Threading the Abortion Needle
It's gotten pushed to the background this last week in all of the uproar about town hall protests and death panels, but the question of whether a public option would include abortion coverage remains controversial for a fair number of Catholics and evangelicals who are otherwise supportive of health reform.
Before Congress broke for recess last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that sought to achieve a compromise. It would allow coverage of abortion under the public plan, but only from dollars paid in premiums, not through federal funding. And it would also allow--but not require--private plans in the exchange to offer abortion coverage, again not using federal dollars. But because premiums for low-income individuals in the public plan would be subsidized with federal dollars, abortion opponents have protested that the compromise still allows government funding of abortion.
This week, two journalists offered innovative solutions that could break the deadlock. The first, from Beliefnet's Steve Waldman, would give consumers the option to buy a special abortion rider to the basic public option. He also argues that one way around the concern about subsidizing private plans that offer abortion is that favorite conservative solution: the voucher.
One solution would be to have the subsidies take the form of vouchers to individuals rather than government checks to specific plans. If individuals choose plans that cover abortions, that's their choice. Pro-lifers wouldn't complain if the government gave a general tax cut, which an individual then used to pay for an insurance plan that covered abortion. It's like when the government gives a Pell grant to someone who then uses it at a Catholic College. That's not viewed as a direct subsidy of a religious entity -- which would be a violation of separation of church and state -- because it is first and foremost aid to a person not an institution. Let's apply the same principle to health care aid.
Waldman's proposal has already gathered tentative support from some Catholic corners. The second proposal, from Slate's Meredith Simons, is more out-of-the-box and controversial, but has the added benefit of potentially defusing the abortion issue overall. The solution? Privatize abortion coverage by creating a private abortion fund to pay for abortions for those who can't afford them and don't have insurance coverage for them. Simons points out that reproductive health charities raise around $1 billion each year from individuals and foundations, far more than would be needed to provide abortion coverage to low-income women.
It's awfully hard for new ideas to take hold in the entrenched abortion debate. But we've already seen some movement this year with a broad coalition of support for the Ryan-DeLauro abortion reduction effort. And if either of these would bring aboard the army of religious organizations and individuals who support the goal of health reform but have been tripped up by abortion coverage, it seems they're at least worth putting on the table.
-
1
I fear these proposals rely on reason and equity. The GOP will never let them happen. Expect enraged townhall mobs to denounce the baby death panels any day now.
-
1.1
Euthanasia or dealth panels. Abortionist. Pretty much all the same deal. The difference, tax payers will now be required to pay for abortions to kill babies. And, tax payers will save some money because the dealth panels will tell all the old people "it's time to die".
.
Enjoy liberal loons. You people make me sick to my stomach.
-
-
2
My wife says I deal too much in generalizations. Which must be true, because I just can't get past the principle that there are lots of things I don't want the gub'mint to pay for, but I don't get to choose. To me, the issue is whether a medical service is legal, not whether I support it. Isn't any effort to bring this into the health-care discussion, a back-door attack at its legal foundation? I know. Asked and answered.
-
3
Amy Sullivan: "It would allow coverage of abortion under the public plan, but only from dollars paid in premiums, not through federal funding."
Are the socialists at Time magazine so clueless that they think a "public plan" will be paid through "premiums" alone and not through taxpayer money? Let me guess: Time magazine also believes Obama's lie that surgeons are paid "$50,000" for a leg amputation and that "free" (i.e., taxpayer funded) "preventive care" will reduce costs?
-
3.1
Where's your birth certificate, Textette?
-
3.2
I'm really getting tired of all the 'socialist' crap coming from textee and his ilk.
.
I'll make a deal with you textee. You'll pay NO taxes, and we'll put a big wall around your property. If it catches fire, you're on your own. If you need the police, you're on your own. If you want a road, build it yourself. You can forget about getting mail and you'll have to dig your own well for water.
.
Are you happy now? Can you leave the rest of us alone now? We have a society to build while you while away your life in seclusion far from the teeming masses you so despise. -
3.3
Momento - textee already has a private apartment with a barbed wire fence installation and a roommate in an orange jumpsuit.
