Federal funding for abortions?

[airdvr 210]

Nelson files anti-abortion amendment
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/07/2144386.aspx

"As written, the Senate health-care bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. Most Nebraskans, and Americans, do not favor using public funds to cover abortion and as a result this bill shouldn't open the door to do so," Nelson said in written statement that was just released.

Your thoughts. I'm not a pro-lifer. I believe women have a right to choose. I'm also not pro-choice. I think abortion is the ending of a viable life. One thing I'm quite sure of...no tax dollars should pay for it.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

The Senate bill explicitly prohibits federal funding for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.

[TrophyHusband 0]

tax dollars definately should not fund elective abortions.

what i don't understand though, is that this is actually a sticking point. several democrats have said that under no circumstance would they vote for a bill that does not cover abortion. i'm not sure why those on that side of things would let this issue stand in the way of getting something passed.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

tax dollars definately should not fund elective abortions.

Fine; then tax dollars also shouldn't be used to fund elective wars to satisfy some under-qualified alcoholic's Oedipus complex.

[billvon 3,121]

> several democrats have said that under no circumstance would
>they vote for a bill that does not cover abortion.

Name one.

> i'm not sure why those on that side of things would let this
>issue stand in the way of getting something passed.

Because republicans have introduced an amendment that would ban coverage for abortions in private plans as well. That's what people are opposing - a ban on ANY coverage for abortion, even through your own healthcare provider.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Your thoughts. I'm not a pro-lifer. I believe women have a right to choose. I'm also not pro-choice. I think abortion is the ending of a viable life. One thing I'm quite sure of...no tax dollars should pay for it.

Tax dollars often pay for the choice to not have an abortion.

[wmw999 2,593]

I'm perfectly comfortable with no public option plans being able to offer abortions. I'm also perfectly comfortable with there being plans that do offer abortions, and I don't think that should remove them from the tax-deductible (or other comparable) lists; i.e. plans that can qualify as valid plans for health care.

That's leaving the option to the consumer as to which plans they want to buy. I don't know how many plans offer coverage for birth control, although I know they DO offer coverage for Viagra.

If you're trying to minimize costs, it'd strike me that preventing pregnancy is a good way.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 4]

I think the real problem behind restricting public funding for abortions under a public option is that at some point you'd then have to have a moral/ethical/legal battle about what other funding you'd restrict.

When it comes right down to it, it's far less expensive to abort a fetus than have to take care for a human its entire life and what really is the bigger burden on society?

I certainly am not in a position to answer that, but it's a hell of a decision for anyone to have to try to make. However, if you're the type of person that's going to say life is "priceless" and you can't put a price tag on a human life, then you absolutely must support a national healthcare system.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airdvr 210]

Quote

When it comes right down to it, it's far less expensive to abort a fetus than have to take care for a human its entire life and what really is the bigger burden on society?

I agree however, we've had abortion on demand for almost 37 years and we've still got a boatload of people who can't contribute.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

>and we've still got a boatload of people who can't contribute.

Agreed. I guess one way to frame the question would be - do you want even more of them?

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>and we've still got a boatload of people who can't contribute.

Agreed. I guess one way to frame the question would be - do you want even more of them?

This kind of crap (not necessarily directed at you) is what really aggrivates me when it comes to HC discussion. You're pro-life = you should support national healthcare. You're anti gov. healthcare = you think babies should be aborted. They're rediculous leaps to try and guilt people into agreeing with you're beliefs.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

>and we've still got a boatload of people who can't contribute.
Agreed. I guess one way to frame the question would be - do you want even more of them?

This kind of crap (not necessarily directed at you) is what really aggrivates me when it comes to HC discussion. You're pro-life = you should support national healthcare. You're anti gov. healthcare = you think babies should be aborted. They're rediculous leaps to try and guilt people into agreeing with you're beliefs.

Except it doesn't start in the discussions; it starts when people try to put "moral" restrictions on basic healthcare issues.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Except it doesn't start in the discussions; it starts when people try to put "moral" restrictions on basic healthcare issues.

Would cutting home healthcare (latest addition to the senate bill) be a 'moral' restriction, then?

Quote

By a vote of 53 to 41, the Senate on Saturday rejected a Republican effort to block cutbacks in payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.

Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm.... no Medicare for Gramma!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Except it doesn't start in the discussions; it starts when people try to put "moral" restrictions on basic healthcare issues.

Would cutting home healthcare (latest addition to the senate bill) be a 'moral' restriction, then?

Quote

By a vote of 53 to 41, the Senate on Saturday rejected a Republican effort to block cutbacks in payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.

Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm.... no Medicare for Gramma!

Are you really suggesting that people attempting to put anti-abortion provisions into the healthcare bill are doing so on the basis of budget? If so, I go back to my to a previous post on the subject; it's less expensive to abort than to provide healthcare for life. So, CLEARLY they aren't attempting to put the anti-abortion restrictions into the bill based on budget.

They are in fact, attempting to assert their moral position on another person's healthcare choices.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So, CLEARLY they aren't attempting to put the anti-abortion restrictions into the bill based on budget.

Contrary to your opinion, there is federal law preventing federal funds to be used for abortions.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

So, CLEARLY they aren't attempting to put the anti-abortion restrictions into the bill based on budget.

