Road Bump On UHC Over Abortion

[Eyeron]

There is now an issue in the Senate regarding the issue of Abortion in the UHC. The issue is that because at least one Senator believes that Federal funds should not be used to provide for an abortion (because Abortion is murder to them).

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Monday he could not support a bill unless it clearly prohibits federal dollars from going to pay for abortions. Nelson is weighing options, including offering an amendment similar to the one passed by the House this weekend.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091110/D9BSD5HO1.html

I don't believe that this should happen. Many times abortions saves lives since many women die in pregnancy and other health problems do occur in pregnancy. Refusing to provide Federal funds would put some lives in jeopardy. Not to mention that providing UHC might reduce the number of abortions. I don't understand the intricacies of how it could be done. But I suspect that that it could be argued with greater health care coverage will come greater pre-natal care for pregnant women, and this could possibly reduce the number of Abortions in America.

So should Federal funds for UHC be provided for abortion? Why or why not?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Abortion saved my life, my older sister's, and my mother's. Politicians should not limit doctors in their medical practice.

 

[madurobob]

I wonder, are the any other legal and often medically necessary procedures specifically excluded from the bill(s)?

I agree that medical professionals should not be prevented from providing necessary care just because some politician wanted to play doctor for a day in the Senate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wonder, are the any other legal and often medically necessary procedures specifically excluded from the bill(s)?

It is not entirely banned. In the case of threats to the mothers life it is still funded. But not threats to health and unnessacary risks, those are right out.

Just because the fetus can not survive is not enough of a reason to abort it, in this law. Better to let the woman have more risk and deliver the baby so that it can die naturaly is the prefered option here.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Does the bill specify the other circumstances in which a person will be eligible for a particular procedure - eg IVF or plastic surgery?

 

[madurobob]

It is not entirely banned. In the case of threats to the mothers life it is still funded. But not threats to health and unnessacary risks, those are right out.

So, that sounds a lot better than I expect from this legislation. Cover abortion only if there is a risk to the mother's life. Rich girls will continue get abortions and charge it to their gold cards, poor girls will continue to be unable to afford an abortion and will either have unwanted kids (that will then be covered under UHC and other welfare programs) or risk more dangerous "back alley" procedures. So, no change really to the status quo in this regard.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, that sounds a lot better than I expect from this legislation. Cover abortion only if there is a risk to the mother's life. Rich girls will continue get abortions and charge it to their gold cards, poor girls will continue to be unable to afford an abortion and will either have unwanted kids (that will then be covered under UHC and other welfare programs) or risk more dangerous "back alley" procedures. So, no change really to the status quo in this regard.

It also blocks private plans that get subsidies from offering it, so if you are getting a tax break to buy insurance, you must buy insurance that does not cover abortion except in rape, incest and the mothers life being at risk.

 

[madurobob]

It also blocks private plans that get subsidies from offering it, so if you are getting a tax break to buy insurance, you must buy insurance that does not cover abortion except in rape, incest and the mothers life being at risk.

That appears to be a fairly common theme. A step backwards for many, though. But, as distasteful as it is, its probably the best we can hope for in this legislation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That appears to be a fairly common theme. A step backwards for many, though. But, as distasteful as it is, its probably the best we can hope for in this legislation.

Well there is a previous law(since the early 80's I think) about goverment funds only being able to go toward abortion in those cases.

 

[Policenaut]

If this wasn't in the bill it would have went down in flames. And if this sort of language isn't in the final bill it will not be passed. Not that this bill really even matters though. The Senate still has to pass their bill and then it has to be merged with this bill and then passed again in the House and Senate.

 

[pgwenthold]

And at the same time, healthcare reform is criticized because it will mean the government will interfere with your doctor's decisions...

(I just saw a commercial claiming that again this weekend)

 

[Ryokan]

Such a shame. Those that really need abortions are often people who don't have much money.

