Abortion will be covered in Obama's plan, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 9-9-2009 @ 08:07 AM by mikerussellus

I know this is a hot topic. There is no grey area here. People actually agree with the idea of abortion, or they don't.

This gallup poll shows that the idea of abortion is losing ground. And yet, the plan to have the new Obama healthcare plan take care of abortion is still going on. Granted, the final bill is not done. They have plenty of time to debate and argue the issue. But no one is, that I have seen.

This article from Time magazine (not the most right-leaning mag out there) states it very simply.

The health-care-reform bill proposed by House Democrats does not actually override those restrictions. But it does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program — the so-called public option — without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion. Instead, the only money the public insurance option could spend on abortion that does not involve rape, incest or the life of the mother would be money collected from members dues; or, in the words of supporters like Elizabeth Shipp, of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the plan "could only use private funds to pay for abortion services."

The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money in separate internal accounts. The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount "not less than $1 per month," according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage. "You are spreading the cost of the procedure over a public plan," explains Stupak. Under the legislation, the Executive Branch would have to make a determination that abortion is a basic medical service for the service to be provided, something the Obama Administration is expected to do.

The full article can be seen here
www.time.com...

There are 1017 reasons

to dislike this bill. I have read the darn thing and I do not like it. It would be bad for America (in my humble opinion) but if you are going to pick a reason to call your representative, may it be this one.

Your thoughts?

[edit on 9-9-2009 by mikerussellus]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by mikerussellus]

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:25 AM by rogerstigers

Sure if one actually cared about the abortion issue or even thought it was relevant anymore. *shrug* You do realize that Medicare/Caide (always get those two confused) already covers abortions, yeah?

Honeslty, I find the poll very suspicious. What happened in mid 2008 to cause the polar shift in numbers? Maybe Gallup changed their polling style or demographics?

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:27 AM by JohnnyCanuck

reply to post by mikerussellus

My thoughts? Not so black and white as you say.

Pro choice. I don't have to live with the consequences of the decision, so it's not my call. Further, I don't see those most vociferously opposed to abortion making sure that all those who abide by their wishes have a better shake at life...you know? Church alms going to pay for babysitting while young Moms are at school?

I kinda think that it should be like the admonition to the Pope over birth control: You no play-a 'da game, you no make-a 'da rules.

Y'all don't like the law...elect a new government.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:29 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by rogerstigers

Maybe the people they polled changed their minds. I still think it is a legitamate issue and an important one.
But, to each his own. . .

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:32 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

It goes to personal responsibility (something sorely lacking in this day and age) as men, we don't have a say except in creating the life that may be killed.

That's why I see it as back/white.

The Pope? I agree that it may be time for the church to step out of the dark ages and into (at least) the 20th century.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by mikerussellus]

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:33 AM by rogerstigers

reply to post by mikerussellus

Agreed. A very personal issue. And see that chart makes me seriously concerned about passing a law governing something that people seems to easily change their minds on.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:37 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

It goes to personal responsibility (something sorely lacking in this day and age) as men, we don't have a say except in creating the life that may be killed.

That's why I see it as back/white.

One may be in favour of the concept of choice without being personally in favour of abortion. That is where the gray area lies.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:42 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by rogerstigers

Even if it were 30 pro-life and 70 pro-abortion, it's still an issue. One of Obama's czars even supports the idea of mandated abortions fer cripes sake!

I only showed that to indicate where the public may be on the issue.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:43 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

How can you be for choice and against abortion? Seems like you're straddling the fence there.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:45 AM by marg6043

Well taking into consideration that abortion is legal in the US and is a condition that require medical attention for the survival of the patient I don't see any reason why should not fall under health care reform.

Plain and simple.

But strict guide lines should be impose to stop abuse as with any other medical "problems" like choosing lifestyles that will encourage health problems.

Because after all pregnancy most of the time is a choice, like smoking and certain habits that will damage the health of an individual.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:46 AM by redhead57

I just fail to see why the "pro life" people really care what someone else does with their body or baby. I agree that if they were so concerned with the lives of the unborn they would do a bit more to feed, clothe and house the babies of poor mothers. The same ones that scream about how wrong abortions are and want every teen that gets pregnant or ever poor woman that gets pregnant to keep their babies, are the same ones that scream to have things like WIC and food stamps done away with. Like the life of an unborn is worth more than the life of a child.

Abortion is part of gyn care...period. If the Pro Life people stay out of my womb, I will gladly stay out of their churches.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:48 AM by orderedchaos

This will earn quite a bit of flame-age, but good thing for me, my butt is made of marshmallows.

I don't oppose abortion provisions in the HC bill. As a medical procedure, it should be permissible. It isn't forced, and I'd rather we people be given a choice instead of big brother running around sterilizing people or intentionally making us sick to get the population down.

Most objections stem from moral decisions. Choice should come from the individual, and not society.

For me, this is probably one of the few things I do not disagree with in the bill.
Let the flaming begin.

[Fringe does rock]

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:48 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

How can you be for choice and against abortion? Seems like you're straddling the fence there.

How much simpler can I make it for you...I am for choice, but that choice need not be in support of abortion. And if a woman has any control over her body, she requires the choice. She is the one who has to deal with the fall-out of that choice...not me. So who am I to say, unless I am the father. Then I have input...but that input requires commitment.

Society at large doesn't want commitment, so the LEGAL choice should be a personal one.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:48 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by marg6043

breast enhancements are also legal. And a medical issue, should we include that as well?

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:50 AM by marg6043

reply to post by redhead57

Just one word for you, you got it right my friend, but hey that is the problem in this nation, people wants to ride other peoples private organs, manipulate them and regulate them, rather than taking care of their own because is more fun to that it gives purpose to their boring lives..

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:50 AM by mikerussellus

Originally posted by redhead57
I just fail to see why the "pro life" people really care what someone else does with their body or baby. I agree that if they were so concerned with the lives of the unborn they would do a bit more to feed, clothe and house the babies of poor mothers. The same ones that scream about how wrong abortions are and want every teen that gets pregnant or ever poor woman that gets pregnant to keep their babies, are the same ones that scream to have things like WIC and food stamps done away with. Like the life of an unborn is worth more than the life of a child.

Abortion is part of gyn care...period. If the Pro Life people stay out of my womb, I will gladly stay out of their churches.

So your ok with murder, just as long as it's not you getting killed?

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:51 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by mikerussellus
How can you be for choice and against abortion?

That's a great question! I am pro-choice and anti-abortion as well.

I am against abortion, therefore I would not choose to have one. But because I made that choice, I think all women should be free to make their own choice.

Men, too. If you don't want a baby and don't want to place that CHOICE in the woman's hands, you know what to do (or NOT to do). That's your choice.

I'm all about choice. But once you make that choice, whether it's to have a baby, abort a fetus or spread your sperm, just know that you're going to have to live with the consequences.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:52 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by orderedchaos

So far, you're in the majority, I'm the one getting beat up here

Personal choice is wonderful. But when you start making personal choices about someone elses life, then it ain't too personal anymore.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:55 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

When you create a life though, it stops being a personal choice. I can make a personal choice about riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but when I force you to make the same choice, it stops being personal.

Same with the life of a neonate. What gives you (or anyone else) the right to decide whether they live or die?

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 08:55 AM by rogerstigers

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

How can you be for choice and against abortion? Seems like you're straddling the fence there.

Actually, most of the people I know here in Dallas are that way. Pro-choice, meaning it is a woman's right to choose, but they would never get an abortion themselves except (for some) in the case of a medical crisis or rape. They simply do no feel (and I agree) that it is their right to impose a moral law on this subject.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^