What All Women Need To Know About Health Care Reform And Abortion
Posted by: Jessica Wakeman
Filed in:
news
12:20PM, Wednesday November 4th 2009
Have you been following health care reform? Earlier this autumn, I was rushing home from work to watch Hardball every night. Then all those “town hall” people screaming about Nazism irritated me so much I’ve mostly tuned out. But there is one health care reform issue I’ve followed closely and that is abortion coverage under President Obama’s plan. Now, if you watched Obama’s big speech about health care reform, he stated loud-and-clear that abortion would not be funded under his public health care plan. Unfortunately, nothing in politics is ever that easily explained…
OK, I will try to explain this as simply as possible because it is kind of complicated:
Under the Obama plan, politicians argue that a woman could use a government subsidy to pay a private insurance company that covers abortion costs. Indeed, over the summer, they backed a provision which would allow women to use government subsidies to pay private insurance companies that cover abortion, but they specified that only the individual or her employer should contribute to that cost.
Critics of that provision, however, say the government subsidies and the personal/employer contributions are all mixed together when it comes to coverage. The lead critic, Democratic Senator Bart Stupak of Michigan, has warned politicians that he has 40 democrats behind him who will veto Obama’s health care bill unless that private insurance matter isn’t allowed. Since nearly all Republican pols don’t back the Obama health care plan, democrats really need those 40 pols. [Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor]
Personally, I couldn’t care less if my tax money were used to pay for abortions, whether through public health care (which Obama already nixed) or through subsidies to private insurance companies which cover abortion. I’d be happy if my tax money covered birth control and other family planning services too. If covering the cost of family planning and abortion means fewer unwanted children are brought into the world, I’m happy about that. Critics argue that some people don’t support a woman’s right to end her pregnancy; therefore, taxpayers’ money shouldn’t cover it. But for that matter, money from taxes never goes to anything everyone agrees on—like the war in Iraq and No Child Left Behind. We may not be happy about what some of our hard-earned cash is going towards, but we still pay our taxes. Well, maybe not Willie Nelson and some others.
Pro-choice supporters believe that every woman should be able to end a pregnancy she doesn’t want, not just the financially well-off women who could afford to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket. This health care coverage of abortion issue is, unfortunately, one which will end up impacting cash-strapped middle-class and poor women who need insurance company coverage to pay for an abortion the same way they’d need insurance company coverage to pay for a broken arm.
So what do you all think? (And let’s keep it civil, shall we?)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
O.Ste
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:30 pm: [report]
Ohhh man, I am so with you on using tax money to cover abortions and/or birth control. Just like you said:
Ahh, so true!
Oddly enough, I’m a right-leaning moderate, but I’m as pro-choice and pro-gay rights as they come.
hlnbabe
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:31 pm: [report]
Jessica, I think you and I could be true friends. What bothers me most about this whole debate is everyone looks at from a “me, me, me” perspective.
The world was not created equal and the fact that people are okay with that is heartbreaking. Everyone deserves to choose to do with their body as they deem appropriate and everyone deserves the right live.
All these anti-abortionists who are against healthcare reform are a bunch of hypocrites. Logic is that it is life from the moment of conception. Can it live outside the womb? No. But they believe it should exist as 4 molecular cells because a life is a life and it’s murder. Yet, someone needs an organ transplant and can’t get it even though the technology is there because of insurance beauracracy and that’s okay. Life is a life people. You can’t pick and choose when you want to enforce it and when you don’t. At least Catholics are uniform on their stance, pro life and anti death penalty…
O.Ste
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:33 pm: [report]
@hlnbabe Amen!
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:34 pm: [report]
catholics once told someone i love that her miscarried child was in purgatory b/c she had it baptized lutheran instead of catholic. not a fan of catholicism.
Jennsz
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:42 pm: [report]
Unlike you I DO have an issue with MY money being used to murder innocent children….this isn’t an opinion of mine it’s a belief something that is hard if not impossible to argue.
citygrlatheart
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:43 pm: [report]
Even if funds could be used through a private insurance company to cover an abortion, good luck finding an insurance plan that would cover the procedure… or many forms of birth control for that matter. Many insurance providers consider birth control elective and won’t pay for it. The only way most doctors get around it for the sake of their patients is saying that birth control is being prescribed for another medical reason.
VannaMarie
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:44 pm: [report]
I think if it is a legal medical procedure that it should be covered to some extent - even if it is as minimal as a plan that allows paying for an abortion out-of-pocket to count towards an annual deductible. It is up to the law to decide if the procedure should be allowed. As long as it is legal it should be readily available.
Additionally, in many cases the abortion would be cost-saving to the government and private insurance companies - especially if it was done because the baby would have major health issues.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:47 pm: [report]
@jenn - i disagree with your “murdering innocent children” terms, but i think abortions should probably be paid for out of pocket.
VannaMarie
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:52 pm: [report]
And with respect to those who oppose the procedure - like Jennsz - and other individuals opposed to certain medical options (vaccinations, chemotherapy, medical marijuana, etc.) I believe that those topics need to be addressed individually.
