-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/52201/the-price-for-health-care-reform-poor-womens-health/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
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 the constitutionality of 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 the government should neither be funding nor prohibiting abortions. How can you demand that others respect an individual's 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 no 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 is that they now have a vested interest in how those taxpayer dollars are being spent. The funding for this procedure becomes 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.
From a pragmatic standpoint Democrats need to realize that by insisting on federal funding for such a controversial procedure, they are weakening the chance of passing their bill and helping their opposition. Since I think their bill is pretty bad, I'm a little disappointed they didn't fall on their sword over this issue.
The thing is that the bill, as it was, changed nothing about the way health insurance operates today. Medicaid currently covers abortions in cases of rape, incest, and danger to a woman's health. Insurance companies currently offer those services as well in those cases in most plans. This bill would not have changed that, and current U.S. law also prohibits federal funding of abortions except in those cases.
Nothing in the bill required that abortion coverage be offered, but it also did not prohibit that from being covered. The only exception was that these services had to be paid for through the private money that they received.
So opponents weren't griping about a change in federal funding of abortions. They were griping because they wanted a VERY BIG change in the way abortions are covered both with federal AND private funding. Basically, it will only allow insurers to offer this coverage to a very limited degree, if at all. And so those that keep griping about how we're telling private businesses what they can and cannot do are now the great hypocrites in that they want to do just that. This is as close as I believe it can get to an outright ban on any abortion coverage for any reason.
Now, I know that for some reason some of you are STILL in the mindset that this bill's purpose is mainly to cover the poor. That's some of it, but the biggest chunk of it is regarding coverage that will heavily affect the middle class. The only way you aren't going to be affected by this is if you're WELL outside the middle class.
The biggest question I have is this: If I end up with an ectopic pregnancy, have I just been sentenced to death or bankruptcy? I see nothing in this proposition that would still allow coverage for abortions under circumstances such as rape, incest and/or danger to the woman's health/life.
As a somewhat separate issue... Leonidas, the reason why the unborn are not covered under equal protection is because you'd be opening up a whole other can of worms where women already under distress of having suffered a miscarriage would then be under investigation for manslaughter-- among other things. Women who might not have any reason to believe that they're pregnant and might go horseback riding could be subject to reckless endangerment charges.
Pregnancy isn't always as simple as choose to have sex or don't. There are a lot of other, very complicated situations that are also involved in the process, and no two pregnancies are the same. We have a whole other part of our body that has a whole other set of things that can go wrong. Add the medical condition of pregnancy, and that brings a whole other set of complications that can happen. These things happen at any income level. And I can guarantee you that if it was possible for men to get pregnant (even if wasn't against their will), this would not even be an issue. For crying out loud, there are still WOMEN who have no idea that there are legitimate health reasons for taking oral contraception outside of preventing pregnancy.
I'm very much pro-life, but then I also realize that-- having gone through pregnancy myself-- pregnancy and abortion aren't simple enough issue to make it an all or nothing issue. It really is quite literally an issue of women's HEALTH.
If what you say is true, then I'm misinformed about this amendment. As I said before, I don't think the government has any business telling private insurance what it cannot insure, particularly a legitimate and legal procedure like abortion.
If this is your understanding I have to conclude that you never read the amendment even though I linked that part of the text above and blockquoted it. You should really read it before you go posting something like this Kathy.
And thats fine, but shouldn't we assume you actually read the amendment since your commenting on your understanding of it? I could understand if it were 1900+ pages long and you had gotten your information from summations, but the amendment is only 4 pages Kathy, and the part I quoted is the part at the heart of this debate a couple of mere paragraphs.
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.
I assume by "impossible" you mean that they won't be able to afford it out-of-pocket, not that it would be illegal. So do you view the 14th amendment as giving everyone the right to an abortion, regardless of whether they can pay for it?
