Abortion and Public Health Care
Posted by Jason Douglas on 11.13.2009
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment is the latest threat to health care reform passing. Is it a distraction, or an issue worth fighting over?
I recently wrote about a piece of legislation in Oklahoma that looked to gain a foothold in eroding abortion rights. My ultimate conclusion was that it is wrong for politicians to seek to undermine laws they personally disagree with. Enter the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. It can be read at http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr3962/111_part3_hr3962.pdf and is only four pages long. To understand this amendment, we must first understand its 1976 predecessor, the Hyde Amendment. According to Wikipedia, the Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services. So long story short, it prevents an annual budgetary showdown by banning abortion from being funded by the most likely source. If any separate spending bill were passed that included federal funding for abortions, the Hyde Amendment would not prevent it. So if you hear someone say "a ban on federal funding for abortions already exists", they are at least partly mistaken.
From the Stupak-Pitts Amendment: "No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion". It goes on to make exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. It then spells out that it does not prohibit purchasing additional coverage for abortion, but does prohibit any public funds from being used, even those from the state which would be reimbursed by the federal government. So after all the talk against public provided health care on the basis that a bureaucrat shouldn't come between you and your doctor, the very same bureaucrats are looking to do exactly that, reasoning that it's acceptable because they have a strong moral objection to a particular legal medical procedure. Note that the language not only prohibits funding for abortion, but for ANY part of any plan which happens to include such coverage. So even women who never seek an abortion would be barred from patronizing a private plan which happens to include such coverage if they receive federal money for their health insurance. If private insurers want the business of women in this scenario, they must create a separate plan identical in every other regard, just excluding abortion coverage. It is another blatant case of legislated morality, which has no place in a free society.
Of course the larger issue is whether this amendment is ultimately a "poison pill" for health care reform. Recently the Republican Party has splintered, with the extreme right dictating the agenda and going as far as to refuse to support moderates in their own party. This has left them very weak, and earned them the brand "the party of no". What we are seeing today is the conservative wing of the Democratic Party controlling the agenda, demanding numerous compromises that undermine the will of both their own party and that of the majority of Americans. Nancy Pelosi has made a huge tactical error by allowing this, as it threatens to cause a similar splintering within the left. How much compromise can possibly be made before what's left is a shell of a reform bill that won't go nearly far enough to make a serious impact? Why, as I have asked before, are we being offered a choice between something watered down and ineffective, or nothing at all? How can the majority party of Congress repeatedly capitulate to the demands of a handful of its own members and expect to be effective? Just as independent voters have far too much influence on elections while declared voters are taken for granted, Congressional swing voters are dictating legislative terms to the majority. This is a sure sign of a broken system. In my opinion, the solution is to reign in Max Baucus, Bart Stupak, and others of their ilk before it's too late. A concerted effort by the national Democratic Party could potentially unseat them in primaries, or weaken them enough to be finished off in general elections. If they won't fall in line, what's to lose? When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. That's a recipe for large scale defeat in 2010, so progressives should fight for what they want while they have the chance. Losing battle after battle with their own makes them look more inept than if they fail to pass a bad bill.
Registering a thought I had as I read this - the only difference, for me, between the strong stand I have on allowing gays to marry and my weaker, wishy-washy stand on federal funds for abortion (yes, I would ban the funds if it makes the rest of the bill something that could pass) is utterly and totally a function of my moral feelings on both subjects. I feel abortion is something each person has to decide on individually... so my line in the sand is much lighter.
In concept, we should apply the law and simple compassion to most of these sorts of decisions... but I guess we all have our double standards, don't we?
This is something I'll definitely have to ponder.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 06:44 AM
So what your saying is put the tax payer funded fetus mutilation back in the bill becuase your going to get your ass kicked in 2010?
Maybe the reason you are going to get your ass kicked in 2010 is becuase "progressives" have gone completely out of control with their goverment take over.
Banks, car companies and now the health care system. Thats hope and change?
The reason Obama won was becuase independants and moderates voted for him. As you saw in Virginia and blue state New Jersey, independants ran from the progressive vision.
Gallup poll.....48% will vote republican, 44% democrat.
Now you want the NARALs of the world to have access to taxpayer money for something so repulsive.