My sister had an abortion when she was 16, and asked me as a big brother to be with her every step of the way. I followed her to the doctor, I sat outside waiting when she was at her evaluation, and sat with her after the procedure. Not at any time did money change hands. It was only me, her and the doctors. That's how it should be.

If we would've had to come up with the kind of money this procedure costs, it never would have happened. I wouldn't mind becoming an uncle, but she was way too young and it would've ruined her life. She has since grown up, gotten an education, a well paid job and has given me a nephew...

 

[kuroyume0161]

I hate governments. (Who said something similar to this, oh, maybe a little over two hundred years ago?)

Remember Terri Schiavo? Remember the flurry of 'empathy' towards a vegetative human being in Congress? Remember that they passed a LAW specifically for this one nearly-braindead citizen (Terri's Law)? That goes way and far beyond tripping over themselves to be beloved by the idiot populace. They wanted to appear up-standing but instead came off as self-righteous. Luckily, Terri's Law was struck down as unconstitutional. You bet, it sure was.

My partner is currently in a similar situation with one of his brothers. His brother rides motorcycles (used to anyway) and had pulled over to take a call on his cell phone. An RV hit him and dragged him about a mile. He was kept in a comatose state for the first month due to the extensiveness of the injuries, internal and external. When he did become 'conscious' (and that is quoted for a reason) and after several weeks of testing and observation, he was deemed to have extensive brain damage leaving him with the mentality of an infant. Now there is a back and forth between and within my partner's family and his 'so-called' wife (who is still married to someone else, lives in Ireland, and has only known him for a short period of time). They were never married and she has no claim to any input into the family decision. Here we are months later and they are still going through the legal part of determining the extent of his condition and the course of action (which, of course, should be euthanization as he requested himself).

How does this equate with requirements of abortion criteria in the UHC? Why do we proscribe religious ideologies into our laws? Letting a suffering person escape from more suffering isn't immoral - it is immoral to prohibit such on fake, lying religious grounds. Abortion, to an extent, is the same moral ineptitude thrust upon our society by religious self-righteousness.

Our government needs to stop telling us, through laws and majority bullying, what we can and cannot do in a respectible civil way as individuals. This does not counter any need for laws to safeguard but when the government denies your right to die or your right to have sex with a consenting adult or your right to do other things that harm noone, it is a government that needs to be changed.

 

[madurobob]

Our government needs to stop telling us, through laws and majority bullying, what we can and cannot do in a respectible civil way as individuals. This does not counter any need for laws to safeguard but when the government denies your right to die or your right to have sex with a consenting adult or your right to do other things that harm noone, it is a government that needs to be changed.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I'm sorry for the situation your partner's brother is in.

However, abortion is a bit more complicated because you are not dealing with consenting adults; not from the anti-abortion viewpoint. No, from that viewpoint it is a selfish, one-sided decision to end the life of another human; another human that should be protected by law.

I may not agree with those who are against abortion, but I can understand their arguments. I can't say the same for those against gay marriage, for instance.

 

[sugarb]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I'm sorry for the situation your partner's brother is in.

However, abortion is a bit more complicated because you are not dealing with consenting adults; not from the anti-abortion viewpoint. No, from that viewpoint it is a selfish, one-sided decision to end the life of another human; another human that should be protected by law.

I may not agree with those who are against abortion, but I can understand their arguments. I can't say the same for those against gay marriage, for instance.

I can understand their arguments, also. Abortion is a difficult topic. If only we had a world where such decisions didn't have to be made...but we don't.

What bothers me in part about abortion being an issue that holds this up is this: from a purely fiscal way of thinking, allowing a woman the option of abortion with federal dollars would save the federal dollars that would go to support a child that very well may end up in our foster care/group home system. On the religious end of it (though this isn't a religious discussion), as a believer, I firmly believe that if that life was meant to be, it will still be...just...at another time in another place. (We claim that with God all things are possible after all, right?) Do I like abortion? Who in the world does??? But it is a part of reality that we need to learn to deal with.