It sounds like you don't support the current law that says that no federal dollars should be used for abortion. If that's your view, then I'm not going to able to convince you that that the amendment should pass. But for those that do support that law, the reasoning for the amendment is clear: if you have an insurance plan that is subsidized by the government, and that insurance plan covers abortion, then the government is subsidizing abortion which is against current law. I don't buy the argument that you can just pay for the abortion out of the premiums, and not the government subsidy. That's like saying that you will only pour water out of one half of the bucket.
I think this cartoon says it all:
http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009...
Surely they wouldn't want anyone to think they were unwilling to put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is.
Funding the military and judicial verdicts were both in the Constuitution, I don't believe funding abortion was.
There is no reason taxpayers should pay part of the insurance for bad choices you make. ALL procedures necessitated by the risks of choices YOU make should be your responsibility and insurance should be forbidden by law to cover any such illnesses or injuries. OK? Hence nearly ALL procedures should be exempted, by your logic, from insurance coverage that is partly paid by tax dollars. Wow, now THERE's a cost saving strategy.
"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.
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 denying the right of a private insurance company to cover a 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."
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.
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.
I have cited this before, Kathy. As high as 98% of all rapes per the CDC and AGI studies are elective - vice rape or incest. But from other studies it is as low as 91%. I erred on the side of precaution and stated an average of 93% of all unwanted pregnacies were electively aborted.
Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it a "lie". You're being ridiculous.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion...
And I agree with you on war. If you do not support the war, your tax dollars should not support it. I totally understand that opinion. As I said, because I wear the uniform, doesn't mean I like war. I actually hate war. Any warrior worth his/her salt would tell you the same.
He does have his posted study, and while it doesn't equla 93% it adds up to 82%
25=7=8=19=23 = 82.
Futhermore the number is probably greater than 82% as the study cited also says
woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5%
husband or partner wants her to have abortion <0.5%
-would interfere with education plans/career plans/would interfere with care of children or dependents 4%
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant <0.5%
That would bring the total to around 87% with 6% still in an "other" category that may or may not indicate irresponsibility.
Contrast that with:
rape/incest <0.5%
mother has health problems 4%
possible fetal health problems 3%
For a total of under 8%
with 6% in an "other" category, that may or may not indicate responsibility.
The study was done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute
What about you Kathy, where are your facts? What studies have you looked at that make you knowledable Kathy? or are you just arguing from your own breathtaking presumption?
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.
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.
That's absolute crap, but typical out of you.
The prior statement included men in the same exact context. If you cannot keep your legs closed or if you cannot keep your penis holstered; you should not expect (yes, EXPECT) government assistance to pay for your irresponsibility. It's that kind of entitlement mentality that drives moderates and conservatives nuts.
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.
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?
If your employer is the government, sure. In the private sector you and your employer pay for it. You do a job, the employer provides an item or service, you both produce and get rewarded and taxed for your labor.
Agreed 100%. So I assume you are similarly not opposed to women paying for their own risky behavior that resulted in pregnancy, assuming that behavior was consentual?
Agreed the government should be 100% out of the insurance business, thats not its job.
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. Whats next making barber shops illegal because poor people can't afford to get a haircut by a professional? Making a gourmet shop illegal because the food there is too expensive for some people? Preventing anyone from producing private planes because only a very few can buy and use them? Gee, not only are you suggesting Government regulate industry, and likely approve of them buying into it, now your suggesting that it be allowed to decide which industries are allowed to exist. Joe Stalin would be proud.
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.
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.
I don't see how you can claim this is a constitutional issue. The fact that abortion is legal does not mean there is some constitutional requirement for government to fund abortions. Gun ownership, for example (among many other things) is also legal and constitutional but no one claims that government has a duty to buy guns for people who can't afford them.
Like it or not there are a lot of people in this country that don't want their tax dollars funding abortion. That's not a legal or constitutional issue - it's a political issue. It's the same with your examples of the death penalty and the military. The difference with those is that both have much more political support than abortion does.
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.