"Just as independent voters have far too much influence on elections while declared voters are taken for granted, Congressional swing voters are dictating legislative terms to the majority. This is a sure sign of a broken system. In my opinion, the solution is to reign in Max Baucus, Bart Stupak, and others of their ilk before it's too late. A concerted effort by the national Democratic Party could potentially unseat them in primaries, or weaken them enough to be finished off in general elections."
Well there is the big tent democrat party for you. Vote liberal or else. Still want to say the republican party is split when people of your ilk want to primary the moderates of your own party? Sounds like to me the radical left, like you, have splintered the the democrat party. How nuanced.
Just remember Jason, you own all of this mess. the Dems have ran everything for a year. Its no longer Bushes fault. YOU own the deficit, cap and tax, oncoming inflation, tax payer funded abortion, indecision in Afghanistan, unemployment over 10%, its all you.
Its not Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, consevatives or Fox. Your party has all the power and they have really screwed things up.
Maybe you should just go watch MSNBC, they will tell you what you want to hear. Thats after they get done with their misogynistic obsession with Palin and a beauty pageant contestant that did not fall in line. You know, the important things.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 02:00 PM
Just remember Jason, you own all of this mess. the Dems have ran everything for a year. Its no longer Bushes fault. YOU own the deficit, cap and tax, oncoming inflation, tax payer funded abortion, indecision in Afghanistan, unemployment over 10%, its all you.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 02:00 PM
This is one of the things that get on my nerves. A legitimate conversation about abortion and health care and this guy goes on about how Republicans are awesome and Democrats are mentally retarded for eight paragraphs.
And for the record, are the Democrats really incompetent for not fixing all of these things in 10 months? It took us YEARS to get out of the Great Depression, and because we're not all back to where we were after 10 months then its their fault? Bush ran HUGE deficits for 8 years, and all of a sudden Obama puts together one budget and he's fiscally incompetent. For all the talk, lowering the national debt has never, for one second, been a priority for either party, except under Clinton and he only pulled it off because the economy was booming and we had no real enemies abroad.
You have to see the flaws in your own people before you can criticize others. Republicans (essentially Reagan and Bush 2) for the most part created the national debt. The economy tanked under Bush. He invaded Afghanistan and ignored it to move into Iraq, tying up resources and manpower that could have been put elsewhere. You're criticizing the Democrats for not fixing Republican problems fast enough. That's kind of a huge, glaring, radiant flaw in your argument.
But for the real issue, Jason, I think your initial conclusion is almost always right. If there is an established law, even a controversial one, it is the duty of the government to enforce it 100%, even if they don't agree with it. However, this is kind of a special case. People have an EXTREMELY adverse reaction to abortion, consider it an abomination, and you would essentially be taking their tax dollars and paying for it. Not only that, but it would be a tacit approval by the government of abortion. Until now it has been legal and allowed, but not necessarily approved of. Abortion is elective anyway, so health care should not be forced to cover it. Except in cases of rape, incest, or protecting the life of the mother, the government shouldn't pay for abortion. Or at least that's just me.
Posted By: General Sandoval (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 06:23 PM
john your flawed in your logic as well, as yeah bush ran record defcits but it only happened after 8 years, in one year obama quadrupled the debt, on his own accord, with the stimulus that looks like was a bust, and now u have the government playing games with job #'s and oh yeah wasn't unemployment not supposed to go over 8 % if the stimulus passed, cash for clunkers, looks like more money was spent on purchasing the clunkers then actually went in, and oh yeah remember cit one of the first banks we bailed out, becuase they were too big to fail, let's see they went bankrupt, and now the taxpayer is out 2.1 billion
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 07:51 PM
" Nancy Pelosi has made a huge tactical error by allowing this, as it threatens to cause a similar splintering within the left."
Exactly how would a Speaker of the House stop House members or her party from advancing their policy preference especially when her institutional position depends on the support of these very same members of her party.
How can the majority party of Congress repeatedly capitulate to the demands of a handful of its own members and expect to be effective?"
That is easy, without the support of the "handful of its own members", the Speaker no longer has support of 50%+1 of all House members; thus the Speaker would no longer have a "majority" or her position. The Speaker serves at the pleasure of the party Caucus, not conversely.