It makes no sense, to me anyway, to say no federal funding for abortion and then later complain about "deadbeat loser" parents who rely on the system to support that child that supposedly meant so much.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Abortion is definitely more complicated. Even Carl Sagan had to admit to support of only non third-term abortions (except in extenuating circumstances) as a compromise to appease those overwhelming forces opposing any form of abortion.

It really does depend upon circumstances - something that is oft ignored by laws and unmovable opinions. For instance, having a relationship with someone under a certain age is considered illegal (age of consent). Depending upon the country or state, this is usually around 16 y/o. But what if one person is 16 and the other is 17? To be even more perposterous, what if they're age difference is only months or weeks apart despite the supposed age crossover? The law is blind - and unbendable - in such circumstances and that is a shame since age difference should also be a factor. In some places, the laws are finally being modified to take this into account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform#Close-in-age_exemptions

So, circumstances. I'm not for abortion but am for it where it has merits. I'm also for individual rights and don't consider a fetus to be a fully formed human being. Let's face it, the more idiotic fundamentalists have actually gone on record as stating that eggs and sperm are 'human beings' in their furor against abortion and stem cell research. Where does one draw a line for definition? This is what Dr. Sagan wrestled with and I think that he arrived at a well-thought out conclusion about it: only allow third-term abortions wherein there is a medical emergency reason while allowing other abortions upon reasonable reasons and consultation (parents must allow it for their under-age child and so on).

I just fear that these continual little additions to laws to appease one group will continue to erode any semblence of reasonability and eventually lead to outright banning of things. In other words, once you put restrictions on abortion, you allow for people to cite those restrictions as reason to outlaw it completely. Look again at stem cell research. Luckily, better minds prevailed eventually and overturned some of the religious-based bullcrap reasons for denying it. I hate religious agendas as much as government.

 

[jta]

I'm also for individual rights and don't consider a fetus to be a fully formed human being.
............ Where does one draw a line for definition?

It's difficult isn't it? Personally I think life begins at the instant of conception and should gain all the privilege of being human from thereon. However, would I be willing to sacrifice the mother for the unborn child? No, I don't think so. I do believe however that any abortion that must be performed, for whatever reason, should be done before the quickening of the fetus, and that's generally about 22 weeks. I have a reason, recently a friend's daughter, who is training as a medical doctor, was in Rwanda, she had to assist in several abortions there, they're not so fussy there as we in the 'West' are, a lot of the abortions resulted in a live baby which was just dumped into a bin and left to die. Maybe I'm just too empathic, but her stories sickened me and left me feeling rather sad about it. I'm male by the way if that makes a difference.

 

[madurobob]

I'm not for abortion but am for it...

Who are you, John Kerry?

I'm also for individual rights and don't consider a fetus to be a fully formed human being. Let's face it, the more idiotic fundamentalists have actually gone on record as stating that eggs and sperm are 'human beings' in their furor against abortion and stem cell research. Where does one draw a line for definition? This is what Dr. Sagan wrestled with and I think that he arrived at a well-thought out conclusion about it: only allow third-term abortions wherein there is a medical emergency reason while allowing other abortions upon reasonable reasons and consultation (parents must allow it for their under-age child and so on).

Right, the definition is difficult when you actually get down to it. I assume Most people will agree that aborting a full-term baby moments before labor starts is not OK. likewise, most people will also agree that unfertilized eggs do not constitute life. It' s the in-between that gets people riled up. What's magic about the 3rd trimester? Emotionally I agree with your outline of Sagan's view, but intellectually I have to admit I don't know enough about fetus development to really understand why this differentiation makes sense.

Is it because that's the limit of medical science's ability to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb? If so, does the limit change with each scientific advance in the field?

I just fear that these continual little additions to laws to appease one group will continue to erode any semblence of reasonability and eventually lead to outright banning of things. In other words, once you put restrictions on abortion, you allow for people to cite those restrictions as reason to outlaw it completely. Look again at stem cell research. Luckily, better minds prevailed eventually and overturned some of the religious-based bullcrap reasons for denying it. I hate religious agendas as much as government.

