Health Reform and Abortion

This is just plain ridiculous. There are plenty of Americans who are anti-war and would just as soon see the military disbanded, but they don't get to decide not to have their tax dollars spent on military budgets. Anti-Wall Street citizens don't get to forbid their tax dollars from being used for bailouts. And even more importantly folks like me who are anti-stupid don't get to deny using our tax dollars for rebuilding in the flood plains over and over again, to build more jail cells than schools, or continuing to fight a war on drugs despite the evidence of its failure.
.
Just as what's covered by Medicare determines what's minimally covered in private insurance now, a public option in health reform will determine what's minimally covered in the future.
.
There's nothing tricky about this at all. If these 19 lawmakers refuse to sign on to health reform because they can't get their way on denying women access to a legal procedure that we as Democrats claim is her right to choose, then shame on them and good riddance because they won't be getting reelected for another term anyway if they oppose health care reform.
.
I know plenty of voters who are sick and tired of having important issues decided by ideologues. If you are opposed to abortion then darn it don't have one.

Oh for pete's sake. Abortion is legal in this country. That means insurance companies should probably cover them. Pelosi would be a fool to negotiate with those idiots. Isn't it the classic case of putting someone between a patient and their doctor?! You have got to be frikkin kidding me. She should have laughed their ass es right out of the building. Especially since these same ass holes I am sure are against the public option looking ANYTHING like Medicare. Its time to cut bait. It shouldn't be up to the government to prevent you from getting an abortion if its legal. If they have the nuts to try to overturn Roe V Wade or introduce legislation to ban abortions nationwide and then suffer the electoral consequences, then so be it. But until that day this whole argument is ridiculous.

Since I don't live in tornado alley or along the east coast, can I stop bailing out people whose homes get wreaked in hurricanes and tornadoes? I do live in an area that could be impacted by volcanic eruptions, so I would still be willing to pony up tax money for volcano monitoring.

Queencersi -- It's nice to know I'm not alone in being tired of supporting folks rebuilding their homes and businesses in the middle of proven disaster areas over and over again.
.
I mean really, I'm just as sympathetic to the site of the Tide laundry truck as the next guy. but frankly, I think it ought to be a federal law forbidding homeowners and business owners from receiving taxypayer funded/subsidized insurance, low-interst loans for rebuilding etc. more than once for the same location, it it is designated a disaster prone area (definiteion of a disaster prone area = any area where a once in a generation or hundered year event has happened more than once in the last 15 years). That means you too A

The government attempting to interfere with decisions made by a patient and their doctor. This, from the same idiots who are decrying health reform as an attempt to inject the government between us and our doctors.

What a bunch of idiots.

Darn it I was going to add "this means you too VA, the northern part where all the big wig Washington politicos live in the flood prone bedroom communities outside of DC."

Hmm..I was going to suggest that getting real health care reform is more important than making sure abortion is covered by insurance. Yes, I am definately pro-choice, and I think Dee is dead-on with her first post. However, I also suspect that politics will force abortion coverage out, and it's not worth scrapping real reform to make a point. But if "reform" ends up being more of the same, then the dems don't have much to lose by sticking to their guns.

Dee I look at it this way: Sure some of my taxes go towards supporting something that I don't agree with. But some of my taxes do. And on the same token there is someone else paying taxes for something I support, but they don't. None of us gets to pick and choose. Well, unless you want to risk a visit from the IRS.
I think the main thing here is that access to a legal service should not be denied just because someone does not agree with that service. This is what drives me crazy about health care workers and "conscience clauses" allowing them to choose what legal prescriptions to hand out and which ones they can decide to deny.

This obviously calls for a robust public plan so we can have somone to ban from funding abortions.

We learned last week, via an article in U.S. News and World Report, that the American Taliban really has its eye on outlawing contraception (and this really has been known for decades, since every time the Taliban says Roe is "bad law", they are saying that Griswold, which gave Americans, esp. Griswold, a single woman, the right to contraception, is "bad law", as Roe is based on Griswold).
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/29/as-white-house-readies-abortion-plan-packaging-emerges-as-major-issue.html
This interview with Taliban leader Jill Stanek adds further proof:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/why-do-pro-life-activists_b_227001.html
I think the simple way to make this go away is to draft an amendment to any health bill that ties contraception for single people and women and abortion together like the Taliban want (Roe and Griswold so to speak), and either excludes them from health measures or doesn't. Republicans and Lieberdems can either vote to deny Americans contraception like the Taliban wants and lose even more women from their ranks, or they can vote the amendment down and shut up.