In effect, yes it is, as Ezra Klein pointed out. Poor women cannot afford to buy private health insurance on their own. So as a practical matter, cutting out insurance coverage for abortion IS denying coverage. Especially since none of the insurers competing in the exchanges would be allowed to offer coverage for abortion under this amendment, even on the condition of no public dollars being used. That was one of the key demands of the supporters of this amendment. A woman should have no choice, no place to turn, even if her abortion *isn't* being funded with taxpayer dollars.
Now, that said, language that supported current federal law against spending government funds may have made sense, or specific language using this bill to overturn that law or provide an exception, but to say no participating insurer can offer coverage seems draconian.
I agree.
The provision making it illegal for insurers to provide abortion coverage through the exchange I think is completely unconstitutional and should be removed (or fall in the courts). I don't see where the federal government has that kind of authority.
He is saying the government should neither force them to provide coverage, nor deny them the ability to do so if they wish.
Why not, if all those groups like planned parenthood get one and can lobby why not the other side? Well I'm for yanking their tax exempt status as soon as its done for every other political lobbying non profit.
Do the Democrats want 600+ hospitals closing?
BTW, just think of the new healthcare costs and poor folk who will not be able to recieve medical care when the Vatican closes all the Catholic hospitals and clinics in the US should abortions be funded and forced on them. These medical facilities largely serve the poor comunities. Guess you'd better dig up trillions more to replace those.
There are ver 600 Catholic hospitals in the U.S., and the Catholic Health Association says they make up 13% of the country's nearly 5,000 hospitals and employ more than 600,000 people. In addition, CHA says that one out of every six Americans hospitalized in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital.
I guess some folks don't want their hard earned dollars going to fund what they see as murder, including the democrats that will be needed to pass the bill.
To fund "what they see" as murder, Leonidas. In fact, it is not murder. 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. There are folks all over the nation who think war is murder and don't want their dollars funding it. Those folks have to pay for war and the death penalty whether they like it or not.
In the case of abortion, there is also an equal protection issue: folks who would deny poor women the right to have a legal medical procedure because they don't approve of it are not doing anything to end abortion, but they are denying poor women equal protection of the laws. That is unconscionable, and it's also unconstitutional.
Why not, if all those groups like planned parenthood get one and can lobby why not the other side?
Ummmmm... Because Planned Parenthood has an official political lobbying division that is NOT tax-exempt? And because the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is a *religious* organization that IS tax-exempt? (I'm assuming -- I could be wrong about that last part.)
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.
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.
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.
The only form of "forced" pregnancy that I know of is rape, which he covered earlier. Also, he was obviously equating the rights of slaves to the rights of the child, not the mother. If a person can be legally killed, they have no rights.
Thanks for taking the trailer-park approach.
I have acknowleged their points. But I have to admit, I'm a bit busy warding off your constant ramble to give them the time they deserve. The posts of Almodeate and others are respectable for the most part because they are logical. Yours are not. I get along with moderates, conservatives, AND liberals - when they use logic in their arguments. You have already proven to me that you don't read my threads - only a hitpoint or two to counter. I have used logic to the best of my ability. If others point out flaws in my logic, then I'll address it or recant it. You do not do that. When someone points out a flaw to your logic or argument, you only attack or belittle.
BTW I'm pro-abortion to the point a fetus can experience a synapse, not a fetus is a life at conception viewpoint holder. However, after a synapse is possible I do consider abortion to be baby killing (since you find the term murder not to meet with your approval I will go with baby killing). Not everyone holds that same view though some think baby killing takes place anytime after conception, and some are ok with fetus killing at anytime before birth. So you accuse them of being intolernt of the medical needs of the woman, and they accuse you of being intolerant of the needs of the unborn. You are being no more open or close minded than they are, both viewpoints are mutually intolerant..
Typical liberal hogwash. Life for the guilty and death for the innocent.
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.
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.
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.
Okay. But I just don't believe you when you say that ALL war is murder. Would you consider it murder if you shot someone attempting to rape you? Would you consider the Army committing murder if they were defending against a, say, Chinese invasion of New York?
I have justified my comments on the abortion is murder subject. Now why don't you actually justify your position on "war is murder" instead of talking in circles and using rhetorical crap?