"If they won't fall in line, what's to lose?" Hmm, control of the institutional structure of the House, including the Speaker and consequent control of Rules Committee perhaps.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 08:48 PM
I'm observing things from the perspective of those who hold far more power than they let on. That happens to be Democrats. John, when I get to end the war in Iraq because I don't agree with our troops being killed to defend someone else's country, when I can end DADT because it was promised, when I can install single payer health care because it's what makes the most sense to me, then it will be "all me".
"Why, as I have asked before, are we being offered a choice between something watered down and ineffective, or nothing at all?"
That question wasn't just about this one item of discussion, it's about the fact that voters are getting nothing resembling what the administration ran on. It seems like we always have a government which is either ineffective or makes things worse. The GOP had their shot and nearly demolished our country. I doubt Dems will fair any better, but at least THEY could do some good while spending us into oblivion. General Sandoval addressed the last 8 years and 10 months nicely.
Regarding the moral aspect of taxpayer funded abortions, there is a LOT of spending by Washington I don't agree with. But I don't get to take power over Congress and bar them from spending on something because it offends my personal moral code. Abortion is a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure. As such, it is not subject to anyone's personal approval. I think war is hideous and deadly and am sick of us playing Risk in the middle east for control of an energy source we should have long replaced by now. My tax dollars still go to it because being part of a society means pooling resources with people you won't always agree with. Abortion is no different. If we put on the brakes every time a course of action lacks consensus, we would never do anything.
In a previous article I mentioned that we provide an attorney for those who can't afford one, because otherwise that right would effectively be taken away. Allowing medical care to become very expensive, then blocking attempts to make it affordable AND blocking funding to the poor amounts to banning abortion for a substantial and growing part of the population. As I said about the Oklahoma bill, it's an attempt to chip away at the law by those who don't like it. And I still haven't heard of any movement by those who oppose abortion to make birth control more accessible, because their underlying motivation is on religious grounds.
If anyone can defend this Amendment without invoking God or a gut feeling, but instead offer an argument rooted in the rule of law, I would be very interested.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 08:49 PM
The democrats have controlled the house and senate for 2 years. Obama is the president. How long do we have to wait before people like Jason and Sandoval hold the people in power accountable for their decisions?
Posted By: Guest#7576 (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 09:06 PM
AdmChesterMynutz:
What is the point of a majority if you can't advance your agenda? They might as well bow down to Lieberman for the imaginary 60th vote. Picture debating a family vacation, and deciding to just sit in the driveway because no one can agree on a destination. That's what we're seeing, and they're going to tell us it's wonderful. Bush would have clobbered dissenters, and they knew it, so they fell in line. Rogue Democrats have nothing to fear, so they do whatever is safest for their own job. This is why I keep criticizing Obama for a lack of leadership. Pelosi could have stepped up, but as you say, she would rather protect her spot and achieve next to nothing than take a chance and possibly deliver the real change we were promised. None of them will get another vote from me if they keep it up. The base they take for granted needs to bring the hammer down, NOW. They need to know before they sign a neutered bill and congratulate themselves that it won't get them re-elected.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM
At some point, weren't you guys supposed to be the party who called for LESS government oversight and involvment?
Between this, and telling people who they can and cant marry, and telling me I'm not allowed to spend my money on online poker and a dozen other things........when exactly did you start running the 1984 style bullshit here?
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 02:45 AM
Back to the 50’s. The poor get coat-hanger abortions in dark alleys, the rich send their daughters to Switzerland – for a “rest” in a clinic and then, daughter taken care of, off to the clubs to give a blow job to a cigar and posture a little good ol fashion indignity on the lack of morality in society now-a-days... If you don't support torture, if your not willing to twist the constitution so political elites have zero accountability, if you believe all deserve health care, you're a dirty fascist commie. As the cigarette companies like to say,
”You’ve come a long way baby!”
Posted By: guest (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Those who oppose this bill, do not buy into this distraction. It's just meant to shape the debate. Let's see, what hasnt been talked about?
Privacy of medical records for Americans under Gvot Health Care?
The complete and utter unemployment spike in the private sector due to the creation of a Govt Monopoly?
The notion that a bankrupt Govt who cant even run Medicare or appropriate money effectively on a state Medicaid level can run something as huge and all-encompassing as national heathcare, effectively?