We need to address the accessibility to health care issue NOW, and if we can get private health insurers to insure people with a generic government subsidy then great! I think that would speed up the process of getting everyone covered. It is up to each health plan to decide what is covered and what is not. Now setting a platform of what requirements must be met (preventive care, lifetime maximums, etc.) should be what needs tending to!
gevlife
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:52 pm: [report]
well I wish my tax money wasn’t paying for the murder of innocent people in the middle east, but i dont get to choose now do it.
bumbler
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 12:56 pm: [report]
The Hyde Amendment is a disgrace.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:01 pm: [report]
lol @ gevlife… have you been to the middle east? have you seen anyone killed there? have you spoken with a family member of an innocent casualty? i bet you 99% of them are being killed by the other side… but i agree with your idea.
riensept
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:06 pm: [report]
@gevlife, good one. I had an abortion when I was 13. I was raped. I couldn’t think about having a child, much less one concieved without consent. There are so many different aspects to abortion. Most people think that it’s a woman’s form of birth control. It’s not, and it’s not an easy decision to come to or an easy choice to make. If I would have had that child, I don’t know what the hell my life would be like now, or where I’d be. I am not against health insurance paying for it. For every man that gets viagra, covered by health insurance, every woman should get a choice. Because really, it’s personal.
william.paul
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:11 pm: [report]
As morbid as this is going to come across: Does anyone know what a competent physician would charge for an abortion?
Making a deal with those 40 Dems who will not back this bill as it stands makes me throw up in my mouth. If it has to be done though, how can we find other ways to lower the costs that someone would pay out-of-pocket for the procedure. Later on, when Congress has some smarter legislators, the issue can be revisited.
william.paul
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:14 pm: [report]
@gevlife Ironically enough: Your tax money is also paying for those people to get better as we are currently providing national healthcare to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
AlisonNoelle
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:17 pm: [report]
Oh wow where to start. First, I believe that if there was better funding for sex education in school there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The whole abstinence only thing is ridiculous and completely unrealistic. So if the government would have spent the money on that this wouldn’t be such a huge issue. But they didn’t/don’t so it is. Second, abortion is a CHOICE. Whether people like it or not they do NOT get to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body. (Terrible isn’t it? Women getting to make there own choices! Whats the world coming to?) If there are women out there that need to use my tax money to get an abortion then by all means. Especially if its someone who has no business having children ie drug addicts, very young girls, women who have just had a baby and got pregnant again almost immediately, whatever. The money is there to help. We should not be able to pick and choose for other people what they do with their coverage whether its state or private or both. No one is going to be 100% happy with whatever plan passes. I for one would just like to be able to AFFORD healthcare.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:17 pm: [report]
@Mucho while I agree with what you say about who is actually killing them, and I take your experience as my data feed. I think the point they may have been trying to make was many of us, did not and do not support these wars and that fact was not considered when using our tax dollars to fund it. this should be on the same plane. I do however whole heartedly support our troops and being a NYer living out west during 9/11 I made it a point to shake the hand of every military man I saw in the airports after. I thanked them for what they were doing for us and always try to remember “Freedom isnt free” for some that means our $$ goes places we would rather it not, for others that means that they and their families unfortunately pay the ultimate price. For that I salute all of you!! I personally like the idea college should be free for all American’s but that all American’s should serve in the armed forces for 4 years post high school. I can’t tell you how many more usefull degrees people would have if they entered college at 21 with some life experience rather than 18. I have a cousin who is a 1993 Vassar grad with a degree in Spanish Literature which is useless for her and she is now BACK in school getting her CPA.
jimnist10
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:25 pm: [report]
Abortions are legal medical procedures and however one may feel about them, they should be covered in some way by health insurance or whatever govt’t plan becomes enacted. A woman may have access to them, but if she can’t afford one, then what is the point? OR maybe that is the point. I love that anti-abortion people seem to assume that if an abortion is legal (and paid for), that means that every time a woman gets pregnant, she’s going to get an abortion and treat the procedure like a form of birth control. I agree with the points others have made that you don’t always like what your tax dollars are being spent on. I personally can’t stand that as my credit card interest rate goes up and up and new fees are tacked onto my “credit agreement”, banks got bailed out with MY TAX DOLLARS. Anyway, whatever your moral stance on abortion is, a woman should not be denied the right to choose just because she doesn’t have money.
GreenAura
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]
Abortions are (for the most part) elective procedures. So, unless medically necessary, they should not be covered under insurance. Kind of like boob jobs. Not trying to compare an embryo to a boob, but it’s along the same lines.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:34 pm: [report]
agree with aura. theyre legal, but elective. i dont want to pay for someone else’s boob or nose job, and i dont want to pay for their abortion either. im having trouble getting rid of the little pudge hiding my abs. lipo is legal, but i dont expect you all to chip in for mine.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]
@equn - yeah i got what she was saying. paying for somethign you dont agree with. i thought it was a valid point. we dont choose where our tax money goes. i guess unless there is a medical emergency or in cases of rape i feel like abortions are elective.
bumbler
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:36 pm: [report]
@GreenAura but breast reductions are often covered because they can lead to health issues that will end up costing more money in the long run. They don’t cover and deny based solely on medical necessity.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:40 pm: [report]
@bumbler - you just contradicted yourself. breast reductions are covered in some cases b/c in those cases, a doctor has said “do this or they will endanger your health,” and are therefore medically necessary.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:44 pm: [report]
@allwhocallabortionselective - In the case of an elective abortion it should not be covered by any policy and the boob example is a good one, not to trivialize abortion, anyone who has been reading my crazed rants know my stance on that, but it is something that you choose to do. If the abortion or Dialation and Cutterage (sp?) as it is medically known is required then it should be covered regardless of the plan. I had a non viable pregnancy when I was 24 and my body wouldnt miscarry so I needed essentially an abortion. This also just happened to my BFF so in those cases it should be covered.
Bee Mee
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:58 pm: [report]
I had a doctor tell me he would approve a “medically necessary” breast reduction once - and my health was in no danger and I was in no pain. I just told the doc I wanted even breasts for a change. I passed. Even boobs weren’t worth possible loss of nipple sensation.