-
3.4
" .. Obama's lie that .. "preventive care" will reduce costs? ..
Gosh, "prevention care" and "preventive programs" reduce no costs!
Do away with exercises!
Do away with programs for good nutrition - they reduce no costs.
Don't harangue kids against smoking - that will reduce no costs in the future.
And since we are on a roll against programs aimed at prevention instead of cure ....
-
-
4
It's not a coincidence that most backdoor attempts to limit access to abortion disproportionatly affect the poor.
Just sayin....
-
4.1
Of course not, because the wealthy would never stand for such an intrusion into their privacy and assault on their personal liberties.
.
Only the poor doesn't have the money to buy their freedom, and as a nation we've never gotten over that desire to control the lives of those we deem less than full citizens, oops back to that dreaded 3/5th clause.
.
How many times has some suburban housewife complained about the kind of food someone using food stamps purchased. In fact, it was so prevalent that USDA had to move to debit cards so the public would stop inspecting the purchases of individuals paying with food stamps and accosting them when items were deemed to good for them like steak or shrimp. -
4.2
Thats because the GOP wants cannon fodder to fight their wars, and what better cannon fodder than the sons of the poor. Its downright disgusting.
-
-
5
Amy Sullivan
...the question of whether a public option would include abortion coverage remains controversial for a fair number of Catholics and evangelicals who are otherwise supportive of health reform...
From what data do you arrive at the term "a fair number"?
.
From what data do you arrive at the term "Catholics"?
.
From what data do you arrive at the term "evangelicals"?
.
From what data do you arrive at the term "otherwise supportive of health reform"?
.
If this is your personal, anecdotal sense of things, please make that clear, otherwise it is incumbent upon you to provide links and quotes to polling data that supports your claims.
.
You may be entirely correct, but we have no way of knowing that from your unsourced claims, and that makes a post like this no different in terms of communicating real information, i.e. fulfilling the role of journalism than a post like this one.-
5.1
Thank you for posing these questions stuartzechman. Amy herself just stated a few days ago "A solid 78% think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances." Referring to Americans polled, so I too am wondering why this "group of Catholics and evangelicals" would have any extraordinary say in the matter of coverage.
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/13/about-that-pro-life-majority/
-
-
6
I want to know how we are going to pay for Exiled_at_Home's abortion panels?
You know: the death panel that decides whether an abortion is going to the daughter of an approved patriot that accidentally got knocked up by a traveling basketball team and will be approved or going to a tramp that just wants an "abortion of convenience" and should be denied.-
6.1
So much for thoughtful, eh, paffie? Let me help you out again, perhaps you should have went with "Exiled's Patriot Proclivities Exemption Clause."
-
6.2
And where does that leave the adult married white woman whose life is in danger if she carries her baby to term? Many would deny her this choice because she's a married woman and should give this child a chance at life, but what happens to her other three children when she dies as a result of complications caused by carrying the infant to full term? People who want to deny the right to choose don't take into account the reasons people have them. Its not ALL promiscuous poor girls...
-
6.3
thefemmy
~
I am opposed to what I consider mere abortions of convenience. However, I repeatedly have voiced my support for the right to have an abortion in matters that involve the health of the mother and when there are extenuating circumstances such as rape/incest. I am also a staunch advocate for the free dissemination of contraceptives and sex education, although not at unreasonably young ages, to reduce the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
-
-
7
These are not worth putting on the table. They are retarded proposals.
Who in the heck plans to have an abortion in advance and actually sits down and thinks hmmm what are the chances I'm ever going to have an abortion and then let me weigh that against the need to buy extra insurance to pay for it?
News flash! Abortions are not planned. This is like offering to sell extra "heart attack insurance". If you think you're likely to have a heart attack you need to buy extra insurance in advance. Insurance is supposed to cover all of your health issues, even the ones you don't anticipate. That's the whole f-ing point of insurance.
As for having a private fund for abortions - seriously, wtf??? Do we really want to go line by line and start restricting every single medical procedure that someone might find objectionable? I mean, hell, once we get around to asking the Seventh Day Adventists what they object to we're all screwed.
