Blogs and Stories
Abortion Under Fire
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Will health reform limit access to abortion? Pro-choicers are worried, while pro-lifers say the Pelosi bill doesn’t go far enough. Dana Goldstein reports on the religious right's influence—and how Obama dropped the ball.
Is the House health-care bill pro-life?
That’s what at least one prominent abortion-rights leader is saying in the wake of the bill’s long-awaited release last week. “We would say the bill leans toward the pro-life position,” said Judy Waxman, vice president of health and women’s rights at the National Women’s Law Center, which has been lobbying and advertising on expanding reproductive health-care coverage for women.
“I wish I was counting ways to improve women’s access to abortion. But right now, we’re counting ways to keep women from losing the coverage they already have.”
The Pelosi bill contains a number of provisions that would improve women’s access to affordable health care, including ending “gender rating”—in which insurers charge women more for coverage—and making it illegal to classify C-sections, domestic violence, and even pregnancy as pre-existing conditions that disqualify women for health insurance. It includes new funding for comprehensive sex education, supplanting some of the abstinence-only programs favored by the Bush administration. The bill also aggressively expands Medicaid, the existing federal health-insurance program for low-income women and their children, which includes generous birth-control coverage.
But on the narrower issue of abortion access and affordability, the major pro-choice organizations aren’t shy about expressing their disappointment: The legislation references abortion more than 25 times, mostly in an effort to restrict access to the procedure.
“We think all reproductive health care should be treated just like other health-care services,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. “Unfortunately, in this bill, it isn’t. All the versions we’re seeing of the health bill single out abortion.”
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told The Daily Beast: “It’s a disappointment there isn’t more in the bill to proactively further women’s rights. I wish I was counting ways to improve women’s access to abortion. But right now, we’re counting ways to keep women from losing the coverage they already have.”
• Dana Goldstein: The Health-Care Gender GapThe tenor of the debate reflects the extent to which, even under a pro-choice president and pro-choice congressional leadership, the religious right and abortion-rights opponents wield serious political power. The House bill requires the public-insurance option, expected to cover some 6 million people, to provide abortion primarily in cases of rape, incest, or threats to a woman’s physical health.
That limited language echoes the Hyde Amendment, a rider to the appropriations bill that has passed each year since 1976 and currently prevents federal funding of most abortions for Medicaid patients, government employees, Peace Corps workers, and women in prison. But because the House health bill actually cements the restriction in law—as opposed to in a rider—some pro-choicers see the provision as a step backward. “It establishes a different baseline,” Waxman said.
The bill also prevents affordability credits from being used to pay for abortion coverage; the credits would help middle-class and working-class Americans purchase insurance coverage on the private market. Eighty-seven percent of existing private insurance plans cover abortion, which is significantly cheaper and less medically risky than pregnancy and childbirth. After reform, if insurers want to continue to provide such care, the House bill would require them to segregate all government funding from the co-pays individuals pay into the plans. Abortions could only be paid for out of the “private” side of the ledger.
In addition, in each state, the health-insurance market would have to include one plan that does cover abortion, and one plan that does not. But because the vast majority of insurers currently do cover the procedure, pro-choicers view the provision as a step forward for the opposition. “That kind of leans toward the pro-life position,” Waxman said.
Pro-life Democrats have been especially influential in the health reform process because so many of them are considered swing voters on the overall package. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat with strong ties to the religious right, has emerged as a spokesman for antiabortion sentiments in both parties. He continues to push forward in an attempt to amend the Pelosi bill to restrict abortion even further. Stupak’s goal is to outlaw all abortion coverage within the health-insurance exchanges, requiring women to purchase a special “rider” for abortion services. But according to health-care experts, few women anticipate needing an abortion and thus would be unlikely to pay extra for the coverage—even though about half of American women experience an unintended pregnancy in their lifetimes, and one-third of American women have had an abortion.
Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health issues, told The Daily Beast, “Currently, it’s not that we can’t pay for coverage that includes abortions. It’s that we can’t cover abortions. The [Stupak] standard is stricter than the standard in Hyde.”
Abortion-rights activists regard Stupak as “obsessed,” motivated by religious beliefs, and unwilling to compromise. They allege that he may not truly support the president’s effort to overhaul the health-care system, pointing out his ties to groups like Focus on the Family and the National Right to Life Committee, which opposed the expansion of S-CHIP, the state program that provides health care to poor children.