Viagra and Cialis are “elective” too… but they are covered. They were covered before several insurance carriers would cover birth control or prenatal care.
My friend’s insurance denied her an “elective” test to make sure her aggressive breast cancer hadn’t metasticized.
Hows about we let individuals and their doctors decide their medical fate and let them make the copay. What makes someone so special that they can decide they don’t want someone else’s procedures covered - especially when they gladly take from the pot for their own medical choices - not all life threatening choices, at that.
Besides, in the past 8 years, I’ve had to fund a lot of #&@$% I don’t believe in. I was not offered a say in it either.
bumbler
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 02:03 pm: [report]
@MuchMacho An increase in back pain is not a medical necessity. Not even close to a life or death situation. The insurers take a look at the comfort of the patient and most importantly to them their bottom line for treating chronic back pain versus a preventative surgery. Pregnancy can come with much more life threatening/medically necessary conditions than just back pain not to mention the cost of a vaginal or c-section delivery versus an abortion. By forcing women who do not want children to carry, deliver and the give the child up for adoption you are drastically increasing the cost of coverage which then filters down to everyone who is insured with the company. Last time I checked Viagra wasn’t medically necessary either.
bumbler
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 02:05 pm: [report]
@BeeMee Beat me to it, well said.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 02:09 pm: [report]
unethical doctors add to the overall cost of healthcare, and in the end, will pay for their practices when ppl quit having elective procedures done and their cash flow dries up. karma is a bytch. and im against elective abortions being covered AND viagra, so there!
Raugiel
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 02:29 pm: [report]
@ Jennsz & MuchoMacho -
I may not like my tax dollars paying for some jack*** who thinks its smart to ride a shopping cart down a flight of stairs to go to the emergency room with broken bones afterwards, but pay for it they do. It doesn’t matter if we like it or not. The government doesn’t get to decide which procedures are “OK” and which aren’t, which in this instance, is uncomfortably close to a government endorsement of a religious position, which is not acceptable.
NicoLion
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:06 pm: [report]
@Raugiel When the government is paying for things, they BY DEFINITION get to decide what they’ll cover. Someone who comes into the ER dying and gets treated with government dollars is very different from electing to end a pregnancy via abortion. In fact its the exact opposite…saving vs. ending a life (or something that could be a life if that’s what you believe). Terminating a pregnancy is a choice and unless there are special circumstances pregnancy does not endanger a woman’s life. The government would be much wiser to spend their money on coverage of birth control than cover an elective procedure that is so controversial.
writergirl
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:28 pm: [report]
Abortions aren’t covered now under most insurance plans—why should the government fund them?
I don’t care, personally—if my money is going to fund public assistance it is going to fund it on some level. I look at it in very simplistic terms.
Lets take the case of the single mother. If she had access to an abortion, she would have one paid for with my tax dollars. But if she doesn’t—then that child is either kept by her and I am still supporting her and the child with my tax dollars via public assistance programs (assuming she qualifies) OR I am paying tax dollars to support the foster homes the child winds up in if she doesn’t arrange a private adoption.
No matter what in that scenario—I pay.
Knowing I sound absolutely horrid—the abortion option, long-term is cheaper.
joyy
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:33 pm: [report]
@writergirl - That doesn’t sound horrid to me. It sounds like a very, very clear grasp on reality.
Bee Mee
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:35 pm: [report]
Some stranger has no business making medical/cost decisions for anyone else - from the woman who wants an abortion to the guy who wants Viagra. Especially since that person is paying into the same plan as everyone else. Their taxes are funding their procedures too.
If you don’t want to share in the cost of other’s procedures, then by all means, pay for all your medical needs out of pocket. And you should be so lucky to only need something similar to the cost of an abortion or some viagra.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:37 pm: [report]
@rau - a broken bone, however obtained, requires medical care. an abortion is something someone chooses to have. if it is medically neccessary, i say insurance should pay for it. if youre choosing to have it b/c u dont want it (cant afford it, are too young, want to finish school, etc) then it is optional, and you should pay for it yourself.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:38 pm: [report]
wants.
needs.
joyy
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:53 pm: [report]
@muchomacho - A woman doesn’t NEED to deliver a baby to stay alive either*. Abortions generally cost under $1k ($350-500ish for normal, uncomplicated procedures done early in the pregnancy), whereas vaginal births without complications start around $7k. Whether a woman WANTS to continue or terminate a pregnancy is her decision - why only offer public funding to the more expensive option?
*I know that sounds super callous and anti-supporting women who want to be mothers - it’s not meant to be, promise.
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_Reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=48370
http://www.emaxhealth.com/84/17339.html
ms. swiss miss
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 03:56 pm: [report]
great article! this is a small thing but Bart Stupak is actually a Congressman, not a Senator.
Thanks for this great piece.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]
well my retort would be “why would anyone ever have a baby if it costs $6,500 more to have one?” we dont make all of our decisions based on finances. i dont want to pay for an abortion because its the cheapest option. if thats why youre getting one, youre wacked anyway.
joyy
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 04:05 pm: [report]
I didn’t women should be encouraged to make reproductive/childbearing decisions based on economics. But one of the goals of public healthcare is bringing costs down, so economic choices shouldn’t be excluded just because some people would never make that choice.
And there are plenty of people who would have babies even if it cost them an extra however many thousand dollars - just talk to anyone who’s gone through IVF or adoption procedures.