Also - the whole argument over a public option is a philosophical one. Should one of the services the government provides (along with security, education, and a legal system) be healthcare? If so, that means all healthcare. It's not like the public gets to choose who cops protect or who gets to have a fair trial. If health care is one of those basic rights we've now decided the government should provide, this means all healthcare, even controversial healthcare.
Look, I get that social conservatives don't want their tax dollars going to something they morally object to, but my tax dollars went to a ridiculous war I did not support and continue to fund executions of criminals even though I oppose the death penalty. So seriously, screw these half-@ed proposals.
-
8
Amy Sullivan:
.
By the way, "one way around the concern about subsidizing private plans that offer abortion" would be to successfully ratify an amendment to the US Constitution banning abortion, much the way that those concerned about the morality of legally available alcohol did during the early part of the twentieth century.
.
Otherwise, shouldn't whatever concerns some Catholics may or may not have about an insignificant portion of their tax dollars subsidizing birth control medication and medical services be similarly ameliorated?
.
After all, if that could convince otherwise reluctant citizens to support efforts to get a better deal than the unsustainable over $6,000 per person we pay in the US (as opposed to France, where they pay a little over $3,000 per person, or Japan, where they pay around $2,300 per person), isn't complicating every single American woman's access to the pill similarly "at least worth putting on the table", Amy Sullivan? -
9
Your bringing up the abortion issue makes me think the birther & deather distractions are a godsend. Not that it wouldn't be good to have Randall Terry & Allen Keyes, et al., adding their considered thoughts to the healthcare debate.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
-
10
More passive-voice avoidance of responsibility: "It's gotten pushed to the background." As Reagan put it so irresponsibly, "Mistakes were made."
Serious discussion of any issue was in the background only because "serious" media wallowed in the spectacle of angry, frightened Americans motivated by sadistic, manipulative liars. The town hall freakshows would have lasted about two days had responsible reporters promptly confronted the liars with the evidence of their perfidy and made them address their purely manipulative intent.
I'm guessing we now won't get serious reform for another generation, and we can thank the Fourth Estate for prioritizing hot video clips over honesty and responsibility.
-
10.1
I suspect we are approaching an age of reflexive non-culpability: mistakes made themselves.
-
-
11
we can thank the Fourth Estate for prioritizing hot video clips over honesty and responsibility.
.
I suspect that the founding of the USA network was the beginning of the end.
.
You will be Assimilated.
.
Resistance is Futile.-
11.1
I'd guess MTV, but… potato, potato.
-
-
12
Thanks, Amy, not just for this post but for linking to yourself! Specifically your 7/23 Ryan-DeLauro article. Are you seeing movement on bring some outside support from that bill over to the current HC reform? Or even bits and piece of that bill itself becoming part of the solution?
-
13
"...the question of whether a public option would include abortion coverage remains controversial for a fair number of Catholics and evangelicals who are otherwise supportive of health reform."
.
So what."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
There's no public policy reason whatsoever to examine women's reproductive health separately from their overall health care. The only thing that separates them is the test of religious zealotry, which belongs nowhere in US law. The only needle that needs threading is whether our congress critters will pander to religious bigotry against women or be faithful to their oaths of office.
-
13.1
Shep:
You really think there's any question which of those options will prevail?
Faithful to their oaths? Why start now?
-
13.2
Congress need not make any law based on the religious establishments. They can base the law on the same premise that drives all limitations of freedom: your freedom extends to the threshold that once passed would infringe on the rights of others. The individuality of the mother cannot trump the life of the child, therefore any regulation of abortions is based on the protection of the rights of those whose lives are to be otherwise sacrificed in the name of "freedom of choice." To oppose such abortions is not to suggest that there are not unfortunate situations which would bear a compelling reason to allow an abortion, i.e. health related concerns or established rape pregnancies. However, the complete callous disregard for life advocated by those who would condone the 'freedom' of a women/couple to perpetually engage in high-risk behavior, resulting in successful unwanted pregnancies leading to multiple abortions, some months into the pregnancy is an absolutely justified cause to seek limitations not based in religious doctrine but basic tenets of humanity. Spend a day talking with abortion-seekers outside a clinic, you'd be appalled, or should be, at the high number of women there for their second, third, fourth abortions. It's an incorrigible notion to allow such unabashed and perpetual destruction of life.
