Stupack's anti abortion amendment is more about class than about payment of abortions.

[Hamlette]

The practical effect of Bart Stupak's position is not that the federal government will not subsidize abortion by subsidizing health-care insurance. It is that it will not subsidize abortion by subsidizing health-care insurance for poor women. We already spend much more subsidizing coverage that includes abortion for richer women:

This entire debate is ridiculous, because the feds already subsidize abortions massively, via the giant tax subsidy for employer-provided care. Today the feds devote at least $250 billion a year to subsidizing employer-based coverage, a subsidy that skews incentives horribly (but which big business and big labor wouldn’t let the politicians touch this year). A Guttmacher Institute study says that 87 percent of typical employer plans cover abortion, and a Kaiser study found that 46 percent of covered workers had abortion coverage.

As I've written before, the Stupak amendment is as much about class as it is about choice. Imagine if Stupak attempted to expand his campaign to the coverage employed women receive.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/stupaks_abortion_argument_stil.html

Too bad this will never catch on as people seem more concerned about keeping the tax exempt status of their current health care than by making health care delivery fair.

But still, glad to see this argument get some ink. In the WaPo of all places.

[glowing]

1. The problem I see is that the moral brigade has done its wonder on the younger generation.

There is this overwhelming sense that an abortion is morally wrong and having one is "not taking responsibility", even though the woman and child will now be a financial burden on parents, society, and will most likely be stuck in lower income wages... Its a choice that many who probably should choose it, don't. I work with a young woman who should have chosen the abortion, in my opinion. She didn't and it will be a wonder how that child will turn out... not that she should never be a mother.. She just isn't ready to do it at this time in her life... Its a good thing she moved back into her parents home so at least someone can over see this child's first formidable years.

The right to choose is something that most women support, however, the right has created this icky image of abortions and morally irresponsible thing to do.. heartless and cruel.. so, many women say, I support abortion, but would never have one... some of them being very young teen-aged girls.

[EFerrari]

2. It's crucial that those of us who have had abortions or who helped someone

with theirs tell our stories to counter the scariness that the rabid right has whipped up. Because I agree -- they've taken a pretty safe health procedure and turned it into something else.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. Well, I'm anything but a young girl. But that was my position

(I saw "was" because I'm no longer in a position to be pregnant).

And I respect each woman's choice - it's hers to make.

I think each abortion is a loss, and I'd very much like to see more done to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But I'll be damned if my opinion counts for more than one woman: me. It's far too important a decision NOT to be placed securely in the one set of hands best positioned to make it - the woman herself.

[Hamlette]

6. well said Jersey girl

that's how I feel. I think each abortion is a loss and it is a difficult decision.

I also think that religion plays a huge part in the debate. What Stupack is saying is "My god tells me it is wrong." To a believers ears that might not be as infuriating as it is to mine.

Obama hit a nerve with me when he said "religion should inform our decisions but we must find a way to explain those decisions to non believers so they make sense" (words to that effect). If you can do that, I'm on board. Otherwise, "god said so" to my ears sounds no different than what "god said" to the 9/11 hijackers.

[JerseygirlCT]

9. Well that's it

I am a believer. But Stupak's claim feels to me like "I say God said so, and what I say goes!". There's no respect in it for another person's moral convictions - his are the only ones that count.

It's paternalistic in the immediate and in the larger sense. And both make me bristle. Heck, even my devoutly R. Catholic mom agrees with my stance. It's a deeply personal decision. And for that matter, not choosing an abortion is also a decision - something men like Stupak seem to like to ignore. It's a decision that is usually life-changing. Again, who gives them the right?