Counting votes “has been unbelievably painstaking because we don’t know if Stupak is bluffing or not,” said NARAL’s Keenan.
Stupak, though, says he is a supporter of health-care reform. “I believe we need comprehensive health-care reform and I am excited that we are closer than we have ever been to passing a health-care reform bill in Congress,” he wrote in an Oct. 29 letter to the Washington newspaper The Hill. “But any reform must address legitimate concerns, including using public funding for abortions, even if party leaders disagree.”
Pro-choice leaders disagree about whether more support from the White House could have strengthened their hand in the health-reform battle. In addition to the failed efforts to include comprehensive abortion coverage in the public plan, efforts to require private health insurance coverage of birth control also fell flat. In 1993, Hillary Clinton explicitly told Congress that she expected pregnancy and abortion to be treated in health reform like any other medical service. This year, though, Obama sent a different message, telling Katie Couric in July, “I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it’s appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.”
A different tone from the White House might have helped pro-choice groups, Waxman said. “We would like significant support from the administration on women exercising their constitutional rights,” she said.
But Sonfield, of Guttmacher, maintains that Congress is the culprit: “Just because there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans doesn’t mean there are a lot more pro-choice people,” he said.
Along with immigration, abortion is one of the few remaining sticking points for legislators still on the fence about health reform. The debate is likely to continue unabated over the next two weeks, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid presents his final health bill and the House version comes to a vote. “We’re not going to give up,” Waxman said—but there’s little doubt that abortion-rights groups are now on the defensive.
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Carly's Cancer Warning
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
Hollywood's Sex-Slave Crusade
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
The Wedge Dividing Obama's Health Coalition
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women’s issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
What continually amazes me about people who debate this issue is that the pro-choice people think that the pro-life people are out to destroy women's rights. But that's not the case at all! Anyone I know who's pro-life is simply concerned with the life of the child.
I'm glad to see that other issues involving women and health insurance are going to be resolved, but I'm also glad that abortion will not be further legitimized.
No they are NOT concerned with the life of the "child"...they are ONLY concerned with the fetus, once it is born they stop giving a Sh!t. I don't care how non-PC it is -- but I hate pro-life hypocrites: backwards, superstitious, busy-body, violent, ignorant rabble.
Exactly right, they are the first to fight against any financial help for the child once it is born, whether food stamps or health care.
Funny, when someone wants it it is a child, as in "the surgeon performed in utero surgery on the baby," but, when they don't want it it is a fetus. A true new law of physics, how something can be two things at the same time.
I am involved with a church that supports a local pregnancy center that provides free STD testing, free (I think) sonograms and counseling through pregnancy, both before and after it, and they help the mother with diapers and the like. I spent the summer working for $8.50 an hour so I can't really financially support the place, but I am in the process of doing graphic design for them, rebranding and redesigning their literature. I'm only 23 and I'm unmarried as of now so adopting is out, but it is something I'll definitely consider as I get older.
No, I'm not bragging about myself. Now you know me a bit better, and I hope that you'd reconsider your blanket statement. I'm not the exception to the rule, either.
KateThe Great:
I was sitting here, seething, just about to express the very same sentiment. But you beat me to it. Perfectly worded.
A question for all pro life people: how many of you zealots adopt children born into less than ideal circumstances?
....sound of crickets....
This user is no longer registered.
Noontime,
You misunderstand. To those who are pro-life, the unborn child is no different that a person. The issue isn't who is going to pay for the child any more than a wife might think, "I don't really need this unemployed husband anymore, so I will just shoot him because I don't want to pay for him any more." Why do you pro-abortionists always come back to someone else paying for your inability to keep your peckers in the you pockets and your legs crossed? Take some personal responsibility.
i am a liberal to the core but and it is an emphatic but if you as a grown woman decide to have sex unprotected no less it is not just a chioce. if you are willing to end a developing human in your body for the sake of convenience to you lets all agree the fetus has no feelings and not a complete human but get real hey the choice begins in your bedroom or in the car or on the beach in the clubs bathroom etc. etc. i love all that includes fetuses
Life of a 'child'? Whose child? Are you offering to support that 'child' that you would like to force women to have? Anti-choice people (let's not ever call them pro-life) have no use for these children once they're born. This has nothing to do with the the life of any child, and all to do with trying to control women's lives and bodies.
