People have a right to control what happens to their bodies, especially in the case of such an intense and potentially dangerous thing as giving birth. I believe that everyone deserves to be able to get the medical procedures they need and so I support tax money being used for abortions
A bill proposed by Rep. Chris Smith. Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, except in cases involving rape, incest, or life endangerment. More: beta.congress.gov.
I too believe abortion should be funded with tax money. If it is a medical reason, then there shouldn't even be an argument. Psychological can be a bit more tricky depending on the reasons. But at the end of the day a choice between paying £1000 for an abortion or 16 years benefit for an unwanted and probably resented child, then it makes sense
I support your right to do whatever you want with your body. Both men and women. I just don't want to pay for it.
I'd support Federal Funds for abortion involving rape, with the proviso that if and when the perpetrator was caught and convicted, part of the sentence would be financial restitution for the cost of the abortion (and by cost, I mean physical, mental and financial). In other words, a hefty fine paid to the victim, and reimbursement to the state (or Feds) for any abortion and medical costs paid.
So by your logic if you engage in an activity that results in a medical problem, after all an abortion is a medical procedure, we should as taxpayers should be able to say we won’t cover it. So say you climb mountains and fall shouldn’t we be able to say, well if you didn’t climb mountains this would have happened, so we’re not covering it. You happen to smoke and had cancer couldn’t we say if you didn’t smoke, which we know causes cancer, you wouldn’t have it so we won’t cover it, same with a lifestyle that include fats, and meats, which we know contribute to heart problem. You can see where this is going, if you say no to this medical procedure what to stop the government for saying no if you happen to engage in something they deem unhealthy, or unpopular?
The government already has too much power over our lives without them getting involved in medical procedures.
As Steven Rattner put it:
“WE need death panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”
More and more democrats are saying the same thing; the government is going to have to get more involved in healthcare decisions. Do you really want someone in government make your health decisions?
I have seen over and over, the anti-abortion crowd is great at saying you must have the child, but they fall short when it comes to providing for said child. How many of them have given money to help raise that child? How many of offer to adopt that child, who might be a different color then they are? The sad truth is they care more about restricting abortions then the child after it’s born.
So unless you're willing to spend the $250,000 per child (that about the average cost to raise a child) then you should let the person who's body it is and who, if they have the child, must find a way to raise it, make the decision.
Thanks for your reply Richard.
I agree that an abortion is a medical procedure, however, the difference between an abortion and the other examples you listed is that abortion in most cases is an elective procedure. I didn't mention it, but I have no problem covering the medical costs when the mother's health is in danger, and it becomes a necessary medical procedure.
I'm not part of the anti-abortion crowd. I believe a woman (and her partner if present) should have the right to make that choice. But I still stand by my statement that I don't really want to pay for it if it's of the elective variety.
Frankly, I'm not very excited about the Federal Govt. getting involved in our health care decisions in the first place.
Your welcome, I enjoy discussions and debate with people who are reasonable, even if we disagree.
Pregnancy is the result of an activity, in this case sex, that's the point I was trying to make. Just like mountain climbing is an activity, and even with proper protection in both cases accidents can happen. Same with smoking, there is a risk of something bad happening, but if you wanted to be consistence should you say we can deny coverage because of an activity? Is there any real difference? Even if the woman goes through with the pregnancy it does cause permanent changes to her body.
As far as saying it's elective, isn't all medical care basically elective? There are many medical treatments we use today, for things that if left untreated would heal themselves. Should those also be denied?
If given a choice between the two activities, I know which I'd chose, and mountain climbing would be runner-up.
Accidents can happen no matter what activity a human engages in. Even the most mundane. I'm not proposing denying coverage for activities. But some activities, say, sex between a man and a woman, have foreseeable outcomes if the proper precautions are not used (depending on timing of course). To use the mountain climbing example, some search and rescue organizations will charge for their services if it's due to carelessness.
A woman can become pregnant through no fault of her own and I wouldn't deny coverage in such a case. Nor would I deny coverage if carrying to term would endanger the woman's health. But let's be honest, many, many abortions are for lifestyle choices. Those should be paid for by the person(s) making that lifestyle choice.
But, when you say proper precautions, how do you prove you did or didn't use precautions. Antibiotics taken by mouth can potentially decrease the effectiveness of birth control pills, or a condom may have a very small hole in it. Would you require she keeps the used condom until she sure she isn't pregnant so if she did want an abortion it could be tested? At least with the pill and antibiotics you can show they overlapped.
I used mountain climbing only as an example and I wasn't talking about the recuse I was talking about any injuries that may have happened. But we recuse many people, auto accident victims, home fire victims, plane crashes, where in most cases a person doesn't get bill, and all of those have known risks. In some cases you are charged but generally if you don't have insurance to cover it you're not charged. And I would even go as far to say that charging people for rescue is a bad thing as probably will make people reluctance to call for help. I know some state do charge if you're negligent, which we can show by the equipment the person did or did not take with them.
You point out that many abortions are for a lifestyle choices, but can't you say the same for anyone who's involved in any activity. For example, I'm a black belt, I've broken ribs, torn a tendon in my knee, etc. they happened during training with people who didn't listen, but I knew when I signed up there was a chance I would get injured. That is the lifestyle I have chosen, but I was covered for my knee and ribs. I'm still studying martial arts, working toward another black belt in another style, and I still have a chance of getting injured. So to be consistence wouldn't you have to say those injuries wouldn't be covered, because they were a lifestyle choice?
I'm confused, Richard. You're saying government shouldn't be involved in medical decisions, but taxes should be used to pay for abortion? How is that an example of government not getting involved in medical decisions?
Also, you claim that the anti-abortion crowd is great at saying you must have the child, but they fall short when it comes to raising that child. What about pro-abortion people? You're great at saying the woman can have an abortion, but you fall short when it comes to paying for abortion. You want to take the tax money of people who are ethically opposed to abortion and make them pay for it. If you feel so strongly that a woman should have her abortion paid for if she can't afford one, why not get together with like-minded people and fund them privately? I find it a little hypocritical when people say it's none of my business if they have an abortion, but then they want me to pay for it with my tax dollars.
I'm happy to pay taxes and give to charities that support the care of women and children, even if it costs way more than abortion. Not every decision should come down to what's the cheapest way to deal with it. As for your assertion that people won't adopt someone of a different color, why is it that white people are going to China, Korea, and Africa to adopt children? There are waiting lists to adopt children in this country, and that's just for adopting ONE child. Some people might be willing to adopt a second or a third child if given the opportunity.
Is it healthcare, or in the field of healthcare?
Then the government really needs to leave it alone especially in light of the recent affordable care act that's been made law.
If the government is paying for healthcare for citizens, and this items falls under "healthcare", then this item, much to the chagrin of the elitist republican party, should be included.
I don't think it should be and the only reason why one would want it that i can see would mean fewer people in Russell MO looting.