I would like to know when protecting a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or medical assistants moral objects to a specific legal procedure or medication came to outweigh a patient's right to receive said legal procedure or medication. And where is the line drawn? If someone in the medical field can refuse to say, dispense birth control, then what other service can they choose to withhold?
Some feel that depression can be effectively treated through diet and exercise. Is it therefore okay to withhold anti-depressants? How about Ridlin? Many people feel that medication is being overly prescribed. Exactly where does the line for these conscience objectors get drawn?

Can doctors and pharmacists be stripped of their licenses for withholding patient care (of any type)? It happens for other malpractices.

Why? When did it become OK for misguided religious zealotry to be a necessary consideration in public policy?

Deo: I believe that's the point of these "conscience clauses" that are being passed in some states. To protect doctors, pharmacists' or anyone in the medical field from being fired or in any way punished from withholding legal services or medications.
Which is why I think they should amend those laws to include that if a doctor or pharmacist will not be providing a legal service that they should have to display that, prominently in writing, in their office or place of business. But of course that is unlikely to happen. It's not at all about protecting the patient.

I'm so tired of these hypocrites trying to run everyone else's life. just plain sick of it.

Queencersi I agree with you. I fear that these so-called conscious clauses could just as easily lead to people thinking that certain life saving procedures though legal will be deemed too expensive to waste on those less perceived as less worthy and rationing will become a matter of conscience. Then what?

What's tricky about it? Abortion is a legal but regulated medical procedure that should be covered by public health insurance. There's no trick to it.

queencersei – thanks for reminding us of those clauses. Someday somewhere a doctor will withhold an abortion w/ immediate complication and thru inaction the woman dies or suffer permanent injury, sterility, etc. Now what? Are state medical boards facing this? Would this liability shield extend 100% into civil court (death / injury is clearly a tort)? No wonder these issues are a mess.

Shep
~
"When did it become OK for misguided religious zealotry to be a necessary consideration in public policy?"
~
This is not about religion, it is about morality. If (and I understand this is a big if) one views a growing fetus with a heartbeat as human life, than religion has absolutely nothing to do with abortion opposition. It's merely a matter of morality and opposition to taking a life. Now, many of you clearly do not view a fetus as a living entity and thus you have no qualms with abortion. Fine. But do not presume to understand the anti-abortion movement, if you clearly deny their fundamental opposition based on moral absolutes, rather than 'religious zealotry.' You are entitled to your views on abortion, however, you are misinformed in your analysis of what influences the opposition.

I want government to stay out of health care but I want government to get between a doctor and patient when it comes to abortion. We are truly in the land of the loons.

do not view a fetus as a living entity
.
Bacteria and sperm cells are also living entities. The question isn't when a fetus becomes alive. It's when it's credited as being a human posessed of rights separate from those of the mother.
.
Insistence on a binary yes/no instantiation of what is in reality a gradual process leads to ineveitably muddy thinking.

Exiled at home -- an by all means practice what you preach and you and your fellow abortion rights opponents can stop painting the other side as the devil spawn. You act as if the problem is calling what you deem a moral position, a religious one, when the problem is no matter what you call it the zealotry is exactly the same.
.
You don't have a propriety on morality. Perhaps, if it wasn't for the insistence of the moral righteousness of anti-abortionists, we could have had a civil conversation about this issue long ago. But you think morality is on your side and therefore well within your rights to paint your opposition as immoral. When you're ready to acknowledge that you haven't bothered to understand the views of the other side, then you get to complain about being misunderstood.

Who gives a sh*t what they "believe"?! The law is the law, period.

I read that Dr. Tiller frequently wore a button that said simply "Trust Women," a stark reminder that as complicated and controversial as abortion is, it's ultimately a women's healthcare choice. As long as the procedure remains legal, removing it from healthcare coverage is simply gender discrimination.

Paul
You are absolutely right in that human development is a gradual process. It begins with conception and it reaches full development in the late teens for females and early twenty for males. This continuum does not end with birth, yet we extend citizen and human rights to those who have not reached full development, i.e. children, teens, young adults.
~
Dee
I am not suggesting anything about the pro-choice movement, and I am certainly not claiming to hold a monopoly on morality. What I am saying is that anti-abortion activists base their views on morality, not religion, thus it is a great disservice to the debate to characterize them as 'religious zealots.' Just as it is equally counterproductive to paint a caricature of the pro-choice camp as immoral. The fact is both sides generally frame their positions on rational thought, although the most vocal of both camps resort to extreme ideologue divisiveness.
~
Sgwhite
I am sorry, but legality is not synonymous with morality, in fact it is quite often the opposite. Morality trumps practicality on each and every occasion. By your own accord, critics of segregation should have simply shut up, because the law is the law. Period. Yes?