Flyoverland, the fetus is not a 'person'. It is a 'potential' human being. Each woman has 100,000 eggs in her ovaries at birth. They are expendable whether you like it or not. We woman sluff off an egg every month from the age of twelve to about fifty. If we don't agonize over every one, forgive us, we have more where that comes from. At the risk of sounding flip, it seems like I minimize abortion. I don't, but I don't agonize over it either. I keep it in perspective. The anti=abortion hysteria just gets to me. It is hypicrital.
Do you believe equality is a right? That all women were created equal?
Well this law doesn't. This law now states that women who work for the government are not allowed to pay for an abortion (a completely safe and currently legal procedure) with the health insurance they are required to purchase. This law states that women who work for the government do not have complete ownership over their bodies. This law states that women working in government have to pay out of pocket for a procedure that every other woman in the country can have covered by her insurance.
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, clearly you can see that this inequality is unfair. Equality is a right and this law takes it away from us.
Why am I so angry? I'm a 22 year old who works for the government (remember, there are hundreds and hundreds of gov't agencies. "Government employees" are not just congressmen and white house aids - we work at NASA, the Department of Justice, airports, etc). This law states that my healthcare is not equal to other women's healthcare. That's just not fair.
Finally, since I get paid by the government (aka with YOUR tax dollars), the government would effectively be paying for my abortion (God forbid I would ever have to make the decision to have one) anyway. The only difference is the intense amount of financial strain, as well as emotional strain, that would go into that decision.
Please be pro-life if that suits you; but do NOT be so under the guise that this is not a women's rights issue. That is all that it is.
There is no guise, urbancowgirl. I believe that women should get a fair go in every institution should they desire to do so.
When I talk about pro-life, I do it because I see abortion as murder. Nothing more, no hidden agenda.
Brendino - I'm not sure I follow your comment. What institution am I getting a fair go at?
I understand that you see abortion as murder. Since that's your belief, I know I will not change it and I respect that. But you mentioned in your first post that abortion is not a woman's rights issue, it is an issue of the child's right to live. Again, I know I won't change your mind on whether or not the fetus/baby has a right to live but this IS a woman's rights issue particularly in this context and I disagree with your assertion that it is not.
This law treats some women (women who work for the government) differently than other women. Again, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, this isn't fair.
I was thinking along the lines of business, military, etc.
Alright, I see what you're saying. It is a women's rights issue. But, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not pro-life for the purpose of keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen while the man goes out and brings home the bacon.
Some laws inherently create unfairness. Laws against theft are unfair to someone who has a background in espionage and wants to steal to put food on the table for his kids (ridiculous example, but work with me), but we as a society have decided that stealing is inherently wrong. Therefore, any market that involves theft is threatened, regardless of any moral gray area regarding theft.
You can't choose to be a woman like you can choose to be a thief, but that's the issue behind the debate. If abortion is murder and society declares murder to be a wrong, then you have to stop murder. If a purchased gun guaranteed a death of a human being and had no other purpose, then guns would be illegal.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I completely understand the arguments against abortion and fully respect the right of the individual to refuse to get one should she become pregnant.
However, I don't think that one woman's condemnation of it should bar another woman from making a different choice.
I don't want to get into an abortion debate as I think both sides are legitimate in their beliefs and I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine. But, because abortion is currently legal, every woman should have the right to access that legal procedure and make the choice herself - whether or not she works for the government shouldn't make a difference.
I'm glad you could see where I was coming from on the equality among women issue. Like I said, I appreciate your views on abortion and would never say that you were wrong to refuse one yourself but I do believe it's wrong to refuse that same choice to other women.
Thanks for the civil exchange - kind of rare on Daily Beast.
The issue here is what rights are, and to what degree the government can protect them.
The child has a right to live.
All government employees have rights to government-paid health care that is equivalent to what is available on the private market.
The government ought to protect a person's rights insofar as these rights don't deprive another of their rights.
Considering this third statement, there is a conflict. If the government were to fund health care that covered abortions, it would be providing a right to the insurance holder that violates the right of the child to live.