Oh, please. You have no clue what I hate to hear or what I don't hate to hear, and my reasons for either one. You don't have any insight at all into what I think, what I believe, or why.
Personally I don't mind it too much if it is used to abort rape pregnancies before a mental synapse is possible, but I think if the woman voluntarily had sex she should voluntarily accept the consequences of her actions and not expect the taxpayer to be responsible for her deciding that Billy Jim Bob was mighty charming after she had 6 beers and changing her mind in the morning.
P.S. My mother would probably love your tastes though.
In music, or politics? :-)
In music only, my mom is a moderate, who shares my belief that a woman should have the right to chose early in the pregnancy before mental activity can take place in the fetus but opposes late term abortions, and that taxpayers should not be burdened with stupid decisions made by others including abortions for women who couldn't afford the cost of their pregnancy, an abortion, or the day after pill. My father on the other hand is strictly pro-life, but he never discusses the issue unless directly asked and doesn't seek to push his views on others beyond his vote.
My mom is also I big opponent of the welfare state, and was very fond of Hiliary Clinton for what she represented to women. Had Hiliary won the nomination she had said she was undecided on who to vote for, but she voted for McCain since Hiliary wasn't running. My mom is also strongly anti-war as she sees war as always the wrong answer, yet she is supportive of the troops and getting them the best as her brother was a marine in WWII, my father was a soldier, and my brother served as well. She may hate war, but she certainly loves our soldiers.
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.
(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.
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.)
That was established quite some time ago, in fact. I posted links to the text on numerous occasions.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/07/c...
You just can't make this stuff up..... What a lovely perspective......Priceless.
See my post above and the text quoted from the actual legislation and not from some pundit, also follow the link if you want to read the entire thing.
It appears the amendment would prohibit elective abortions for any subsidized plan, though abortion riders would be allowed. Non-government subsidized plans could offer what they want.
There's also a big disagreement over exactly what "public funds" means since federal money can come from a variety of sources.
I agree, but does it say that? or does it simply say that the pool of funds including that of taxpayers must be kept seperate from any other pool of funds used to cover abortions? I think companies should be free to insure abortions if they so choose, but that it should be paid for out of a separate fund that has no connections whatsoever with the fund including taxpayer dollars, and accounting should be very detailed to make sure with criminal penalties applicable to misuse of funds should they become mixed.
There is no danger of this as coverge is granted in such a case in the Stupak Ammendment.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3962_108...
See section 265.
Futhermore there is noting preventing suplimental coverage to be purchased covering other abortions, as long as it does not include federal funding.
So all this nonesense about this ammendment preventing women from being insured by federal money in the case of life threatening pregnacy, and about it preventing all coverage of abortions is pure Progressive blather and drivel, or simple ignorance about what the text of the amendment actually says.
64 democrats joined with Republicans to pass this bipartisan (in the true sense of the word, not just 1 or 2 stepping across party lines) amendment. Thats 1 of every 4 democrats supporting this.
Well as long as they don't practice irresponsible sexual relations it shouldn't be an issue Kathy. They are covered in the case of rape or pregnancies that are a danger to the woman's life under the amendment. See the text I quoted from the actual amendment above. You really need to read it.
And it seems like it was just yesterday that republican wanted to deny payment for mammograms but allow them for Viagra... Don't you people see how you look? Don't you have a clue?
I know that this is, or should be, a very small part of the budget.
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.
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
Leonidas, the point here is that you as a taxpayer will be helping to pay for all kinds of health care procedures that might be necessitated by risky behavior of some sort. You cannot single out one medical procedure and say this one should not be funded because it's caused by a woman's own risky behavior. That is the heart of equal protection. You cannot protect a person's right to health care in all instances but one. That's not equal protection.
A most excellent argument for why we should not have any government involvement in the healthcare insurance business Kathy, thank you for expressing it so well.
Well, it's a good argument for you either to oppose an amendment singling out one procedure for non-inclusion, or for you to reject the entire package.