We've had the Hyde Amendment^WP for 33 years now. It is the precedent for the language in the UHC bill. Has this really had much effect of the availability of the abortion option across the country? (that's a real question - I honestly don't know)

 

[kuroyume0161]

Who are you, John Kerry?

Yes. Now let me bore you to death.

I mean that I'm not for abortion under just any circumstances whatsoever at any time during the pregnancy. I think that it should not be an 'easy out' (as if the procedure is easy or without its own perils) for anyone who just doesn't want a child. But it shouldn't be outlawed either. There are justifications for medical abortion procedures - such as to save the mother's life or because the infant-in-the-womb is severely undeveloped, for instance.

Right, the definition is difficult when you actually get down to it. I assume Most people will agree that aborting a full-term baby moments before labor starts is not OK. likewise, most people will also agree that unfertilized eggs do not constitute life. It' s the in-between that gets people riled up. What's magic about the 3rd trimester? Emotionally I agree with your outline of Sagan's view, but intellectually I have to admit I don't know enough about fetus development to really understand why this differentiation makes sense.

Is it because that's the limit of medical science's ability to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb? If so, does the limit change with each scientific advance in the field?

We've had the Hyde Amendment^WP for 33 years now. It is the precedent for the language in the UHC bill. Has this really had much effect of the availability of the abortion option across the country? (that's a real question - I honestly don't know)

The inbetween part is definitely the battleground between the trenchlines. And, in honesty, I'd say that the timing is circumstance dependent. We should try to delineate elective versus emergency limits on the procedure. For the latter, I don't think there really should be any limit. If a near-term infant is to be 'aborted', it seems to me that it is really extracted (through caesarian section most likely) and an attempt is made to help the infant survive if this is within a hospital (for instance). I couldn't see a near-term mother going to an abortion clinic and even being allowed to proceed (one would hope anyway).

I'd have to find and reread Sagan's argument to see why he drew the line at the third trimester (that's the word, thanks!). It is possible that there are certain fundamental structures that are in place by this time (a brain, lungs able to 'breath' - maybe with help). Limit of fetus survivability may surely be a deciding factor. It would be interesting if we eventually developed advancements that would allow transfer of a fetus at almost any level of development to a system that would mimic the womb and allow for a baby to come to term. It would also bring up some ethical issues of its own but we'll forego them for now.

On the Hyde Amendment, I wouldn't know either. I'd prefer federally (or even state) funded clinics over back-alley, coat-hanger resortments. There is no black and white which is why I repudiate these constant necessities for adding ever more stringent anti-abortion terms to every medical bill that moves through Congress. As is typical with strong religious opposition to anything, it is always black and white - and the results are always that a bad (or even good) situation is made worse by driving it into the backwater.

 

[bookitty]

A couple quick points - There are numerous medical reasons for late term abortions, complications that do not show up during the earlier weeks of pregnancy. The laws that are against later term abortions make no provision for this. Primarily because people are quick to believe that women are too lazy, stupid or callous to get an abortion right away.

Secondly, there is very little difference in abortion statistics in countries where abortion is outlawed. Just as many are being performed but there are far more complications.

I have a reason, recently a friend's daughter, who is training as a medical doctor, was in Rwanda, she had to assist in several abortions there, they're not so fussy there as we in the 'West' are, a lot of the abortions resulted in a live baby which was just dumped into a bin and left to die. Maybe I'm just too empathic, but her stories sickened me and left me feeling rather sad about it. I'm male by the way if that makes a difference.

Yes, that is horrible. Imagine those poor women who go through almost an entire term of pregnancy because there are not enough doctors to allow for an abortion earlier. Can you image the pain of spending months knowing that because of the lack of food and money, there will be no child? To think that it is better for your baby to die at birth than to be brought into the world in which you live. It is beyond heartbreaking.