It would also require all taxpayers to be complicit in compromising the right of the child.
So, while I understand that there is an inequality in coverage, I also understand that providing equality would rob children of their most basic right to life and allow the government (using our tax dollars) to fund murders.
Of course, if we disagree on the status of the unborn child as a human being with rights, then my argument won't convince you.
klmilliard - that child has no right to live under current law. I respect that you believe it should hold that right but, like I said, under current law it is not afforded such a right until it's third trimester.
So, that said, there is no conflict. I have a right to the same insurance everyone else has but the new Health Care Reform bill being discussed in the House takes that right away from me.
And like I already said, if I were to have to get an abortion, I would use your tax dollars anyway (as my paycheck is comprised of your - and my - tax dollars). The only difference is that I would be under more financial strain because the entirety of the procedure would be paid for out of pocket rather than in conjunction with insurance.
It's your tax dollars either way so the only question is my right to obtain protection for procedures granted to other women.
Here Here Brendino...pro-life is all about the rights of the unborn. The left argument that an unborn baby shouldn't have any rights just doesn't fly anymore with most Americans. Yes, let's work together to solve the issue but just not at the expense of the innocent whether they be the baby or the woman.
The fetus is not fully human so having an abortion is not MURDER. That is where your thinking goes awry.
@newswoman - Why isn't the fetus fully human?
It's not your business to be concerned with the life of MY child. I can do that myself. The prolife movement doesn't admit that abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils. We believe women want to bear healthy children and when a fetus is determined to be 'defective', a woman should be able to abort and get pregnant again with a chance to have a healthy child. This is not for the government or some anti=abortion group to determine.
The only people who should be involved in this issue are women. Men should not be allowed to have any input on the issue of abortion because men are not the ones impregnated or undergoing the procedure. How can they possibly have the nerve to feel that they ever deserved a say-so in this issue?
That's a pretty sexist comment to make.
Men should have a say in the issue because men do play a role in the child's life. Just because men aren't the ones going into the procedure or opting to have the child doesn't mean our voice should be shut out. Yes, it is completely up to the woman to decide whether to keep the child or not, but that doesn't mean the solution to the abortion debate nationwide should only be done with the voice of women.
That's like saying only Gays should have a say in the debate of gay marriage, or only illegal immigrants can have a say over illegal immigration.
I already know it's coming so I'll just say it now. I'm pro-choice and pro gay rights, but that doesn't mean I don't believe only one side should be able to debate or the other side shouldn't have a say because they might disagree.
Amazing.
So if a man were to get a girl pregnant, and she went and got an abortion, and the man wanted to have a child, what do you say to the man. Screw you? That's the man's own flesh and blood that she aborted!
You really believe that men should have no say in the fate of their child (whether you see it as a potential or actual child)? That men can only have a child when the woman feels like it? Cause that's equally sexist. I don't want to start a gender war here, because men have made their mistakes, but I don't see how this isn't sexism.
God what convoluted thinking, Brendino. The fetus is part of a woman's body until it is born. Until that time, the man has no say. You probably think a man can force a woman to carry a fetus against her will or when it is defective (down's syndrome, etc.), but I don't think a man would like it if the shoe was on the other foot. Think about it.
@newswoman - I'd be interested to see the scene where you go up to a kid with Down's Syndrome and call him a defect. I wouldn't wish such a condition on any child, nor their parents, but to tell a kid that he'd be better off not existing at all...I couldn't do that.
Look, if a man knocked out his girlfriend and slipped a coat hanger into her to abort the baby because he didn't want it and she did, he'd be universally reviled, perhaps even prosecuted. But if a man wants to have a baby and the woman doesn't and the woman goes out and gets an abortion, that's completely acceptable? That's the man's kid too; half of the chromosomes are his. Why is he allowed no say in the process?
Because without sperm, your female anatomy would be nothing more than a monument to squandered potential.
Citizenship For Sperm!!
Yup. Sperm has half the material to spawn a fetus, so it logically is half a person.
So stop masturbating. And if you do, you better pray over the results. I mean, you want it to go to your heaven don't you? You killed this "innocent" half life after all!
Nope, sorry. Though I like that you used a term half a life! Half a life is not a life. When one half meets the other half, then you have a whole life, one that should not be killed.
