Why is there never a discussion of medically necessary abortions

[Skidmore]

as part of this health care package? I don't see a strong argument from our side that sometimes an abortion is the only answer to preserve a woman's health and life.

[vaberella]

1. It's been discussed in the case of the Stupak amendment.

Basically if the mother's life is in danger, or rape, or incest---the abortion is paid for. Those are the exceptions everywhere, I believe---correct me if I'm wrong, and even the Hyde says something along those lines.

[Skidmore]

3. It has not been discussed in the media. Perhaps

in women's groups, but I have yet to hear a legislator appear on a program or a doctor appear explaining why women sometimes need to have abortions as a health procedure.

[vaberella]

5. Yes, you're right about that. n/t

[my2sense]

2. Because it seems a woman's

reproductive health is of no concern. Each time I see talk of "no public funding for abortion", I'm reminded of this.

[cornermouse]

4. That's the answer right there.

[vaberella]

6. Why?

The main exception in even the Stupak (Stupid) Amendment is women who's health are at risk, rape victims, and incest victims. These people are provided funding to have an abortion. They are the only exceptions. Which has been the case since the Hyde Amendment.

[cornermouse]

7. Right on cue. n/t

[my2sense]

8. I realize it has not changed - I just think

It should be a females right to make the calls regardless of the circumstance over her own body. I also think a woman's reproductive health should be treated no differently than her other health care needs.

[vaberella]

9. But that has nothing to do with the OPs post. n/t

[kestrel91316]

10. I shouldn't BE a matter for public discussion or debate. It should be

between a woman and her physician.