Please, please do not get lost in the abortion discussion. It's a red herring, because the debate will imply buy-in to the plan if this amendment holds. Pelosi-Reid will say, Well, the Abortion issue is solved, and since there was no other issues brought up about this bill, I guess it's done deal.
Posted By: Cabbage (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Would someone please explain to me how conservatives who warn against govt. involvement in health care as an intolerable intrusion on individual rights, continue to advocate for the slow demise of Rowe v. Wade? That case (decided incidentally by a court on which 66% of the Justices were nominated by Republican Presidents) stated that the government should not offer an opinion on the moral or ethical aspects of abortion. In fact the justices stated that the reason that the government cannot offer its opinion on the subject was because The Constitution included an inherent right to individual privacy, which would be subject to an intolerable governmental intrusion if the government were to provide obstacles to a woman's right to make that decision. Could it be that that decision was made because once upon a time Republicans actually did believe in limited govt (whether that was wrong or right is subject to debate), rather than using it as an excuse to oppose any program they don't like while simultaneously selling their souls to fanatic religious right wingers?
Posted By: The Riverbottom Nightmare Band (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 09:15 PM
Would someone please explain to me how conservatives who warn against govt. involvement in health care as an intolerable intrusion on individual rights, continue to advocate for the slow demise of Rowe v. Wade? That case (decided incidentally by a court on which 66% of the Justices were nominated by Republican Presidents) stated that the government should not offer an opinion on the moral or ethical aspects of abortion. In fact the justices stated that the reason that the government cannot offer its opinion on the subject was because The Constitution included an inherent right to individual privacy, which would be subject to an intolerable governmental intrusion if the government were to provide obstacles to a woman's right to make that decision. Could it be that that decision was made because once upon a time Republicans actually did believe in limited govt (whether that was wrong or right is subject to debate), rather than using it as an excuse to oppose any program they don't like while simultaneously selling their souls to fanatic religious right wingers?
Posted By: The Riverbottom Nightmare Band (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 09:15 PM
Doesn't mean that any of our tax payer money should go brutalizing a 8 month old fetus.
Posted By: Guest#7163 (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Doesn't mean that any of our tax payer money should go brutalizing a 8 month old fetus.
Posted By: Guest#7163 (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Again, this is making a decision on unproven moral basis. Some people don't think that taxpayer dollars should be spent to protect the rights of racists, but that's what happens every single time the police provide protection at a skinhead march. An abstract comparison I know, but a good one. I hate the concept of hate speech, but the court has determined that in the preservation of a higher right it is legal. Even more interesting, if conservatives are so concerned with fetuses, why does that concern end once they are born? Republicans were against the creation of Medicaid and have hated it ever since. If I recall they also fought tooth and nail against the creation of SCHIP and its recent expansion. Guess it's easier to care when it's a hot button issue that wins elections in rural areas then it is to tell poor people their kids can't get a checkup.
Posted By: The Riverbottom Nightmare Band (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 06:18 AM
I understand your argument. What is the point of a majority if you do not have an agenda? I don't know, honestly, it is rather difficult to infer a persons or party's actual political agenda.
My point is actually the converse. What is the point of an agenda if you do not have a majority?
The Speaker simply doesn't have the votes for funding abortions through the health care proposal. She has not ability to pass legislation with a minority of House member support.
Is it a "poison pill"? Probably. Such legislative maneuvers are the bread and butter of the legislative process from local school board to the US Congress. Ask Adam Clayton Powell.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 11:17 AM
So people who are morally opposed to abortion will have their tax dollars taken from them to fund something that they find morallty reprehensible and you're OK with this?
Calling an abortion a medical procedure akin to cancer treatment is like saying jerking off to chicks is the same as banging them. It's delusional.
If a poor woman gets knocked up and can't afford the abortion, then give the baby up for adoption with the help of the many Catholic services that are available free of charge to those women. DON'T take the tax dollars of people who are morally opposed to it to pay for it. That is just unreasonable and downright dictatorial and shows no regard for those who might disagree with your position of abortion being OK.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM
AdmChesterMynutz: I understand your point, which means a sort of no-win situation. That's why at least gambling on pushing party dissenters to fall in line seems like the only viable strategy to me. It's either that or throw in the towel.