[glowing]

11. Actually, in the bible, their are times where God asks for sacrifices to him of

a baby outside the womb.. If you actually read much of the bible, God sanctions and favors wars and pestilance.. Its rather dark and sinister. When you get to the New Testament and Jesus enters the picture he speaks of love, forgiveness, kindness.. do unto others. Our society isn't set up for kindness. I'm sure that the woman who is stuck and has an abortion will be recieved into heaven far faster than the picketer outside throwing blood and calling her a murderer.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Well, I believe in universal salvation, so I believe they'll

both find themselves with God if that's what they want. Though I'll give you that the picketer is the one likely to be upset to find himself in such company!

I also do not read the bible literally. The Old Testament is a testament of people through time, seeking relationship with God and writing about that process. The culture was often violent, certainly sexist in today's terms, and their writing reflects that. IOW, it's imperfect, as we all are. Context matters, a lot.

[glowing]

10. I agree.. which is why its my opinion... However, even the young woman I mentioned in the post above

had her own mother beg for her to have an abortion... offerred to pay for it... and even told her daughter about the experience of having an abortion when she was first married to her father because they were not ready financially or mentally for starting a family. She chose to have the baby. Cute baby, 4mos old now. But she is living with her parents, her and the baby are receiving WIC and medicare, and the baby's father has yet to get a job other than gambling. AND honestly, I could care less about the WIC or the medicare.. I think all Americans should have medicare and that families who need help deserve WIC and food stamps.. I would actually make the criteria for food stamps easier to get. Nutrition goes a long way in helping children grow and learn.

Its not my decision and I wish things were easier for women who do choose to have a baby before they have become financially independent.. and these days, economic viability is a little scary..

Personally, I would love to have another baby right now. Perfect time in my mind to add to the family, but with the economy being as it is and having already taken a pay cut that is killing us, my husband and I cannot burden the household with another as much as we'd love to... If by some off chance I were to get pregnant, we would seriously have to consider an abortion. The child that is already here and is 5 shouldn't have to suffer more.

I hate that economics play such a large role in the decision to have a child. Maybe one day we will have Universal health care. Maybe one day we will have federally funded daycare (but they are trying to privatize k-12 now, so I'm guess that notion is probably really far off). Maybe one day parents will actually get to have pd maternity/ paternity leave for at least 6mos (carry a baby for 9 mos, leave them at a daycare center 3wks later and a low pd staffer tapes a pacifier to their mouth and stuffs them in a closet.. all while costing you half your take home pay for the privelege of working). Creating solutions to ease people's burdens as citizens is a better effort than blowing up a clinic.

[femrap]

3. he's a mole republican

misogynist. He has 'issues' south of the border as proven with his affiliation with 'The Family.'

[JerseygirlCT]

4. I don't have to work very hard to imagine he'd attempt to do just that.

After all, the restrictions he wants would make it illegal for a woman to buy insurance covering abortions with her own money.

Don't fool yourself that he and his like are not going for making all abortions illegal. Or that once they've done that, they won't be aiming at contraception.

This isn't about health care, it isn't really even about class. This is about women, and the fear of women being empowered to rule their own lives.

[Hamlette]

7. that's what scares me but as is pointed out in the link

(or maybe in links within the link) that would be too hard to do as it would impact "richer" more "powerful" people who would scream too loud.

He needs a primary challenger. Hope he gets a good one (as Blanche seems to be getting).

[glowing]

12. They already are calling birth control abortion by proxy for not allowing the

seed of creation to occur naturally when God decides to bestow a blessing. Throw out all science and reason and return to the dark ages with this group.

AND yes, it is about control. Men are not able to create life.. only provide a part of that. The reason the bible speaks of the virgin woman entering into marriage is because the science wasn't around back then to do a paternity test... How could a man know if his offspring were really his or his neighbor's? We already know that their were prostitutes back in those times.. so, men weren't expected to be virgins.. hell, the religious men in the bible had multiple wives... you don't see too many supporting that these days.

[RC]

8. Not abortion, Womans health care issues.

Frame the argument as womans health care issues, which it actually is.

[RainDog]

13. It's so refreshing to read someone telling the truth n/t