Why the abortion amendment is bad public policy even if you are against abortion

[dsc]

The only semi legitimate fear of public health care in this country that exists is that our government will impose non medical standards for making medical decisions. As someone who vividly recalls our government's response, or lack thereof, to AIDS I admit to harboring some fear of political considerations trumping medical ones in a public health care system in this country. The abortion amendment is precisely that fear come to life. Abortion, like it or not, is a legal, safe and effective medical treatment in this country. Given that, it should be treated like any other legal, safe, and effective medical treatment in this country and be paid for by insurance when it is medically necessary. If the government can effectively ban private insurers from paying for abortion on the grounds that they are paying some portion of the premiums, then there is literally no medical treatment it can't decide to ban payment for in the future. Imagine if Jesse Helms could have banned private insurers from paying for AZT. This is a God awful precedent, even if you don't like abortion.

[Kdillard]

1. I am hoping it gets defeated if not here in reconciliation with the Senate Bill.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. -

[watercolors]

3. Not set in stone, hopefully ir will be done away with.

nt

[Blue State Blues]

4. Kick -- important points

For "moral" reasons they could deny all pre-natal and maternity coverage for unmarried women. They could deny all coverage for treatment of STDs ... the list goes on.

[Brother Buzz]

5. I am naive but I believe the courts will intervene if it becomes law

We simply need to enact healthcare now, then invest hard work and time refining it to make it work smooth and fairly.

[Blue State Blues]

6. Will the council of bishops insist that any treatment derived from stem cell

research not be covered?

[ClarkUSA]

7. The bill pays for abortions where the mother's health is at risk or that were caused by rape/incest

This DUer speaks for me and many Democrats:

"I have absolutely no problem with the way the abortion section is written, as long as it pay for abortions that were the result of rape, incest or if the health of the mother is at risk -- which it does.

People can either pay for their own elective abortions or buy a supplemental policy that covers it. Much like they do for elective breast enhancements, face lifts and botox. Should tax payers have to pay for those elective procedures as well?

Elective abortions are legal, but that doesn't mean they should be tax-payer funded."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8739881&mesg_id=8741656

-------------------------------------

I'll wait until the final bill in order to comment on an amendment that has yet to come out of conference. FWIW, folks who can afford
10K premiums can use their "private funds" to go to Planned Parenthood. And I know of many friends and acquaintances who have
never used/had insurance or Medicaid and they still managed to have multiple abortions.

As for your prediction re: the outcome of Stupak amendment: it seems alot of anonymous folks at DU seem to think they know the
outcome of legislative events before the happen. I am dubious, but even if your worst fears came true, I am still in favor of HCR
because I have family members with pre-existing conditions who would no longer be denied insurance come January 2010 if it
passed. The legislation will also cover 96 percent of Americans by 2015, while reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars
by 2019. Not too shabby.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There are many years ahead to tweak legislation, as Congress did with Social
Security and Medicaid.

[PeaceNikki]

8. Why not?

[ClarkUSA]

9. "Why not" what? Did you read anything I wrote before posting a two-word rejoinder? nt

[PeaceNikki]

10. You edited your post. I asked why shouldn't the plan cover "elective abortions"?

It's not about the money, is it? It can't be. If these pregnancies go to term, the cost of prenatal care and delivery far exceeds the cost of termination.

Let's be honest, it's about your opinion of the procedure. It's about your beliefs. Why is it OK that you factor your opinion of this procedure into HCR? And more importantly, why is it OK to use HCR to restrict access? Because that's what Stupak and DFLA really want. And, if the desire really is to reduce the number of abortions, why not mandate the coverage of contraception in the bill?

I want HCR to pass and I want my representatives to not bend to the religious right at the expense of women's choice and access. I don't want Democrats working towards restricting access.

And the fact that you and others compare it to breast enhancements, face lifts and botox shows how ridiculously ignorant you are and that you don't take women seriously.

[ClarkUSA]

12. I did not edit my remarks after your reply. You're fibbing to CYA.

Why should taxpayers pay for elective abortions based on your beliefs and your opinion of the procedure?
Why should taxpayers have to pay for mandated coverage of contraceptives?

I know many women, a few of whom have been very close to me, who have had no insurance or Medicaid who have had
multiple abortions and obtained free or low-priced contraceptives including the day-after pill. There is nothing that
"restricts access" just because the bill doesn't require taxpayers to foot the bill for elective abortions.

For you to call me names just shows how much your opinions have affected your ability to dialogue with any degree of
credibility, much less civility.

[dsc]

14. you most certainly did edit your post

I saw it myself. Shame on you for out and out lying about what another poster posted.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Oh, pile on. As if you're an unbiased observer. The time stamp tells the tale. nt

[dsc]

20. Here are the timestamps

Your edit

Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 12:56 PM by ClarkUSA
Her post

Sun Nov-08-09 12:55 PM

Now, I know this is difficult math for some people but 55 is less than 56 so that means 12:55 happened before 12:56. You editted your post after she poster hers. No amount of bias on my part changes that very simple fact.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Here's a fact: taxpayers should not have to pay for elective abortions. And you're still a Failer.

As for your minute timer, good luck with that. :rofl:

[PeaceNikki]

24. That's an "opinion" not a fact.

Would you like me to explain those concepts to you, too?

[ClarkUSA]

28. It's an opinion that's a legislative fact via the Hyde Amendment. nt

[dsc]

27. It isn't my minute timer it is Skinner's so I guess he is biased too

the fact is she had every earthly right to ask for an explanation of your post and to comment upon it when she recieved it. you are the one who editted your post and tried to make her sound nutty.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Blah, blah, blah...

[PeaceNikki]

17. Timestamp shows it, too.

He edited post 7 at 11:56 and I posted post 8 at 11:55.

Prior to his edit, he simply said that the healthcare plan should not pay for elective abortions. But, thankfully he edited it so he could make his point about botox and stuff. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

21. You Failers amuse me with your playground games. I addressed your query quite adequately. nt

[PeaceNikki]

11. You edited it, sparky.

[ClarkUSA]

13. I edited it before you replied and called me names. So far, you have yet to make a credible point.

[PeaceNikki]

16. Telling someone that they are ignorant on a matter is not calling names.

But you go ahead and be super offended.

[ClarkUSA]

19. I believe the phrase you applied to me was "ridiculously ignorant". That is "not calling names"?

Oh, I see, I guess you're splitting hairs between "calling names" and "gross insults" eh?

:rofl:

[PeaceNikki]

22. You display a lack of understanding on abortion.

You did that. I simply pointed it out. Ignorant does not equal stupid. It means "lacking knowledge".

[ClarkUSA]

30. No, I simply don't see why it's necessary for taxpayers to pay for elective abortions. nt

[dsc]

18. you most certainly didn't edit that post before she posted why not

I know because I saw both your orginal post and hers in response. I went to reply to yours and the text changed so I knew you editted. You owe that poster an abject apology for the insuation that she is lying about what you posted.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Nice try on distracting from my salient points. nt

[ClarkUSA]

26. Nice try on distracting from my salient points. nt