do this you may vote in a national vote. If you succeed in making a woman's right to choose go away, then you will be taxed for your morality. You will be made to put your money where your mouth is. Your extra tax [not assessed to those who voted for a woman's right to choose] will go to pay for a large fund that takes care of all related expenses for the upbringing, health, education and safety of children's issues until they turn 18. ALL of them since from that point on everyone will claim they had an unwanted pregnancy to get funds to help support their children.

So if you truly believe in compassion for children, prove it. You can't have it both ways. You should be willing to pay, indeed happy, giddy to pay an extra tax to support the raising of youth in our country. You DID remember that youth result from pregnancies right? And that adults result from the youth? And if the youth grow up essentially, fiscally, unwanted, then as an adult they're going to cause trouble? More expenses? Prisons? Any of this ringing a bell?

If the do-gooders want to shove trillions of dollars in unwanted expenses down the throats of the taxpayers, then we at least should have a vote on the matter. We should have a formal assessment done of the number of unwanted pregnancies yearly, the costs in terms of welfare support, medical, dental, food, shelter, education, transportation and sundries for each child multiplied by the number of unwanted pregnancies. Yearly this could be assessed and the general budget for this fund amended accordingly. Not hard to do. Simple math.

As a deterrent to serial abortions in some women, make the funds to pay for the procedure only availible for her to have one or two of them. Then on she pays out of pocket for the entire expense or does jail time or community service.

And every five years or so we should revisit the vote. "Do you still want abortion illegal?", the same registry with the IRS and so on. Just a wild prediction here but I'd imagine that in 10 years or less pretty much the entire country will be quite solidly behind a woman's right to choose..

"Many women's health clinics...have shut down because of anti-choice violence or threats of violence. The ones that remain often are subjected to harassment from anti-choice activists who confront women going into the clinic."

This is one place where you and I may agree. As long as abortion is legal, harrassing women who use these legal services should be illegal or at least enforced if it is already illegal. The only legal recourse for those who are upset about abortion is through government petition or general protesting. You should know by now that I condemn ANY violence and any harrassment toward anyone - for their beliefs - especially when they fall within the law.

"if a woman does not have the money to pay for basic necessities like food, housing, clothing, etc., how likely is it that she will be able to afford rider insurance"

If a woman cannot afford food, housing, or clothing, then she would be on a "medical card" or medicaide for non-abortion health care.. She also has privately funded organizations to have abortions (as was mentioned above) that remain open. To my knowledge, there are still free abortion clinics in every city over 80,000 population nationwide.

"I don't condone any threat of violence by left or right, but they have as much right to protest as Cindy Sheehan, or Greenpeace, Code Pink or any leftie group"

The one thing we must remember, Leo... is that people have the right to protest the government - not protest private citizens. Sheehan and the others who protest military members is wrong in that respect - as is pro-lifers protesting abortion clinics.

(To EEllis)
"Exactly, and precisely the reason the lion's share of Christian churches still oppose the recognition of gay "marriage."


This is also true of abortion. In the first century, it was a common practice that Roman women would leave their children to die amongst the refuse outside their homes. The Christians within the Roman Empire would pick up these "aborted" babies and care for them as their own. I wish we all continued this selfless act. That way, the liberals could continue their beloved promiscuity without having to result to murder. Everyone is happy.

So you object to the amendment because it does not expand access to
abortion. I agree. It doesn't expand access to abortion. Given that you
feel that there is not enough access to abortion, I can understand why you
would be opposed to the amendment. What I object to is people trying to
argue that the amendment restricts abortion access further than it is
already restricted, such as was done in this post and many other posts by
you and others, and the Huffington Post.

JD, I cannot find a reference to the rescue of abandoned children in Roman times and their rescue except on Christian web sites. Do you know of a more general historical reference?

Redbus,

I am not surprised that you object to the use of the term "anti-choice." I object to the use of the term "pro-life" for reasons that are comparable to yours.

it seems to imply that those who speak out for unborn children are painting women with unwanted pregnancies into a corner, leaving them no options. In fact (except in cases of rape and incest), there are at least three other options: 1) abstinence; 2) conception control, and 3) adoption.

The first two of those options are not choices at all for a woman who is already pregnant. The last option is a possible choice in some instances, but it does not help the woman whose health or life would be endangered by carrying a pregnancy to term -- nor, obviously, does it help a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest (and I know you did acknowledge that second point).

Additionally, the first two options are not logical choices, in many situations, even for a woman who is not pregnant but wants to become pregnant. If you want to become pregnant -- if you want to have a child -- clearly abstinence or "conception control" is not the way to get there. Adoption also is not a helpful choice in the instance of severe fetal abnormalities or genetic illnesses (like Tay-Sachs) if a woman does not want to bring a child into the world who is going to suffer horribly and die within a few years of birth.

Glad we can have something to agree on when it comes to this subject.

You should know by now that I condemn ANY violence and any harrassment toward anyone - for their beliefs - especially when they fall within the law.

I do know that, and I was not suggesting otherwise. I was merely answering your questions, as follows:

"n our present (screwed-up) health care system, where do poor women get abortions now?

Are you telling me that poor women are not getting the abortions they want now?

I thought privately funded places like Planned Parenthood existed for that very reason.

Am I missing something?"

She also has privately funded organizations to have abortions (as was mentioned above) that remain open. To my knowledge, there are still free abortion clinics in every city over 80,000 population nationwide.

Many women's health clinics (which provide many other reproductive and gynecological services besides abortion) have shut down because of anti-choice violence or threats of violence. The ones that remain often are subjected to harassment from anti-choice activists who confront women going into the clinic (again, many of whom are not even pregnant and/or are not going into the clinic for an abortion) and call them baby killers and murderers.

You can save everybody a lot of time and money by reversing that, and making all those that want abortions for the poor to pay the rather small amount it takes to give it to them. Since most of those people believe that taxes are the only legitimate form of charity, and that we should all feel good about paying our taxes as long as some small pittance goes to a cause that we believe in, they should be all too happy to sign up.

Or both. We can always trust politicians to make it all come out right in the end anyway, can't we?

I was interested in what you thought about MagicalSkyFather's post from another thread:

"why I push pro-lifers to invest in companies that research removal of the fetus(to be put into a willing recipient or a test tube whichever works and is acceptable/profitable) instead of making the process illegal which just hides it. "

This, in combination with a step of of Christian groups pushing adoption of would-be aborted babies could possibly eliminate the need. Plus, it would not "FORCE" term-pregnancy as you like to state.

I don't think I saw that post from MSF, but I think it's a terrific idea. I have said before (maybe not here) that the day fetuses (or earlier) can be removed from women's bodies (just like fertilized eggs are implanted now for couples who want to have children but can't), the abortion issue will be solved.

And I am certainly all for fixing the bureaucratic and expensive nightmare that adoption often is now. I think that making adoption a more user-friendly, welcoming, transparent, and financially feasible process will in turn make it easier for women in crisis pregnancies to choose adoption instead of abortion -- when the pregnant woman's circumstances make that a viable choice.

I'm not so sure about fetal-transplant idea -- we're getting into quite a bit of legal and emotional messes with third-person infertility treatments.

But thank you, for wanting to fix the current adoption system. I think it's definitely passed the point of protecting kids to death, at this point.