Considering Sotomayor upheld Bush's global gag rule on abortion, don't count on any help from her or the other 5 catholics on the 9 member Supreme Court.
Here's what we'll get: Full coverage for Viagra, Levitra and all that other ED medication out there and no coverage for abortion. It was inevitable and entirely predictable. All these laws are made by men, for the benefit of men and to hell with women and control over their bodies. And all of you women who were sure that Obama was a better choice than Hillary (NARAL included) are getting exactly what you deserve. It makes me sick.
couchcoughfeminazicoughcough
Norcal, you are talking 'Rush Limbaugh', the big fat idiot. Coughcough.
You're very close, AngelaM. My company now covers all boner pills that any man could want but doesn't cover ANY birth control pills or prescriptive contraception. I have no need for either type of medication, but it seems inherently unfair that "pregnancy prevention" isn't covered - it saves lots of buck compared to covering a pregnancy - yet the men are allowed and dare I say, encouraged, to go out and bone at will....regardless of the outcome, pregnancy or not.
And for norcalgladiator, watch out - your rush is showing. You're probably just like your overlard Rush and are so repulsive to women that all you can be is a hater and not a lover. Pretty pathetic, asshole.
I think I've heard people having this argument before....when was that....damn, I swear I've hear this "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" thing before but I can't remember where it was... oh well, time for some mario kart!
I believe Abortion is wrong. What are my reasons? Who gives a sh**. You believe it's an important right. Who gives a sh**.
It's American and we can believe whatever we want!
But if you make me pay for something that I believe is morally wrong - That is an unlawful use of force against me, and the money that I produce from my labor. I will fight such an unlawful use of force.
That's a silly argument and you know it.
What about people morally against war?
Or Jehovah's Witnesses who are against blood transfusions?
Or Scientologists who don't believe in psychiatric drugs?
Or Catholics who don't believe in birth control?
Or people who don't believe in the death penalty?
You paid your taxes to the government and now that's their money to distribute - for war, drugs, executions, whatver. As long as the drugs or procedures that gov't run or subsidized insurance pays for are safe and legal, nobody's moral code should get to impede my health care. This is my body, my health, my insurance that I pay for every month - YOUR moral code does not get to decide what I do with my doctor.
Except, wait - now it does.
I don't understand. You already have a right to make decisions with your doctor.
Why do you think your entitled to have strangers pay for it?
Look lady, have a big Abortion cake and walk through it. I don't care.
But I think elective abortions are pretty messed up, and I'm not gonna pay for yours.
Pay for it yourself.
Because that's what insurance is! We all put money in the pot and when someone needs a procedure done or needs a certain drug, the insurance agency gives them some money from the pot. Strangers are always paying for your healthcare!
Catholics are paying for someone to get birth control, Scientologists are paying for someone to get psychiatric drugs, etc.
This is not a pro-life, pro-choice argument - as I discussed above with Brendino - it's an equality argument. I pay for insurance just like everyone else but because I work for the government, I don't even have the OPTION of choosing a plan that covers abortions?
Whether or not abortions should or shouldn't be legal is a whole other topic - this debate is purely about stifling a woman's right under law to an insurance plan that covers a legal procedure. That is all.
Hey, Lincoln, I don't want to pay for war because I believe it is morally wrong;
Suck on that! We pay for tons of stuff we don't like, but we have little say in the matter. However, when you want to interfere with my rights, then I will fight against that.
On some issues your voice is faint because few others support your position. That does not mean your position is wrong. On the abortion issue both sides have about the same volume and the stakes are very high. Life and death.
I would like to ask those that are "pro life" where do they stand on the issue of death penalty and Wars, as we no wars do kill fetus and children?
What is the rationale behind abortion as murder and Wars as necessary in the name of democracy and death penalty as justice?
Especially the death penalty as justice, it funny how a person will be executed for murder, killing. Yet the very same crime is being use by the states in the name of justice. How insane is that! Inquiring mine would love to know.
I'm against abortion, but whether it's murder and should be illegal is a philosophical issue in which each side has valid points.
If that makes me "pro-life", i'll answer questions.
DEATH PENALTY: Personally against it, too expensive, appeals, etc; also mistakes sometimes made. But each state (and its people) should be free to decide.
