Abortion amendment 'throws women under bus': US activists

Abortion amendment 'throws women under bus': US activists

rawstory.com

Rights advocates Monday accused the most pro-choice US government in decades of throwing women under the bus after lawmakers tagged on an amendment restricting abortion access and funding to the health care reform bill.

(visit the link for the full news article)

If anyone can recall any of my posts regarding abortion, you might remember that I am pro-choice. However, I do not agree that abortion should be covered under health insurance paid for by taxpayers.

The amendment allows coverage for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and if it saves the life of the mother. It also provides "one way for women to have an abortion -- by purchasing a "single-service rider" to cover the voluntary termination of pregnancy."

I'm not exactly sure what a woman could ask for that doesn't force others to comply with a controversial decision. I see this as a great compromise.


rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by nunya13


there are few modern peaceful political movements with the childlike attitudes exhibited by some modern feminists. how in the world is the lack of coverage for abortion IN A BRAND NEW, NEVER BEFORE SEEN government entitlment an infringement of rights? there are just no NEW rights being created by the bill and that is somehow anti-woman? hey, i heard there was no funding in the latest omnibus defense approprriations bill for abortion providers on overseas bases, i guess this is another gross violation of the right to a free, taxpayer funded 'choice.'

reply to post by nunya13


Looks like great minds think alike. I just posted a similar thread. Hopefully they will keep them both open. This is a very important topic.

reply to post by HotSauce


As long as they keep one of them open, I'll be happy. It most certainly is an important topic. The right to have an abortion is one thing, but to feel that your entitled to have it paid for by the government is entirely another.

Women should take responsibility for their actions. Abortions are relatively inexpensive and should not be the burden of the tax payer.

Unless as I said in a previous thread it is something to do with violent crime such as a rape or something of that nature.

Other than that, pay for your own mistakes.

~Keeper

Now all they have to do, is put riders in all of the money going to other countries. Hell of a thing, America, the country that will pay for abortions around the world. Makes me sick.

What's the problem.

They already have plenty of programs that take taxpayer money and use it to pay for abortions.

How many infants do they want to kill?

Are there still babies being born that the special interests wanted dead?

The number of abortions performed in the US since 1971 is approaching 50 million.

That's about one in six Americans who have murdered a baby.

Is there a minimum quota that they aren't meeting or something?


[edit on 10-11-2009 by badgerprints]

reply to post by badgerprints


Thank you Badgerprints.....I am so sick of hearing about "women's rights" without even a mention of the lives being snuffed out by the millions. What about their rights??? Do pro choice people really not care at all about those lives???? With the obvious exception to rape and incest.....women still have the right to say "NO" as far as I am aware. I remember hearing one woman who was a victim of rape carrying her baby to term and adopting it out. Her theory was that abortion was a permanent solution to a temporary problem.....I never forgot it.

This thread isn't about whether abortion is right or wrong (there are many other threads that debate that issue). It's about whether people should have to pay for other people's abortions. I would think the obvious answer is no. My main reason is because obviously there are those who are vehemently against abortion and they shouldn't have to pay for something like that.

The woman in the article mentions that people have brought up this fact then used the example of how her tax dollars go to fund a war she doesn't agree with. I found this very hypocritical of her.

I agree that I don't like my taxes going to pay for a war I am against. But why would I ever turn around and use the fact that I've been forced to do something I don't want as justification to force others to pay for something they DON'T want (I'm talking about moral issues, not monetary ones).