Of course, as you know, I support comprehensive health care reform that includes a public option and abortion coverage for women who cannot afford private insurance. This is not a new or different position for me -- nor is your statement that "we should not have any government involvement in the healthcare insurance business" anything new or different for you.
Needless to say, I am sure you already know this.
So now that the amendment has passed will you reject the entire package?
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/...
Specifically:
and
Of course I guess the taxpayer would still be stuck with funding pregnancies from conjugal visits. And on the bright side all the new prison guards needed might help our double digit unemployment situation.
"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."
Apparently, lefty bloggers like Kattenburg have memory capacity problems. Maybe there will be something in the bill to help treat the condition.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Well, mark it down, Prof, forced pregnancy is any pregnancy that a woman is forced to carry to term. You learned something new today.
Also, he was obviously equating the rights of slaves to the rights of the child, not the mother.
Obviously. And just as obviously, he was wrong. A fetus does not have the legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word "child" or not.
If a person can be legally killed, they have no rights.
Wrong again. Even prisoners on death row have certain rights. Even civilians in wartime have certain rights that can be asserted, despite the fact that if they are killed by a cruise missile, their deaths are nominally legal.
The baseline right that every human being has, by virtue of being human, is bodily autonomy. If a woman does not have control or choice over what happens to her own body; if a woman can be compelled by law to allow another being or life to use her body for its own protection at the expense of hers, then she lacks the most basic right any human being has -- without which there simply are no other meaningful rights. No human rights are possible if a person's body is owned by the state. In fact, that is the very definition of a slave -- someone whose body is owned by the state (or by another person).
Indeed I did. Except I've never heard of a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Do you have any real-world examples?
"A fetus does not have the legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word "child" or not."
As the law works right now, the child has all the rights of a normal child -- except against the mother. Otherwise, killing a pregnant woman, or causing a miscarriage would not be considered child murder.
" 'If a person can be legally killed, they have no rights.'
Wrong again. Even prisoners on death row have certain rights."
I'll accept that. What I meant was "If a person can be legally killed, they effectively have no rights."
"Obviously. And just as obviously, he was wrong. A fetus does not have the legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word "child" or not."
And "obviously" blacks were not human beings either. They had no legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word "niggar", "slave", "darkie", or "negro". Your thought processes are so polluted by liberalism that you are talking in freakin' riddles. You have made your own mind up (just like the racists of the 19th Century) that a "fetus" is not a human being. All hail Kathy the "god".
A woman IS a citizen, and her rights are protected. If a mass of cells in her uterus that MIGHT become a citizen is to have ITS rights elevated above the ACTUAL, living citizen, that is a slippery slope indeed. There is no circumstance under our constitution in which you can be forced to undergo or not to undergo a medical procedure to benefit another person. If the fetus (or morula if it's not a fetus yet) has greater rights than the living citizen, then she could also be forced to stop all medical treatment (chemotherapy, blood thinners, blood pressure medication, etc.) that could threaten the viability of the fetus. Take a look sometime at the drugs that are contraindicated in pregnancy. It's almost ALL prescription and many OTC drugs. So now a woman must risk her life and health to benefit another citizen, oops, a noncitizen POTENTIAL life.
Now consider that pregnancy itself is statistically way more risky than abortion, to the woman. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, you are suggesting that a woman who becomes pregnant must be required by law to take the riskier path, medically speaking. She no longer has the right to make her own decisions about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
By what right, and on what legal basis do you suggest that any person's constitutional rights should be subordinated to the rights of another, especially a mass of cells that very well might not become a live birth?
Think about it. You who rail about a "federal takeover of health care" now suggest that the feds take from women their fundamental right to make medical decisions based on their own and their physicians' best judgment. Talk about nanny state!
1. Stop defending irresponsible sexual practices. It is the cause of at least 93% of all unwanted pregnancy. A woman and man makes the decision to have sex in every one of those cases. Of course, the "me generation" wants to keep sex as a fun hobby and to be lifted up to the status of recreation. People have that right, of course; but sex comes with responsibility. If you cannot take the responsibility of a possible pregnancy, DO NOT HAVE SEX!!!!