WARS: Sometimes necesary. Iraq was a preemptive war based upon weapons of mass destruction that were not there. Once we discovered they weren't there, we should have left. In fact, we shouldn't gone in to begin with without being more "sure".
You care about the death of a fetus, but not a grown man or woman in war. What kind of sick thinking is that? Talk about morality!
The argument for the death penalty is that a felon has forfeited rights that are common to all mankind. At the least you lose the right to vote, at the most you lose your life. A baby never had that chance. Also, murder is defined as an unlawful killing, so you have to remember that a dead person does not necessarily mean a murder; it all depends on your interpretation of what a lawful killing is. That's why abortion is accepted in the Western World today - people don't think it's an unlawful killing of a human being.
As for wars. Sticky question. Killings in wars seem to operate on a different channel than killings in the midst of society. I mean, were it not for the Allies deciding to fight Hitler, than fascist oppression would have overtaken Europe. I think people look at Vietnam and Iraq and assume that every war was started on shaky premises, but that's not always the case. I'm not okay with a religious war, but I think that political wars have their place.
So a man and a woman have sex, the birth control fails, and she gets pregnant. She should be forced to go through 9 months of pregnancy, whether it's bad for her health ? And then forced to raise a child she may not want, can't raise or can't support ?
Who pays ? Many men flee court support orders, leaving single mothers poor and without resources.
Did you know that pregnancy is a huge health risk for many women, that the word for childbirth in every country is connected to the word "Pain"?
So you're against it ? Who cares ? You don't care about women's lives.
Just some guy who thinks it's wrong ? Who cares ?
Anti-choice people vote against welfare, and believe that childbirth is
an excellent punishment for having sex.
@GinaRN - All actions have consequences. Just because there is a way out doesn't mean that way is right or it should be taken.
To me, "pro-life" means just that, so if a definite choice must occur between the life of the mother and the life of the child, then that should be allowed.
All of your questions, generalities, and blanket statements have little to do with the core issue. If the thing inside of a woman is a human life, then killing it is wrong, and should be stopped, regardless of consequence. If it isn't, then abort away, but I don't see how one can viably make that case.
Exactly. Make sure the money is coming from the "private" side for abortions and not the taxpayer side, however, I'm gonna have to insist that the churches get taxed as I don't agree with them.
Nice point. Give churches a tax deduction for non-evangelistic, non-ministerial charity dollars that they spend and let's be done with the sham religions.
If the Pew poll is to be believed, the health care bills now in congress simply parallel the opinion of a majority of voters regarding abortion. The trend is now slightly pro-life, and it is not solely a question of religion but one of science. I happen to be a pro-life Atheist mostly as a result of reading the recent scientific reports on the development of the fetus and fetal pain. My switch from pro-choice to pro-life happened within the last ten years. I also agree with everyone who has deplored insurance coverage for "erectile dysfunction." Excuse me, but wouldn't "erectile dysfunction" also include unintended pregnancy? I would never vote for any legislator who would approve coverage for Viagra but deny coverage for birth control.
"and how Obama dropped the ball" is part of the title of this piece. There is not one mention of his name in the article. That's shoddy editing and/or journalism.
Whenever I now think of abortion I think of a New York City subway ride, an accident in the Bronx and a hospital in Miami.
Quite some years ago I saw an advert in a New York City subway car offering abortions to 24 weeks and I remember thinking that at six months it ain't whistling Dixie but then it ain't a jelly bean either. Within a day or so of this there was an accident in the Bronx where an elderly man tried to cover and shield his four year old grandson from a tipping delivery van. Both were killed. Although the grandfather was the hero as he selflessly tried to offer up his life to save the child, why would most of us be more saddened by the child's death? I thjink it had to do with potential. The old man had realized most of his life's potential whereas the child had barely begun.
Recently I read that Amillia Taylor was born at a Miami hospital in February 2007 after 21 weeks gestation and weighed in at a mere 10 oz. It was not all that long ago that a fetus this young would be considered nonviable (no potential), now that has changed and is continuing to change with new developments in neonatal care. Surely, if what we are discussing is changing, like it or not we are going to have to change too.
The average cost of an abortion can range from $300 to $10,000 depending on how far along you are!!!!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.