-
13.3
"The individuality of the mother cannot trump the life of the child...
.
A clump of cells isn't a "child" and has no "freedom" outsider her mother's womb. Specious reasoning, along with a good dose of arrogant, generalized judgmentalism of women. I'm guessing you don't have a girlfriend. -
13.4
Shepherd
~
A clump of cells isn't a "child" and has no "freedom" outsider her mother's womb.
.
So, only once it is outside the womb is it considered a living human in your rationalization? So, 5 minutes prior to birth, the child is still, in your mind, an inanimate object with absolutely no right to live? Callously cold, bro.
.
How is something with a heartbeat merely a clump of cells? The heart is beating as early as 6 weeks, in some cases. But, yea, just an ugly bunch of cells. You're right. Callous.
~
Specious reasoning, along with a good dose of arrogant, generalized judgmentalism of women.
.
Neither arrogant nor judgmental of women. I view any male willing to seek an abortion of his child for no reason other than unpreparedness in an equally condescending manner. Any woman, male or couple who advocates the termination of their growing child simply because they did not intend to have a child yet is something I wholly disdain. My girlfriend, who I've happily been seeing for over 2 years, feels the exact same way and she and I rarely agree. She's a self-proclaimed free-radical progressive. I guess sometimes moral fortitude trumps ideology. -
13.5
"My girlfriend, who I've happily been seeing for over 2 years, feels the exact same way and she and I rarely agree. She's a self-proclaimed free-radical progressive. I guess sometimes moral fortitude trumps ideology."
.
Stop kidding yourself. Using government to force women to bear children against their will falls squarely into the moral turpitude category - being seriously anti-freedom and all that. Let's see what your "self-proclaimed free-radical progressive" girlfriend says should she experience an unwanted pregnancy (reality tends to trump ideology and delusions of morality) unless you think she really wants to take up housekeeping in your parent's basement. -
13.6
Shep
~
You haven't a clue what you are talking about. On several occasions, we have had some scares which we discussed and ultimately decided to take in stride. Now, while these never came to fruition (one being a false-alarm and one being an early miscarriage), that does not lessen our sincerity in taking responsibility for ourselves. I cannot speak for all people, many I am sure preach about the immorality of abortion only to seek one themselves upon their first encounter with an unplanned pregnancy. But having been through that I know, unlike you, how I reacted and what we ultimately decided upon. Honestly, shep, are you so blinded by your agenda that you refuse to recognize that many people actually carry through with their unplanned pregnancies? Not everyone takes the easy road, my friend. Although that might be your instinctive reaction. You can throw out some unsubstantiated accusations against me about hypocrisy, but you know nothing about me and you're merely employing tired tactics of character assassination of those with whom you disagree. Seriously, what weight do your petty insults carry? Am I to suddenly drop to my knees overwhelmed by your ability to see into my soul, better than I myself can, via the internet?
~
Now, on to the actual substance of your diatribe.
Using government to force women to bear children against their will falls squarely into the moral turpitude category - being seriously anti-freedom and all that.
The criminality of murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc is merely the government forcing individuals to refrain from infringing upon the rights of others. If this is burdensome on the individuals to not be able to simply rob their way out of hard times, so be it. Who cares? Hardship is not justification for taking what you please, for infringing on others' well-being or property. For those who recognize the life of a beating heart, the notion that a government ban on abortion infringes on the individual falls on deaf ears, my friend. You oppose murder, I presume, because you see it as immoral. You have no qualms with this legislation of morality. I see abortion as taking the life of a child, so I have no qualms with this legislation of morality. No one, including you, takes issue with the legislation of morality when it conforms to their notions of moral conduct. That you fail to realize the life of an unborn child does not make my views any more totalitarian. -
13.7
"I see abortion as taking the life of a child, so I have no qualms with this legislation of morality."
.
Thanks, I already knew what made you a morally confused, logically incoherent idiot. Freedom for blastocysts! Get to the birthing room, slut!
.