My main point: carrying a pregnancy to term is just as much of a choice as terminating a pregnancy. And both cost money (and both carry health risks to the mother, pregnancy moreso than abortion even). So if you’re going to press the needs vs. wants argument, you should take that into consideration.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 04:21 pm: [report]
i want to support mothers who choose to have babies, but may need temporary financial assistance to do so (not like octomom). i do not want to financially support pregnant women who choose to terminate.
lawyrgrl
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 04:32 pm: [report]
Abortion is an elective procedure? Seriously??? By definition an elective procedure is one that will not have serious ramifications if it is not performed. I think that delivering an unwanted child is a pretty damned serious ramification!
Abortion is a legal medical procedure. If you are going to place a moral overlay on medical procedures I hope you are prepared for questions about cancer treatment for long-term smokers, cardiac therapy for the morbidly obese and Emergency Room care for car crashes when the driver was speeding or talking on the phone. Get off your moral high horse. They tend to buck you off and bite you in the ass when you least expect it.
lawyrgrl
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 04:40 pm: [report]
@muchomacho Luckily, which women get your “support” is not up to you. Individual taxpayers do NOT get a say in which people their money goes to. Ironically, this was decided by the Supreme Court when a very wealthy old busybody decided that she did not want her precious tax dollars to go toward a home for unwed mothers. The Court clearly stated that her only recourse is in the ballot box when she elects her representatives.
subpar
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 04:45 pm: [report]
Well, if I could opt out of paying for everything I don’t personally believe in or benefit from, I’d probably be able to afford my own, private health insurance.
If you have a problem with abortion, fine. But don’t turn around and complain about funding welfare children, birth control, condoms, etc. It’s the hypocrites on this subject that keep those wheels turning. Adopt a baby, do something to help uneducated, young, or single mothers and fathers and STFU.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:03 pm: [report]
@lawyrgirl - arent we on a message board forum to voice our opinion? am i not allowed to voice mine? back off hitler. we’re all giving our opinions on whether we support tax dollars paying for abortions. obviously you do. congrats.
@subpar - i support the womans right to choose. pretty sure nothing i said indicated i didnt. i dont support her right to have taxpayers pay for it.
@lawyrgirl - and the definition of elective procedure is - a procedure that a patient and doctor plan in advance for a condition that is not life-threatening. pretty sure being pregnant is generally not life threatening. where did you get your law degree?
itsnotyourmoney
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:04 pm: [report]
How upsetting that people keep expecting other people to clean up their mess. Things are not fair. Not everyone gets a ribbon and sorry, if you can’t afford insurance, then you don’t have it. I am unemployed and if anything happened to me I wouldn’t expect any of you to send me a check so I could fix it.
It isn’t about being pro-life or pro-choice. It is about paying your own way.
subpar
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:16 pm: [report]
@muchomacho
My comment wasn’t so much directed at you, moreso people who want to complain and then do nothing to aide the actual problem (that being, women getting pregnant and not wanting to/being able to take care of that child).
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]
sorry. i got caught up in being an internet tough guy. for one, we could STOP TEACHING ABSTINENCE ONLY!!!
George Bush - 0
The Left - eleventy billion
AlisonNoelle
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:26 pm: [report]
@Mucho-AMEN!
Bee Mee
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:28 pm: [report]
Right. It’s someone else’s mess that they have been priced out of affordable insurance. It’s their fault insurers decided they have a “pre-existing” condition and are uninsurable. And the only people without insurance are unemployed - it must be because they are too lazy.
Luckily, most people aren’t so myopic and won’t fall into the big bootstraps fallacy.
In addition, if you have insurance coverage, you are not paying your own way. If it is a group plan, your employer pays most of your way. If it is an individual plan, everyone else with your insurance carrier is paying your way. That’s what some people keep missing/ignoring/whatever. It’s not all your dollars that pay for someone else’s medical coverage. They are partially paying your way and their own way. If a woman is paying $600 a month for coverage, she has paid for a first trimester abortion. If another woman is paying for a $150,000 transplant procedure, well, someone else’s money in addition to her own is covering her expenses.
But hey, if you’re for paying your own way, hop to it. Put your money where your mouth is and drop out of your insurance plan.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:28 pm: [report]
@Mucho why are you taunting me so? I am trying so hard to stay out of it lol
luke15chick
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:38 pm: [report]
just for the record, there is pregnancy medicaid, which covers a person from the minute they have an ultrasound proving they are pregnant up through the pregnancy. Doesn’t make pregnancy free but does lower the cost.
develange
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:47 pm: [report]
I’m still getting the hang of this whole insurance thing, but from what I learned so far, I would not expect an abortion to be covered—my current plan is already copping out on other female reproductive stuff(colposcopy, biopsies, etc).
Sure, abortion is a touchy subject, but it sure would be nice if abortion could ONE DAY be at least partially covered by insurance. Why the hell are medical procedures so damn expensive. Why am I paying hundreds of dollars to get a few cells scraped off my cervix? (I’m talking about biopsies here, not abortion).
I get the “paying your own way” deal, but if SO many women are struggling to pay for abortions and/or resorting to shady illegal procedures, why not help ‘em out? Make it more accessible and affordable. Or at least, fund BETTER SEX EDUCATION and CONTRACEPTION.
lahnne
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 07:32 pm: [report]
@ writergirl: I’m totally with you. I’d much rather pay for a few elective, educated, single-shot procedures (sorry, I’m not paying for anyone to have an abortion every time they “forget” a form of birth control) than pay for the sate support of unwanted or unaffordable kids for 18 YEARS. Everyone can fall into tough times, but having a kid when you know you won’t be able to take care of it is downright pitiful.
Milla
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 08:07 pm: [report]
Not to mention that not all abortions are elective. I know two women who experienced miscarriages and had to have a D&C. There are also instances where the fetus would not live outside of the womb due to birth defects and for the health of the mother, it is much better to terminate the pregnancy earlier rather than have her carry it to term. Generally, the abortions performed by the late Dr. Tiller fell under this category.