Da Man: Have you ever given birth? That's sort of a big point to gloss over. I find it morally reprehensible to force a woman to endure what I have been consistently told is the worst pain on earth due to someone else's morality. Yes, there are painkillers, but then we're back to that pesky issue of these women being too poor to afford a hospital stay, and those who oppose abortion are always gunning for Medicaid. What about my request to stop funding wars I disagree with on moral grounds? A subset of the populace doesn't get to award themselves veto power over spending based on their personal morals.
I still await any legal argument for this Amendment.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 01:11 PM
So you're opposed to war and the killing of people to defend this country (which I can respect) but you're all for the premediated murder of a fetus that may one day find the means to END all wars because giving birth "hurts".
If giving birth hurts so much, why are we all here. You'd have guessed society would have ceased to exist by now if child birth was THAT painful.
Come on, dude. Seriously?
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 01:55 PM
The democrats have controlled the house and senate for 2 years. Obama is the president. How long do we have to wait before people like Jason and Sandoval hold the people in power accountable for their decisions?
Posted By: Guest#7576 (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 09:06 PM
You have to wait two more years. We call it "Elections".
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 02:42 PM
Jason,
You keep asking for a legal argument against this and you're absolutely right. There isn't one. Roe v. Wade legalizes a woman's right to choose, which I support. I only suggested keeping government-funded abortions off the table in order to keep the peace. I too see the hypocrisy in violently opposing taxpayer dollars for abortions and thereby infringing Supreme Court declared rights, but supporting unnecessary wars where hospitals get bombed (and thousands of infants and pregnant women undoubtedly died).
The only legal argument against this part of the bill would be to say that abortion, by legal definition, is a choice for women, and therefore optional. It would be elective surgery. Is the government going to cover electrolysis? Lasik eye surgery? Plastic surgery? Except to protect the life of the mother or instances of rape or incest it would be voluntary. That's the only real legal argument against it I know of.
Posted By: General Sandoval (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Da Man: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and many smaller wars in between were wars of choice. Those we battled didn't attack us and didn't threaten to. We chose to travel to the other side of the planet and kill. I say that's wrong and don't want to finance it, which is no different than the abortion issue, except in your own opinion, to which you are entitled. But just as wars aren't subject to my approval, a woman's access to abortion isn't subject to yours. As for your comments on childbirth, look a mother in the eyes and say that. When you regain consciousness, let me know if you've reconsidered.
General Sandoval: Suppose someone is having substantial pain from walking, and the doctor says hip replacement surgery is their best option. Would that surgery be considered elective? Where would the line be drawn? Is only life saving treatment covered? If we look at the current insurance industry as a model, abortions are typically covered, while your examples of voluntary surgery are not. You do point out a legal basis for argument, but I don't think it would hold up under scrutiny. For those who don't dream of motherhood, having another human being growing inside them is a serious medical condition rather than a gift, as unpleasant a thought as that may be. When the Supreme Court has ruled it's between her and her doctor, the government has no right to declare a particular legal medical procedure off limits. Doing so would deny equal access, which wouldn't stand.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Jason,
Really interesting article. And I do agree that the democrats need to stop capitulating to the Republicans.
However, that being said, I'm not sure the Stupak-Pitts amendment really presents an existential threat to healthcare reform. The margin of error is so razor thin at this point (and by the way, I could rant all day about how badly the Democrats have fumbled the ball with healthcare reform) that it might just be easier to allow the amendment for the sake of moving this legislation along and not alienating anyone else.
I'm not saying that the Democrats should give in to Republican demands by any stretch of the imagination, but the Stupak-Pitts amendment doesn't really change the major effects of the healthcare bill currently before congress, and so it might just be easier to give them what they want rather than risk the sponsors and co-sponsors voting with the Republicans.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 07:58 PM
Jason,
god your pretty lame to downplay abortion as a medical procedure only. It actually the taking of a life and if you would do some research, you would find it to be rather gruesome.
I just wish that people like yourself would like to kill terrorists as much as you like killing a defenseless fetus.
Posted By: Guest#1457 (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM
As someone who no aspirations to have children, I'm looking forward to the day this religious war we are in kills us all. No more petty political bickering, no more tounge in cheek insults. It's going to be so peaceful.
