Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Healthcare Debate

So instead of a government subsidy that would allow abortion to be included - There logic is that taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for abortions but tax payers should instead pick up the tab for subsidizing unwanted children?

Abortion = $500

Subsidizing a child for 18 years =$180,000.00

I thought republicans were supposed to be financially responsible?

The below is an article from Today's CNN

Anti-abortion congressmen take on health care legislationStory Highlights
Group vows to fight any bill that fails to exclude abortions from scope of benefits

Group cites court rulings requiring Medicaid to cover abortions absent legislation

Exclusion amendments have been struck down in two committees, group says

NARAL spokesman: "Health care bills don't reference abortion at all"
updated 54 minutes agoNext Article in Politics »

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The contentious health care reform debate intensified Wednesday as a bipartisan group of congressmen opposed to abortion pledged to fight any bill that fails to exclude the procedure from the scope of government-defined benefits.

Without an exclusion, said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, "more than 200 individual laws" would be at risk.

"This issue is not about party politics. It's not about obstructionism. It is about saving lives and protecting pro-life Americans across the country," Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania, said.

"American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortion. Nor should they be forced to be unwitting participants as the abortion industry uses [the health care debate] to mainstream the destruction of human life into America's health care industry."

The group argued that, under the current version of the House Democratic leadership's bill, most Americans ultimately would be forced to participate in a plan that covers abortion services. They complained that amendments specifying the exclusion of abortion mandates and subsidies had already been rejected by two of the three House committees handling health care legislation.

"Without an explicit exclusion, abortion will [eventually] be determined to be included in [the] benefits standards" by either Congress or the courts, Pitts predicted. He cited the example of Medicaid, which federal courts ruled had to cover abortion services until Congress passed legislation stating otherwise.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, warned that any comprehensive federal health care law would pre-empt individual state decisions regarding abortion services

Don't Miss
Source: Some Democrats frustrated with health bill
"By making abortion an essential benefit and requiring that provider networks' enrollees have access to the items and services covered, this legislation would negate more than 200 individual laws in nearly every state that have stood the test of time and the scrutiny of the courts," he claimed.

Abortion rights advocates brushed aside the legislators' concerns, asserting that the issue of whether or not to cover abortion services would, in the end, still be decided by individual providers.

"Reps. Stupak and Pitts are obsessed with abortion, even though the health care bills don't reference abortion at all," said Ted Miller, a spokesman for the National Abortion Rights Action League.

"At the end of the day, we expect that the plans will decide what services to cover -- just like they do now."


Jenn'fer said...

Brian - I couldn't agree with you more.... I'm telling you, if men were the ones to get pregnant, this would be viewed like any other healthcare issue by policy makers... we wouldn't be having this conversation. And it's not because men are incapable of forming bonds with fetuses... it's that it wouldn't even come up as an issue. To me, access to this medical procedure is a civil rights issue, being painted as a moral issue.

Katherine said...

About abortions....not sure where you got the figure of $500, but that's on the high end of women's clinics in this region. But it's a moot point in the larger landscape of your argument.

Let me say a few things more about women's health care and abortions.
95% of Planned Parenthood's care is preventative and primary. By providing accessible, affordable birth control and accurate, fact-based sexuality education, PP in MN/ND/SD continues to *reduce* the need for abortions in this region. Additionally, the percentage of teen pregnancies in this country is at the lowest rate since 1980. The credit for this significant decrease is mostly due to accessible/affordable birth control and overall sex education for teens, male and female. It's damn unfortunate that factual sex education and birth control was not available to me and my boyfriend in 1968.

I also agree with Jenn'fer...if men were the gender to get pregnant, this would not be an issue.

Rocketstar said...

Republicans tout that they are fiscally responsible but Bush blew that out of the water.

They speak so much against abortion because it's easy, because they don't actually DO anything to help the actual problem, they actual preach against contraceptives etc... It's easy to spout off and not really do anything.

Ma said...

hmmm should we fund abortion or war
which one kills more
which one's better for society

funded or not
abortion and war
will both live on

some things come at a higher cost
than life and death

Tara said...

Hear that? That is the sound of me applauding you and this piece!

Katherine said...

One difference between abortion and war is that war will always be funded....and legal.