I think it’s (sadly) hilarious that conservatives scream about abortion but refuse to provide sex ed and support for mothers and babies (real support, please. . . the current programs are so weak it’s pathetic). But that’s just part of the “culture of life,” I guess—unborn babies need to be saved, but the moment the baby is born then it’s #&@$% out of luck.
Manda
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 08:57 pm: [report]
If that’s the case, I’ll skip the abortion, collect food stamps, file for rent assistance, and go back to college… all on tax payer money. I <3 pro-life.
mrcash
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 09:01 pm: [report]
I would hope that with birth control readily available and paid for, abortions would go down drastically. I truly want abortion to be a last resort, and I think every woman who has one should be required to leave with birth control and knowledge how to use it.
mekatieunot
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 09:46 pm: [report]
if it can’t cover abortion - then it shouldn’t cover viagra!!!
if more insurance cover not only abortion but birth control then we all wouldn’t be paying for unwanted/unplanned children.
and it’s funny how most who are against all of the above are also against social programs to help the poor.
talk about a rock and a hard place
let’s fund planned parenthood!
MondimNebel
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 09:54 pm: [report]
Please, don’t spend my tax dollars (ok, on anything really
) on [elective] abortions or birth control.
The other thing is- no one ever mentions adoption. Why is this? I’ve met many people who either have been adopted (imagine if they had been aborted, instead) or want to adopt but there just aren’t people willing to do it.
MondimNebel
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 09:56 pm: [report]
@ itsnotyourmoney—-> yesss
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 08:53 am: [report]
@Mond - whats wrong with funding birth control? its extremely cheap i imagine.
lawyrgrl
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:06 am: [report]
@MuchoMacho University of Baltimore. Where did you get yours? Because you are totally wrong on both elective procedures and the ability to personally direct the use of your tax dollars.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:35 am: [report]
1 – re-read my posts. I never said I controlled where my tax dollars were spent. I said I didn’t want them to go towards abortions. I am perfectly aware that I don’t get to pick what my tax dollars are spent on (as I stated earlier. Check your glasses.)
2 – I googled “elective procedures definition” and it lead me to this link:
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14354
and this one:
http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Ce-Fi/Elective-Surgery.html
and this one:
http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?surgical+procedures,+elective
so you might want to contact every website google sends you to for that definition to correct them… or contact the university of Baltimore for a refund.
lawyrgrl
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 10:46 am: [report]
@Muchomacho I checked your definitions. “Beneficial but not urgent”? Uhm…a woman has a very short window in which to have a safe and legal abortion. That makes it urgent. No way is abortion an elective procedure, regardless of any definition you choose. (BTW - the definition I used is the one that is accepted by Medicare/Medicaid) When a woman decides on abortion, she NEEDS to have the pregnancy terminated. There is no half measure about it. Women who are ambivilant generally continue the pregnancy, not terminate it.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:01 am: [report]
when i decide its time to change my cars oil, i NEED to get a filter, oil, and lifts from my neighbor… but im still ELECTING to change my cars oil. im not trying to trivialize abortion with that comparison. im trying to trivialize your definition of “needs”...
and im no lawyer (obviously) i just pasted in the first 3 links google gave me.
bumbler
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:09 am: [report]
But if you don’t get your oil changed in a timely fashion you’re going to have severe problems with your car and a lot higher expense.
sportzriter13
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:14 am: [report]
@muchomacho-abortion is not always elective. I know I’m echoing someone else, but just to restate, elective means not necessary or urgent. Suppose you have a woman who used birth control, but it failed and she became pregnant, and suppose for whatever medical reason, her body cannot support the pregnancy or carry the baby to term. Is it elective if not having it will kill her? or mean the baby (who will die anyway) is going to suffer?
Women should be educated on all of their options. I’d even say that we should be encouraging them to look into all avenues (in a timely manner) before having an abortion. However, in the end it is her decision. If it’s not due to rape/incest or medically necessary, then have the woman or her private insurance billed first.
joyy
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:14 am: [report]
@mucho - to follow your anaolgy, you ELECT to change the oil in your car ... because it’s mechanically necessary for you to do so unless you want your car engine to blow up.
Elective and medically necessary are two different, things. If you become pregnant, you need medical attention, regardless of what you decide about how you’re going to handle the pregnancy. Abortion is every bit as elective as childbirth.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:29 am: [report]
oil change was a bad example… i decide to get a haircut, so i NEED to find a barber. and i agree that some abortions are medically necessary, and should be covered by insurance (imo).
interesting angle. i would say the difference is that childbirth is a necessity of society, while abortion is not. without new ppl, we’d be gone as a species in a generation.
joyy
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:42 am: [report]
@mucho - For the health of a pregnant woman, delivering a baby comes with plenty of risks, and her life is usually not threatened by NOT having a baby/having a baby doesn’t medically save a woman’s life. (That is not to say abortion doens’t have risks. It does, but pregnancy is actually riskier.)
Also, that is the same point I made earlier.
But individual healthcare choices are made for the benefit and health of the individual, not society, Mao =P Covering abortion will not lead to the extinction of the human race.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:50 am: [report]
agreed. its my opinion, and it isnt like im going to walk in a picket line preaching it and waving crosses at scared young pregnant ladies… i disagreed with the decision to go to iraq, but when i was called i went. and kicked ass. there is a difference between voicing your opinion, and thinking yours is the only opinion. good chat @joyy…
Shasta
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:56 am: [report]
Steady Friskies.
1. I am pro-choice, but am nothing if not practical. Health care reform MUST happen and it won’t with abortion coverage in a bill.
