The Stupak amendment

I'm a Democrat and a Liberal, but abortion for the sake of abortion is not a medical necessity and should not be covered by any health insurance. It simply means that you and your partner didn't protect yourselves and made a mistake, and now you don't want to deal with the consequences of having a child. But that is not a medical need! Only should the mother's life be in danger should we cover it. Abortion for the sake of abortion goes in the same category as plastic and aesthetic surgeries in the sense that they are NOT medical, hence they're not covered by health plans.

When you go skydiving, you may take all the precautions you can to be safe. But whatever happens, you're the person who decided to jump out of a plane, nobody else should have to pay for the consequences of your decision.

I believe the same holds true with pregnancy, with the obvious exceptions of rape, incest and the like. If you're willingly having sex, and you get pregnant, nobody else (besides you and your partner) should have to pay for the consequences of your decision.

Well said, Jake!!! I agree 1000%!!!

I find the manipulations by the Repubs and Blue Dog Democrats to be reprehensible, but most policies already available on the market do not cover abortions. As this does not affect providers such as Planned Parenthood, which already is barred from receiving federal funds for abortions, this is being blown slightly out of proportion.

How hypocritical to protest offering U.S. citizens the possiblility of healthcare because the government should not interfere with private enterprise profitering, but then control and interfere with a citizen and her/his doctor. The more conservative a person is the more they want to impose their morals on all others. That is definitely a problem. And to clarify, morals and ethics are different. We need to live as an ethical nation. Church and state need to be seperate.

This whole issue bugs me. Wasn't one of the reasons we started regulating abortion was because of back-alley quacks killing girls? If we eliminate abortions, we'll be back in that boat, and poor women (primarily of color) will be the people who suffer the most.

First, we had Tyranny of George III, then, Tyranny of the Slave States, then Tyranny of the Minority, Now, Tyranny of the Zealots. If Stupak and coven want to join the Wahhabis, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood, let them move the Middle East and wallow in their misguided theology.

I'm a non smoker and my tax dollars will be going to the care of people suffering from lung cancer as a result of smoking but I don't think it deserves to be an exception in the healthcare bill. Along the same lines - money will be going to keep people in a persistent vegetative state alive beyond a certain point.

Many years ago I became pregnant and I was using protection (IUD). I was young and not ready to be a GOOD parent to a child which did not choose to be born. Let't think about the children. What about teen pregnancies. Yikes. Who needs more of those. You will pay now or pay a lot more later.

The ostensible objection could be dealt with with a checkbox on tax returns "I have moral objections to abortion. Reduce my tax payment by the proportion of general fund expenditures which supports abortion procedures." Of course, the objective of the amendment is to derail health reform or restrict abortion, so this would likely not be good enough for Stupak supporters even though it meets their objection.

In this overpopulated world, with the concomitant problems of starvation, global warming, wars, etc., I find it morally reprehensible that anyone should have more than one child (to replace themselves). Yet I not only pay increased premiums for pregnancy, childbirth, and pediatric care, plus additional taxes to make up for the tax breaks given for dependents.

I wish everyone who was against abortion would provide complete funding for each less-than-planned for child.

The on-air discussion is leaving out an important detail. According to NPR's coverage of the Stupak amendment on Tuesday 11/10, individuals can buy additional insurance coverage for abortion procedures if they are compelled to buy into an insurance plan that doesn't fund abortion.
While the experts on the show today raise a good point that often it is the low income women that go in for abortion procedures and thus they are less likely to be able to buy such extra coverage, it doesn't change the fact that abortion is not being blocked as their discussion seems to lead us to believe. Leaving out this detail makes many women panic that they will have no access to abortion, and such panic is used by the opposition of the amendment to generate support for defeating it. Those who are anti-abotion but pro-choice would find this extra insurance coverage option to be the best of two awful compromises--those against abortion don't have to fund it for others, those who would choose abortion will have to choose to pay for it. In the case of mother's health and rape--abortion is still covered in either situation. And possible subsidies were mentioned briefly at the end of the discussion on-air, so there may be additional possible funding options. If those against the amendment truly want to garner support, they cannot leave out these options in the discussion or they will lose credibility with those they hope to persuade.
And if we are truly concerned about low-income women needing access to such services, we should, instead, work on the social and economic issues that make them feel compelled to seek abortion and thus deal with the matter at its source (not just at the later point when they have to make the difficult decision about continuing or terminating their pregnancies).

RE: " The more conservative a person is the more they want to impose their morals on all others " I for one (conservative) don't much care to impose any morals on anyone. (I'm not sure once imposed, they really qualify to be conisdered morals). I just don't want to pay for the consequences of others' choices to have ill-advised sex. I don't begrudge them the right to have an abortion. I just don't want to pay for it. Re: the sevearl who compared my anti-abortion stance to their anti-war feelings, here here! I gues here i'm not so conservative. I wish the anti-war crowd were louder and/or got more media attention. Where ARE the anti-war congresspeople?! Where ARE the anti war protests? I'm not a pacifist....but I think our country has benefited by a solid and vocal group of anti-war activists. IN the past, they have provided a much-needed perspective. But all that sais, the comparision doesn't much help....if they were as numerous as the anti-abortion set, they COULD impact legislation. They should try.

Larry, why didn’t you have any guess that are for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment? So we can hear their point of view not just the opposition. If I could suggest: Jay Sekulow from the ACLJ he is a great debater, plus he and Barry Lynn from the ACLU are always debating politics and religion views. I believe you would have had a more powerful debate with any of their representatives.

I am opposed to guns--does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for the healthcare of anyone who gets shot? The idea that, again, the government should be getting between a woman and her doctor is appalling. The conservatives claiming they wan't less govt control don't seem to mind it when it comes to women. They also claim they don't want govt involvement in businesses and yet they're saying these insurance companies can't cover this procedure.

It is rather interesting for me to read that blog. Thanx for it. I like such topics and everything that is connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more soon.

I found a really great network that taught me how to marker webcam sites!! Check it out, you two can learn and earn!! http://udjnjwh.tk/

[url=http://farom.tv/phpBB-3_0_2-rus/phpBB-3.0.2-rus/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8575]Link 1[/url]
[url=http://www.screwprivacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=64806]Link 2[/url]
[url=http://forum.aviner.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=153867]Link 3[/url]
[url=http://wisdomhuntress.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1246900635/0]Link 4[/url]
[url=http://www.globalweb.cl/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=121111]Link 5[/url]