2. The beginning of life. That's the big debate. When your "mass of cells in the uterus" begins to fire synapses, it becomes life. As far as your citizen argument, it doesn't hold water. With your definition, I can go ahead and murder any illegal alien I can find. They're not citizens - they were not born here nor naturalized - why not kill them because I can't afford to support them (with my tax dollars) either.
Want to change the definition? Amend the Constitution. But consider all the ramifications of subordinating one person's rights to another. On your conscience would be the deaths of all women who die during a pregnancy or childbirth that they and their doctors did not believe were in her best interest. But I don't think you particularly care about that. You would still feel righteous about fetuses being protected, even if women died as a result. After all, it was their "irresponsible behavior" in the first place, right?
But beyond that, consider the other ramifications, which I have elucidated. If the fetus has rights elevated above the woman's, why should she not be forbidden by law to drink, smoke or undergo any medical procedures or take any drugs that could threaten the now more-sacred-than-her fetus within her? Now you have potentially hundreds of women who get pregnant by accident but must sacrifice their health and life for "her baby" which may very well not survive the pregnancy anyway.
Another point. It takes two to tango. Do you support forcing the father to marry her, to participate in parenting, to pay til the child is 18? Then any woman who wants a baby and a meal ticket can "accidentally" get pregnant and bingo, child support.
I didn't think you were defending irresponsibility. Based upon what you've written in the past, that really doesn't seem like your approach. I did not mention anything about when the life of the mother is threatened. That is an ethical decision that a mother or doctor must make. My wife has told me in the past (as most parents would) that if that were the case, she would want for the child, not her, to live.
And I agree that it takes two to tango. Personal responsibility does not fall only upon the woman - that is a sexist approach. Yes, any woman could "accidentally" get pregnant in order to better her situation - that happens now and has throughout history. Once again.... men, too, must reap the benefits of an adventurous penis. If you cannot afford or want a child (or don't want to pay child support for 18 years), DO NOT HAVE SEX! That goes for men and women.
But as I stated earlier.... What about illegal aliens in reference to your definition of a citizen? You did not address that. You said that non-citizens are not covered. Can I then legally kill illegal aliens?
Ummmm, then why do you keep writing things like this:
"Kathy, with the exception of rape and incest, no one FORCES pregnancy. Why do you fail to realize that?"
and this:
"Women are free to chose with whom to sleep with and to choose to not have sex at all. Once again, why do you not see that?"
and this:
"Instead of individual responsibility prior to pregnancy, you want the government to support after-the-fact regret."
when both I and others (most notably, Almoderate) have said repeatedly that most pregnancies that are aborted were WANTED PREGNANCIES?
Why do you keep repeating the same ridiculous lines about loose women and forcing Americans to pay for UNWANTED pregnancies when in most cases the pregnancy WAS wanted?
I don't understand why you do that, JD. Why do you do that? Why don't you realize that most of the time women who choose abortions do so because something has gone terribly wrong with a pregnancy they PLANNED and WANTED, or there is some unforeseen threat to their health or life?
Why can't you understand that?
Where in the heck is your source for that little OPINION, Kathy?!!!
I gave you MY source for my figures. 93-98% of abortions are for UNWANTED pregnacies not resulting from rape or incest.
UMMMMM. Your assertion is completely false - as far as my research has taken me. It is possible that I missed something. Eductate me, Kathy. Tell me your sources of your claim that most aborted pregnancies are WANTED! I'll go ahead and hold my breath.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: 2004 Study
Not Ready for children: 25%
Too immature: 7%
Relationship problems: 8%
Has all the children she wanted already: 19%
Can't afford a baby right now: 23%
Wow. It really looks like those children were "wanted" huh?
That's why I can't "understand that".
It's from a 2004 study. :-|
I'm not sure why you sound so shocked by the statement, either. Almoderate said pretty much the same thing and you didn't even refer to it, much less ask for sources.