2. Just because it’s not covered doesn’t mean it becomes unconstitutional.
3. Already, The Guttmacher Institute reports that74% of abortions are paid for OUT-OF-POCKET. Only 13% are covered by Medicaid (primarily through state funds) and another 13% are paid for by private insurers.
4. Let’s focus on CONTRACEPTION:
- 90% of private plans already cover it
- Medicaid also covers it.
5. Abortions are relatively inexpensive and I suspect if you don’t have the $400 for one Planned Parenthood or someplace will probably subsidize it.
- I should not be glib. I am in Chicago, which is progressive and has its share of public health facilities. If you’re in Wyoming you’re probably not going to find those.
5. Let’s just get HC reform passed. You’ve got to give a little to get a little.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 12:03 pm: [report]
$400 abortions or a box of Trojans with instructions on how to use them? I’m guessing education will end up cheaper in the long run…
MondimNebel
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 05:21 pm: [report]
In our society, we seem to think someone should come and dust us off and make our mistake go away (I call it Day Care Syndrome). Any action you make has a consequence or result. If you make a mistake, you should have to pay for it. An unplanned pregnancy is a mistake- sometimes not your fault (e.g. broken condom) sometimes it is (e.g. no protection). I don’t think someone should have to care 18+ years for a child they didn’t want and/or can’t take care of, but I do think you should have to spend 9 months being pregnant and give the baby up for adoption (unless you decide to keep it).
We learn best from our mistakes. Would you let it happen a second time if it was you?
C.Munro
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 05:30 pm: [report]
Yes, but thankfully you only own one body, and therefore don’t have any say in what the other 6 billion bodies in the world are allowed to do with themselves.
bumbler
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 05:34 pm: [report]
Where does the man learn from his mistake in these 9 months?
retro chic
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 05:53 pm: [report]
“Day Care Syndrome.” Ah yes, I see your point. I’m sure the first thing that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy rejoices in her epiphany at “The “School of Hard Knocks With a Stained-Glass Window On It” is: “Let that be a lesson to me – I won’t abort, but carry ‘til delivery – that’ll teach me not to do that again!
mmkw
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 07:29 pm: [report]
@ C.Munro, bumbler, and retro chic: FOR THE WIN!
develange
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 10:28 pm: [report]
yeah, what is the man’s “punishment”?
I don’t see how enduring 9 months of intense body changes/feeling #&@$% will teach me to not get pregnant accidentally. Plus, I can only imagine how awful it must feel to give up something that lived inside of you, even if it is “unwanted,” and the guilt that follows.
I think getting an abortion will be horrible enough. Just because an abortion is safe, legal and affordable, does not make it less physically and mentally traumatizing.
Though I’ve experienced neither, I’d opt for the abortion. That said, I’d like it to be a safe, legal, somewhat affordable procedure. I’ll take the emotional aftermath into my own hands.
develange
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 10:30 pm: [report]
or wait, my therapist will help me through it. At least she is covered by my insurance.
mmkw
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 11:53 pm: [report]
isn’t there some important document… written by some old guys somewhere… the words “cruel and unusual punishment” seem like they might have been important…
JessicaGuillen
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:02 am: [report]
I work as a counselor in a nonprofit abortion provider. I work with women everday who struggle to come up with the money for thier abortions.
People can’t just preach that they should be on birth control or stop having sex but sometimes all forms of birth control don’t work or having your husband/boyfriend rape isnt something you can prevent. Sometimes you cant cant afford to feed another mouth. I have seen husbands come in with thier wives. Mothers and daughters and even fathers holding his little girls hand while she makes the hardest choice of her life.
It is not as simple as a comparison of a $4 box of condoms or a $500 abortion. There are so many external circumstances that play into that womens choice that day.
Anti-Choice people say that women who chose abortion are heartless, sluts or murder thier “babies” but I don’t see anyone of those people in our clinic holding the hand of a rape victim who regardless of what happened to her is asking if the fetus will feel any pain (they do not by the way). These women hurt and struggle with thier choices but in the end it is thier CHOICE.
Having federal funded help for abortions would be a huge relief for those women who struggle to come up with that money for thier procedures but at this point it is not a likely possiblity. So people “like me” will continue to help people with the limited funds we have because till you are living the life of that women no one has the right to judge her actions.
kristy1584
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:26 am: [report]
WOW some of you people are plain heartless! “Personally, I couldn’t care less if my tax money were used to pay for abortions, ” WTF is wrong with you?! Thats just saying “hey little girls go F%^k all you want, dont worry, if you get pregnant you can always have an abortion.” Seriously that is the MOST shi&%y thing I think I have EVER heard. Tax money paying for birth control. Im all for it, but abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control.
“Having federal funded help for abortions would be a huge relief for those women who struggle to come up with that money for thier procedures but at this point it is not a likely possiblity. ” If the woman used protection like she should have and didnt make shanty decisions then she wouldnt need an abortion to begin with. Say what you will but just bc a woman and man are irresponsible does not give them the right to take the life of an innocent child. If you dont want the kid, fine, someone out there would love that baby more than life and gladly adopt it. The waiting list for new born adoptions is EXTREMELY long so dont throw the whole “theyll end up in foster care” bullsh&t out there either. You made your bed, lay in it. I have 2 VERY close friends who were both put up for adoption at birth, had their moms chosen abortion, they wouldnt be here today, and neither would you! Abortion is the most selfish thing a person can do. Dont get me wrong if a woman is raped, then its not her fault. Personally, I have been raped and had I gotten pregnant, I wouldve had the child and put it up for adoption. But those are different circumstances then the 19 year old college girl who got pregnant but doesnt know which guys’ it is.