Moron. -
13.8
You truly are an angrily incoherent person. You exemplify what is wrong with American discourse. Do I expect you to draw the same conclusions as I do on abortion. No. Could you at least attempt to view things from anywhere other than your arrogant, self-aggrandizing, superiority-mistaken vantage point? Apparently not. F*ck man, I know you're of the maligned perception that anything Shep is highly intelligent, reasoned and righteous, but your display of vulgar insults today proves you are anything but.
-
13.9
You want to use government to force every woman who doesn't want to to bear a child to give birth against her will or be mutilated or killed in an illegal back-alley abortion – all in the name of “freedom” – because you've judged that she must “perpetually engage in high-risk behavior” and you call me angry and vulgar (that was your f-bomb, I believe)?
.
Like I said: morally confused and intellectually incoherent. -
13.10
...also a religious zealot (zygote=person) and an unbelievable chauvinist.
-
13.11
Exiled.
You try to claim a moral high ground here and call people who disagree with you words like "callous." Considering various people's opinion on this subject changes dramatically from person to person. I have simply come to the conclusion that nobody is right and nobody is wrong. There is no obvious majority with a minority opposing. Therefore we must err on the side of freedom and that means not restricting anybody based on another person's opinion.
-
13.12
Shep
~
Why do you insist upon drawing delusional and erroneous inferences from what I say? I suggested that advocating on behalf of the 'freedom' of anyone/couple who continue the get pregnant time and time again only to seek an abortion each and every time is a frivolous and callous notion of freedom. I was in no way suggesting that every, or even most, people who seek an abortion engage in such irresponsibility. However, do you deny that such people do exist and do have successive abortions? Are you completely unaffected by such activity?
~
Furthermore, you say I want to cause mutilating back alley abortions, which is horrid interpretation and a wholly unfounded conclusion of my views. I suppose I could suggest that you want to see babies bloodily torn from the wombs on a daily basis all in the name of preserving freedom, however that would be a gross misreading of your mere desire to resist government intrusion in the personal lives of individuals. I, unlike you, understand your position, although I disagree, yet I am merely of the opinion that you are overlooking/ignoring a crucial aspect of your desire for unfettered freedom. There is no need for me to mischaracterize your views simply to make it look as if I have the moral high-ground. If you choose to manipulate my words and attempt to paint an untrue caricature of my position merely to give the appearance of you winning the debate that only illustrates your need to engage in such tactics to discredit my opinions. Are you uncomfortable with simply presenting your views, allowing me to present mine and allowing all the other commenters to draw their own conclusions on which is more reasonable? What inspires you to speak mistruths? Are you feeling inadequate with your position when juxtaposed along mine?
-
-
14
To be honest, while I'm sure these individuals meant well, we should stop trying to appease abortion opponents. Since the GOP is so fond of Hollywood's version of terrorism, then they should be familiar with Air Fore One's presidential edict: "Feed a mouse a cookie and he's going to want a glass of milk."
.
These half baked schemes to keep a vocal segment of the society from making a fuss, does nothing but embolden their increasing violent behavior. There is only one doctor left in America that can conduct certain procedures and medical schools are no longer teaching it, because we've given extremists an inch and they've taken the whole freaking country mile.
.
Don't tread on me works two ways. These people are terrorists claiming to be backed by a god the same way that Islamic terrorists claim to be backed by theirs. I don't see a difference between the two, they both have hard core underground members that preach hate and violence as a legitimate means to break political will, they both allow innocent people to be killed, physically accosted, forced to live in secret and terrorized over the Internet by painting them as targets like "Tiller the baby killer" and posting addresses, travel routes and known places they visit. How is this any different from a fatwah issued from the Arab street that demands that Rushdie or the a Danish cartoonists be put to death on sight?
.