Posted By: Guest#9746 (Guest) on November 17, 2009 at 02:29 AM
Conflating war and abortion is intellectually dishonest. At least the other guys can fight back. Can the fetus?
My argument wasn't that child birth isn't painful. I'm sure it is. But you seemed to believe that avoidance of childbirth pain is enough of a justification for having an abortion. What about the mental pain most women who have had abortions endure? I'll bet a lot of them would give that up for the transient physical pain of actual childbirth in hindsight.
Again, I respect your right to oppose wars. Let's make taxes optional for funding wars versus abortions. You don't have to fund wars, I don't have to fund abortions. Just check the box on your W-2 and problem solved. Good luck telling a veteran though that you're not supporting his sacrifices to keep you free. I'd wager you'd be in a lot more trouble than I would telling a woman she should take responsibility for her sexual activity.
Actually, you know what? You wouldn't. Cause that's why they fight. So you can do that. There's no such concession, however, from the abortion on demand folks is there?
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on November 17, 2009 at 04:54 PM
"I'd wager you'd be in a lot more trouble than I would telling a woman she should take responsibility for her sexual activity."
And there it is. I never assume misogyny without evidence, even though it usually goes hand in hand with choice opponents. Fire and brimstone for the harlot who had sex that wasn't intended for procreation. It's the same old attitude conveniently applied to a situation you will never face. No matter what arguments are raised against abortion rights, deep down it's almost always motivated by a notion of wrath. BTW, I wouldn't hesitate to tell a veteran the Iraq war is wrong if I was in that position. Not militantly bringing it up to crap on his sacrifice, since they don't choose which wars to fight any more than I do, but I would say the war is wrong and why I think so. There's a difference between disagreeing on policy and declaring yourself an authority on what someone else goes through though. There is no nobility in taking a woman's choice away because it might cause her emotional pain, as if she lacks the intellect to decide that for herself. As for opting out of spending, that was an analogy, not a suggestion that it would be plausible. Who would pay any taxes if they could decline? Maybe Joe Biden, but that's it. As for "justification" for abortion, as I wrote in my last article, none is required. A woman doesn't owe you, the state, or anyone else an explanation for ending a pregnancy.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on November 17, 2009 at 10:38 PM
A woman doesn't owe you, the state, or anyone else an explanation for ending a pregnancy.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest)
Nope, she doesn't. She doesn't even owe that to the man whose baby she might be keeping from life. I'm pro-choice but still feel there's a serious unfairness in the current system. Her body, her right is all well and good but if she wants to abort and he doesn't, the man has to deal. If she wants to keep it, he's responsible for 18 years. In the latter case, the man is responsible for his indiscretions but in the former she isn't. Gender inequality which should be a legal minefield.
Add to this the small number of women who've been scraped more often than a 12 year old schooner. The taxpayer fronts for her lifestyle choices (promiscuity and the abortion). Which leads to another fun point: even one abortion, let alone multiple, can leave a woman permanently unable to carry a child. Government pays for it and they're now partially responsible. You could make the argument that she made the choice but it's another legal minefield which I don't blame The Man for stepping near. At least in the case of a hip replacement you have malpractice to fall back on but even a proper successful abortion can permanently scar. None of these, and probably a dozen more, possibilities are exactly cut and dry, especially when almost all of them can butt heads with Roe v Wade, given the right lawyers.
Posted By: elgrannoche (Guest) on November 18, 2009 at 03:45 PM
elgrannoche: The gender-based double standard on abortion bothers me too. Even beyond that, if a woman has a baby and doesn't want it, she signs a form and that's the end of it. There are states which hold a man responsible for child support even if his wife cheated and the child isn't his.
The time between a woman knowing she's pregnant and giving birth is roughly seven months. It should be incumbent upon her to notify the father within that time frame. He would then have the same legal right as her to opt out of parenthood by signing his parental rights away if he so chose. If she doesn't make any effort to tell him, the statute of limitations for support should run out when she gives birth.
As for her lifestyle, public funded health care would included access to birth control, reducing abortions and saving money. The reason most insurance plans cover abortion is it's cheaper than prenatal care and a hospital delivery. The federal government cannot be sued, so malpractice issues wouldn't change. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think picking up someone's medical tab means assuming liability anyway.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on November 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM
STAY CURRENT