kristy1584
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:39 am: [report]
@ muchomacho - You make excellent points I couldnt agree with you more on most. EXCEPT the one about not paying for birth control. I dont agree with abortion, never have and frankly the issue makes my blood boil. BUT I am not opposed to paying for birth control. I pay 23.40 a month for birth control less than 5 meals at a fast food place. Birth control is very inexpensive and PREVENTS dumb girls from getting pregnant and aborting innocent children. Sh!t I wish they drive around neighborhoods in an RV and administer the BC shot for free. It lasts 3 months and they cant forget to take the pill bc theyve had the shot.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:59 am: [report]
im not sure that i said i dont support fed funding for BC… if i did i didnt mean to, or ive changed my mind. im ok with spreading the burden for BC to all taxpayers (men and women) instead of just women paying for it themselves.
bumbler
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 09:03 am: [report]
Nope, too easy. I’m walking away.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 09:04 am: [report]
I support the federal government euthanizing morons.
Celestial
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 09:39 am: [report]
I think the government should stay out of it. They shouldn’t get to tell me I can’t have an abortion, because if you follow that kind of power to the limit, that would give them the authority to tell me I MUST have an abortion.
People who don’t agree with abortion don’t need a law telling them not to do it. Women who really feel they need an abortion will always find a way to get one, as they have since the beginning of time. The rich women will do it the safe way, even if they have to leave the country. The poor women will be the ones who suffer and perhaps die from amateur abortions.
And since this is about health care coverage, it’s a legal procedure. Cover it.
retro chic
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 09:44 am: [report]
^ The RV would only need to deliver that shot once. A win-win-win all around.
joyy
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 09:48 am: [report]
morbid humor week at the Frisky. <3
C.Munro
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:19 am: [report]
Are you kidding?
I actively want my tax dollars to be spent on abortions. Yeah, you read that right. I want to pay for them.
It’s either that, or pay more welfare for disadvantaged mothers who keep having more kids to get more welfare, and dealing with the crime that results from having even more poor people out there.
Personally, I think it far more heartless to bring a child into the world knowing it won’t be loved or have a good life than it is to have an abortion.
lawyrgrl
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 11:22 am: [report]
@C.Munro Could not agree more.
Regarding @kristy1584 Sigh….(bangs head on wall)
Kate134
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 06:02 pm: [report]
Tricare (military health insurance) already covers abortions. It’s cheaper than pregnancy.
This is such a non-issue that its ridiculous - anti-choice activists have been making it an issue because they don’t actually support Life. Otherwise they would’ve protested the war on terror - which has killed more people than the total sum of legal abortions since roe v wade.
RetroChica
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 06:21 pm: [report]
My sister in law had an abortion a few weeks ago at just over 16 weeks. Her 16 week ultrasound showed her baby didn’t have a brain. Don’t assume abortions are because women are randomly f***ing people and use it for birth control. Life isn’t that simple.
O.Ste
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 06:51 pm: [report]
I love how some of ya’ll don’t think that abortions have any long term effects. That they’re “the easy route” or however else ya’ll care to describe them.
I had a best friend in college who had one, which was many years ago, and she still to this day thinks about it and wonders if it was the right decision. That’s something that she’s going to have to struggle with for the rest of her life.
It was a huge mistake for her to get pregnant in the first place, but she is forever grateful to have a second chance at life. Wouldn’t ya’ll appreciate at a second chance when you’ve made a mistake?
So please, all of you, stop judging others for the choices/mistakes they’ve made and focus on yourselves and bettering your own lives. Thank you.
MondimNebel
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 07:10 pm: [report]
Anti-abortionists feel that an abortion is the taking of an innocent life, whereas war (or the death penalty) takes a non-innocent life of someone who is aware death may be coming to them. Most of us don’t WANT to go to war, but we understand that it IS a necessary evil sometimes. The best example is WWII. As for our current war on terror, there have actually been relatively few deaths… look at the numbers and make comparisons.
Why on earth would you want your tax $$ spent on abortions? Or health care at all? Or welfare? How much extra money would you have in your pocket if you didn’t have to pay so much in taxes? Take that money and go find someone who can’t afford their abortion, their surgery, their family’s dinner, and buy it for them. If we all did that, the world would be a better place. You may not think it’s a realistic idea, but that’s how the world used to work, and it’s not all that bad…
C.Munro
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:11 pm: [report]
None. My taxes would still be high, and my insurance rates would be even higher.
You see, when people can’t afford to take care of their own needs, quite a lot of them have this nasty habit of turning to crime. I know, I know, it’s unfortunate that poor people do whatever they have to to survive instead of curling up and dying in the streets. I mean, that’s what should happen to those who don’t pull their own weight, right?
But instead, they steal. And when they steal, it costs everyone. Insurance rates go up. More law enforcement personnel are hired. And my own safety is degraded along with that of my property.
What I find telling about your post though is that you specifically don’t want to pay for health care. It has always been my position that anti-abortionists care more about controlling the behavior of others, that they pay only lip service to life. This position is supported by the fact that most anti-abortionists are also anti-welfare. And you have showed yourself to be in this camp as well. If you valued life at all, you wouldn’t condemn countless thousands of unwanted children to being born into a life of poverty and then claim that the society that mandated their birth has no obligation whatsoever to care for them.
Arsenic
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:39 pm: [report]
“$400 abortions or a box of Trojans with instructions on how to use them? I’m guessing education will end up cheaper in the long run…” -MuchoMacho
No birth control is 100% percent effective, even when used perfectly.