They both prey on the outsiders and the marginalized to do their dirty work while the supposedly more mainstream citizenry sympathize and in flame the debate from a far and use freedom of speech as a shield to protect them against accusations of collusion and culpability and help them to continuously deny responsibility for the more egregious acts.Just as we demand that moderate Muslims stand up against the extremists if they don't want to be viewed in the same context as terrorists, we should demand this of the so-called pro-life community. for once and for all can we just say enough is enough and prove to the world and more importantly the generation that this crap is ridiculous and utterly unacceptable. It's long past the time that to have stood up to these political thugs that have now used the same tactics to take over the health care debate. Let's not look for ways to compromise our values and further empower these bullies, Christian or otherwise. Let's tell these mobs to go home or put them some place where they can at least do no harm. Otherwise what are we going to say when women die because we've lost out medical knowledge? Sorry but we thought it was better to let the knowledge disappear like the lost wax method rather than make the nut jobs mad at us.
.
I say until and unless they can convince a majority of Americans to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortions they should just STFU and have a drink and get over it.-
14.1
Dee:
Unfortunately you've reminded me of the Hon. Chamberlain Haller, who told Vincent Gambini "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled."
-
14.2
Dee:
.
I'm not sure that I agree with you on every point or every characterization, but this is well-written, and provided me with a reasonable amount of food for thought.
-
-
15
This may be a detail I missed, but would these proposals allow someone (like me, a man) to stipulate that a part of premiums I pay be used to contribute to the funding of abortion coverage covered in this way, or for me to buy an abortion coverage rider even though I would never be in need of that coverage?
-
16
Given the fact that Obama cast votes in the Illinois legislature to give mothers the "right" to kill their infants who had survived abortions, will Obama's socialized medicine scheme pay abortionists extra taxpayer money to kill infants who have survived abortions and "must" be killed?
-
16.1
textee if only we could have seen you coming!
-
16.2
Please, please keep lying and raving like a lunatic. It's desperately important that people see who and what is responsible for obstructing reform.
-
16.3
Oh, absolutely, textee. Didn't you get the secret memo from Obama's team of Nazi Socialist death doctors?
After all, this is a man who conspired before birth to fake his way into the U.S. Presidency. He barely breaks a sweat when it comes to setting up his baby and granny death squads.
Coming via a black helicopter to a city near you ...
[eyeroll]
-
16.4
textee obvious believes that a government bureaucrat should come between a woman and her doctor. After all, the only way to enforce this is to have law enforcement attend every delivery. Y'know, just in case...
.
I would've guessed form your prior ramblings that your were against government interference in the lives of Americans. I guessed wrong.
-
-
17
"...the Abortion Needle."
Gee, I always imagined they used a big pair of tongs...
-
18
I have another burning question: will the barbarism known as male circumcision be covered? It should be made criminal, but the politicians don't want to touch it.
-
18.1
sacred is that you?
-
18.2
Circumcision and abortion? Where are the screams of false-equivalence?
-
18.3
"It should be made criminal, but the politicians don't want to touch it."
Tell that to Larry Craig or Jim McGreevy. Some politicians want to touch it even if it is criminal!
-
-
19
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more absurd....
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/08/13/obamacare-gay-conspiracy-edition.aspx
-
19.1
it does.
-
-
20
In case nobody has noticed, the Rs are just flinging sh!t at the walls to see what sticks. If textee et all actually want to have a sane debate, I'd be willing to engage him/her. However, as long as they keeps spewing conspiracy theories, rumors, and delusions, just ignore them. Think of them like hemorrhoids: they may hurt, but poking will just make them worse.
-
21
I've never been able to understand why abortion opponents get special treatment when it comes to deciding where their tax dollars go.
If some one is against abortion they can demand that no tax money goes to fund it, but if someone is against, say, stupid wars of choice or the death penalty they are given no voice to demand that none of their tax money goes to fund them. Both involve killing, although wars involve killing men, women, old people and children while abortion only involves those yet unborn, most hardly even developed enough to be considered "human," (and certainly not given any protection in the Old Testament, for example), and both are moral issues.
Maybe it's because if one objects to maiming and killing whole families along with the flower of American youth, one is unpatriotic, while if one is against terminating zygotes, one is a moral monster. That must be it.
I think that if Jesus were in his grave, having not once mentioned abortion in all his sermons, yet demanding that we all love our fellow man and return evil with kindness, he'd be rolling over in it. I'm sure some think that He'd also probably be against universal health care, for what did He care for the sick? Right.