Contrary to your opinion, there is federal law preventing federal funds to be used for abortions.

Then why the need to introduce more?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, CLEARLY they aren't attempting to put the anti-abortion restrictions into the bill based on budget.

Contrary to your opinion, there is federal law preventing federal funds to be used for abortions.

Then why the need to introduce more?

Because they're trying to do an end-around of the current law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, CLEARLY they aren't attempting to put the anti-abortion restrictions into the bill based on budget.

Contrary to your opinion, there is federal law preventing federal funds to be used for abortions.

Then why the need to introduce more?

Because they're trying to do an end-around of the current law.

I see, so rather than fight the fight based on current law, let's have more government regulation. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

And people wonder how these bills end up having 2,000 pages in them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, CLEARLY they aren't attempting to put the anti-abortion restrictions into the bill based on budget.

Contrary to your opinion, there is federal law preventing federal funds to be used for abortions.

Then why the need to introduce more?

Because they're trying to do an end-around of the current law.

I see, so rather than fight the fight based on current law, let's have more government regulation. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

And people wonder how these bills end up having 2,000 pages in them.

Yup... one side puts in an amendment...then the other puts in an amendment to counter the first one, and so on and so on...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, CLEARLY they aren't attempting to put the anti-abortion restrictions into the bill based on budget.

Contrary to your opinion, there is federal law preventing federal funds to be used for abortions.

Then why the need to introduce more?

Because they're trying to do an end-around of the current law.

I see, so rather than fight the fight based on current law, let's have more government regulation. Sure, that makes perfect sense.
And people wonder how these bills end up having 2,000 pages in them.

Yup... one side puts in an amendment...then the other puts in an amendment to counter the first one, and so on and so on...

So, just so I know, could you point me in the direction of the part of the bill you think tries to "get around" the current laws?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>and we've still got a boatload of people who can't contribute.
Agreed. I guess one way to frame the question would be - do you want even more of them?

This kind of crap (not necessarily directed at you) is what really aggrivates me when it comes to HC discussion. You're pro-life = you should support national healthcare. You're anti gov. healthcare = you think babies should be aborted. They're rediculous leaps to try and guilt people into agreeing with you're beliefs.

Except it doesn't start in the discussions; it starts when people try to put "moral" restrictions on basic healthcare issues.

Abortion is not a basic healthcare issue. It's a very complicated one with people who feel very strongly about both sides with several shades of grey in the middle. I would consider basic heathcare considerations to be life, limb, or eyesight; emergency medical care, life saving prescription drugs, etc. IMO, if you consider abortion a basic healthcare issue then your frame of reference is considerably scewed from the beginning.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[quade 4]

Quote

IMO, if you consider abortion a basic healthcare issue then your frame of reference is considerably scewed from the beginning.

It's about as basic as it gets. It directly affect about 50% of the population.

Has it ever occurred to you that the major reason abortion is legal is because when it's not, it's still performed under extraordinarily unhealthy conditions that put people at risk of losing their lives?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airdvr 210]

Quote

So, just so I know, could you point me in the direction of the part of the bill you think tries to "get around" the current laws?

Abortion Debate Begins: Meanwhile, the language on abortion coverage continues to be a wedge issue within the Democratic party. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) plans to introduce an abortion amendment to the bill on the Senate floor today. The Senate could vote on the amendment tomorrow, though it may not have enough support to pass.

Nelson says the bill is "essentially Stupak's language," CBS News' Capitol Hill Producer John Nolen reports. The so-called Stupak amendment, named for one of its sponsors Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), was added to the House health care bill with bipartisan support, to the dismay of abortion rights supporters. The measure would restrict health insurance coverage for abortion.

Abortion rights groups are fighting back against the amendment, trying various ways to drum up congressional opposition to the measure: Some groups are hoping to keep a block of liberals staunchly opposed to the measure, while some groups are hoping to weaken the resolve of legislators who have supported the measure in the past. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/07/politics/main5924584.shtml

Nelson is proposing an amendment that would prohibit women from purchasing, with their own money, private money, insurance through the proposed insurance exchange, that would cover abortion procedures.http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Getting-tough-with-the-church-on-the-abortion-amendment


It appears the problem is purchasing insurance through the exchange that covers abortions.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

IMO, if you consider abortion a basic healthcare issue then your frame of reference is considerably scewed from the beginning.

It's about as basic as it gets. It directly affect about 50% of the population.

How so?

Quote

Has it ever occurred to you that the major reason abortion is legal is because when it's not, it's still performed under extraordinarily unhealthy conditions that put people at risk of losing their lives?

People still use heroin. Should we legalize that too? How about assault? People still do that. "It still happens" is not even close to a reasonable argument for legalizing abortion. It's not a reasonable argument for legalizing anything.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 3,121]

>It appears the problem is purchasing insurance through the
>exchange that covers abortions.

Agreed. The government should not fund abortions, but it also should not prevent private companies, paid by private citizens, from covering it.

Pro-lifers want all coverage banned. Pro-choicers want abortions covered in every plan including government plans. It would seem that simply eliminating public funding for abortions would solve the problem, but that option doesn't seem to be occurring to either side.