“The other thing is- no one ever mentions adoption. Why is this? I’ve met many people who either have been adopted (imagine if they had been aborted, instead) or want to adopt but there just aren’t people willing to do it. ” -MondimNebel
The fact is, adoption is a very expensive procedure, one not open for many people not just because of cost, but even because of their sexual preference (gay parents are often denied). To top it all off, many children often become virtually impossible to place simply because of their age or even their race. These children are doomed to enter the wonderful world of foster homes, many of which turn out to be abusive or uncaring, and even when they aren’t, the constant upheaval is terrible for a child’s emotional development. Not to mention the cost of supporting the child, which ends up being placed on the taxpayers anyway.
“I actively want my tax dollars to be spent on abortions. Yeah, you read that right. I want to pay for them.
It’s either that, or pay more welfare for disadvantaged mothers who keep having more kids to get more welfare, and dealing with the crime that results from having even more poor people out there.” -C.Munro
This (in my opinion) is a good point. Unwanted pregnancies aren’t just traumatic- they’re expensive and dangerous. There is a reason many women have died during childbirth through the ages. Health problems associated with pregnancy are many and varied- ranging from suicide (postpartum depression), to prolapsed vagina, to torn vaginal walls (which can significantly impact sexual satisfaction), to hemorrhoids, to morning sickness so severe it damages your esophagus and leads to anorexia… I could go on forever.
“I have 2 VERY close friends who were both put up for adoption at birth, had their moms chosen abortion, they wouldnt be here today, and neither would you! “-kristy1584
And neither would Hitler! Think of how much better the world would be!
MondimNebel
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 09:53 pm: [report]
@ C Munro- you missed the point I wanted to make. Letting the poor / needy / those who need help roam the streets with nothing to do but to either die or steal is not what I want. What I want is people to take responsibility for our society, not let the government make it better. The more the government helps, the more they are involved in your life and mine.
More people need to go out and volunteer or donate (time, money, items). I volunteer at the soup kitchen and we prepare a meal for the people who come and pack the leftovers so the people have something tomorrow, too. I may not be making a difference to the entire US, but I make a difference for these people, even if it is just a little bit.
C.Munro
wrote on November 7 2009 @ 02:27 am: [report]
While I find it genuinely admirable that you volunteer to make your community a better place, I disagree with your separation of society and government. I see government as an extension of society, a tool that should be used to improve the overall living condition of the population. This is the reasoning behind such things as compulsory education. To say that society should do something but government shouldn’t have a role in it does not make sense to me.
I also find it a contradiction to advocate less government intrusion into the lives of individuals while also expressing the belief that women who fall unintentionally pregnant should be forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children.
jessiecrombie
wrote on November 8 2009 @ 11:13 am: [report]
Abortion is not a choice, it is an industry.
TurtleGrrl
wrote on November 8 2009 @ 02:40 pm: [report]
I have two friends who have welcomed BC shot babies into the world this year, one was married not ready $$ for kids and the other was in a long term relationship, but had the whole engaged, married then kids plan. I don’t know if their bodies became immune to the shot, or they just happened to get a bad batch, but both of them decided to keep their babies. They were at a place where they could live with it, and they both have a strong support structure.
But I imagine the same thing happens to people who aren’t in a place in their life where a baby would work.
I had a lot of people tell me I would be more pro-life once I had a child, but I think the opposite is true. I think my child is a beautiful amazing person, and I think everyone should get to experience bringing a life into the world, if they choose to. I also believe every child deserves to be loved as much as my daughter.
I don’t think abortion is murder, but I do think starving or beating a two year old child to death is murder. Is it better for a month old baby to be left to die in the cold?
These are not children who would be easily adoptable. Many women do not know who the father is, and may have drug problems, or be of the “wrong” race.
As far as I am concerned the government gives money to organized religion everyday by allowing churches to exist tax free. I can say I have a problem with this, but it won’t stop. I am open to hearing opinions, but it bothers me that only certain opinions seem to matter. Screaming and yelling over a speaker at a town hall meeting? My four-year old knows that is rude.
This was a great article, keep it coming.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 09:55 am: [report]
i dont think they should be forced to carry. no one forces me to pay my rent. if i chose not to, i couldnt ask someone else to do it for me and expect it to be done. pull your own weight. if you want an abortion, i support your right to have one. work. make money. pay for it yourself.
candyapples
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 10:11 am: [report]
Just so everyone knows, the government already pays for abortions for the people who receive state healthcare. So this would be nothing new. And personally I would much rather pay for someone’s abortion than pay their welfare, food stamps, extra healthcare etc.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 10:17 am: [report]
if youre paying for someones abortion youre probably paying for all of those things anyway. fyi.
Kate134
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 12:53 am: [report]
@ jessiecrombie: where?! most medical schools only offer it as a specialty course anymore and its increasingly hard to find ob-gyns who know how to preform the medically necessary surgical abortions women who have health complications late in pregnancy need.
Its an “industry” less profitable than ingrown toenails, protracted vaginas or ear infections. Grow up and face facts abortions are a medical procedure, and unless you WANT women to get sick and even die from carrying stillborn fetuses to term, birth them and have uterine infections from the decomposing tissue of a dead baby they couldn’t remove, shut the heck up and quit acting like you’re ‘good people’. Removing warts from your feet or ingrown toenails are technically elective too! Let’s keep them from getting govt subsidies. Oh and prostheses for amputated limbs! Those are elective too! So is Chemo! And double mastectomies!! Technically any procedure at that point could be considered elective and that’s why our current system is so terrible.
Where are we going to stop? Oh wait I forgot, Penis enlargement surgies are definitely NOT elective - totally medically necessary. That and hair plugs.