-
21.1
"Maybe it's because if one objects to maiming and killing whole families along with the flower of American youth, one is unpatriotic, while if one is against terminating zygotes, one is a moral monster."
Should be;
while if one is against terminating zygotes, one is a moral paragon.
Sorry.
-
-
22
I don't think even Jesus can help conservatives navigate the health reform debate in any kind of principled way. Recently, I watched a conservative bishop literally tie himself into knots trying to reconcile his faith with his opposition to health care reform. Then I heard the news that the President was about to meet with the religious community,
.
That's when it hit me like a ton of bricks. It was a true lightbulb moment. Where the f@ck is Rick Warren? He was invited to the inauguration and I haven't seen him since. Dots connected! That's what this abortion crap is all about, from that ridiculous commercial from focus on the family that claims reform will kill old people so they can give the money to Planned Parenthood for abortions to the propaganda spewing from a variety of mouth pieces paid for by Falwell's Liberty University community.
.
It's all about providing cover for the religious right organizations. One of the pillars of Warren's movement was that the faith community had to be about more than abortion and gay marriage. He built his entire following and his reputation for being less polarizing and vitriolic as his brethren on the premise that people of faith couldn't ignore that their faith demands that they work to take up the causes of the poor, the sick, the less fortunate among them. This is why this abortion canard is so important. It is the only means at their disposal to hide the fact that to be loyal to the Republican party requires them to ignore those same tenets of their faith.
.
What would Jesus do? Heal the sick, What does Jesus' followers on the right do? Hide the schtick. -
23
Here's a thought: health care should be between trained medical professionals and their patients. Health care reform should take into account that there are two reasons people access health care: medical necessity (I'm including prevention efforts here) and purely by-election. All insurance, whether a public option or a private insurer should have a basic level of non-negotiable care provided to all people, without regard for gender, age, previous conditions, or any other basis.
Abortion, it seems, is sometimes a medically-necessary procedure and sometimes an elective one. If it is medically necessary (as deemed by a doctor and patient in consultation with each other), then it's covered. If it's purely elective (oops, I didn't mean to make a baby),then coverage should be part of an optional rider that can be purchased at additional cost. However, contraception, under the definition of preventive care, should be covered under the basic level of care for everyone.
This takes into account that there are lots of medical procedures people have simply by election (like plastic surgery). This also takes into account that sometimes those same procedures are medically necessary (for example, a burn victim would have plastic surgery that is medically necessary).
The rule being: medical care is determined by a doctor and patient in consultation with each other. In private. Without the intervention, spying, or "guidance" of the government or any insurance company. Period.
Seems that should be pretty easy to write into law. Sure, there will be some folks who attempt to "get away with things", but the vast majority of doctors and patients are law-abiding folks who understand the difference. If not, an objective system of arbitration can be used to make determinations for everyone, regardless of the plan they're in.
-
23.1
Two thumbs up!
-
-
24
I see a nation coming apart in so many ways as it enters a new era where the middle class has all but disappeared and unemployment is at it's highest, our health care is in crisis, our debt load is out of this world, pollution eveywhere and yet we are stuck in the abortion issue that as far as I can see has little to do with the major problems confronting us. It seems we have lost our way. Will we wake up?
-
25
Regarding the private abortion fund idea, it already exists! The National Network of Abortion Funds is a network of over 100 grassroots groups that raise money to directly cover the cost of abortion. http://www.nnaf.org/
It is an amazing system that is filling in a life-saving gap but it is still hard to meet the full health care needs of women in a private system. We need health care reform that meets the needs of EVERYONE, including women! Abortion should be covered in health care reform.
- TIME Why it's time to give up the ghost on Bin Laden | http://su.pr/9KGpBa - 5 minutes ago
- TIME See Facebook's secret code | http://su.pr/2C8sAt - 1 hour ago
- TIME See the top 10 movies of 2009 | http://su.pr/21qEh7 - 2 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- Why Wells Fargo isn't paying back TARP
- CNN Poll: Man Made Global Warming Takes a Hit
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Time to Give Up the Ghost on bin Laden
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late
Quotes of the Day »
RSS