Hypocrisy on abortions and health care

Conservative critics of Obama’s health care reform plans claim that his proposals will intrude on the relationship between a patient and his/her physician. They also claim that Obama will force you to give up the insurance you have now, even if you’re satisfied.  The conservatives wouldn’t dream of intruding on the private doctor/patient relationship or disrupting your current insurance.

Unless the subject of abortion comes up. Then, they’re all for getting between a woman and her doctor and disrupting her health insurance coverage. Republicans in Congress and their allies among anti-abortion Democrats are threatening to blow up health care reform negotiations over the prospect of coverage for abortions.

First, some background. 1) Federal law forbids using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. 2) Some private health insurance plans offer coverage for abortions, which, after all, are legal medical procedures.  The New York Times says: Nearly  half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

But a group of Catholic bishops, anti-abortion Democrats and conservative Republicans are up in arms over the subsidies which will be offered to families who cannot afford to purchase insurance. They claim the subsidies will be used to buy policies that cover abortions.

They’re wrong. The legislation sets up an elaborate accounting system which separates private money from public money. That system has been used effectively in states where Medicaid provides for abortions. (Medicaid is paid from both federal and state tax funds; states that allow Medicaid to cover abortions can’t use federal funds to pay for it.)

If the anti-abortion crowd has its way, health insurers would be unlikely to offer coverage for abortions, so those who currently have the coverage would lose it. But that’s okay for conservatives because their goal is make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions.

78 comments Add your comment

Peadawg

September 29th, 2009
7:47 am

Abortion = murder.

You’re no better than the woman who put her kid in a frigin microwave last year.

SouthernGal

September 29th, 2009
7:54 am

Why would you not want abortion coverage….hopefully those who are destined to bring non productive citizens into the world would take advantage of such a perk.

TypicalDemo

September 29th, 2009
7:58 am

We ought to let women “choose” to terminate a baby up until the baby is one week old. That way there is time to decide if they really want it.

Kayaker 71

September 29th, 2009
8:15 am

Cynthia,

Last year, over 1.37M abortions were performed in this country. 92% of these were for “societal reasons”, ie, birth control. It would be a lot cheaper for Bozo’s health care plan to fund Orthonova for all women of child bearing age. Might save a lot of lives, too.

pat

September 29th, 2009
8:28 am

Maybe because abortion is murder. Killing people isn’t healthcare, I gather you’re not intelligent enough to figure that out. Either that, or you have assumed the role of God and can arbitrarily decide when life begins based on whether or not a person’s existence is convenient to you.

The hypocracy is all yours.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
8:38 am

I love Kayakers made up numbers.

So here’s the question, pro-birth people: What should a pregnant couple do if they know in advance via genetic or other tests that the child they are carrying has health issues that will be expensive to treat?

In other words: do you love the fetus you don’t know and hate the people you do know?

Joey

September 29th, 2009
8:51 am

Just a thought:
National Health Care Legislation is far from being final. Now is the time to make your efforts to influence what the bill(s) becomes. Contact you congress-person and your senators. Do not let anyone, pundit or politican or Blog Poster, persuade you that your position on each issue is not important. And certainly don’t let anyone convince you that an issue is dead or resolved. That will not happen until the final vote which may not occur this calendar year.

Kayaker 71

September 29th, 2009
8:53 am

ByteMe,

Made up numbers? The 1.37M is a 1996 figure… can’t speak for 2009 which is probably much higher. That’s 3,700/day, ByteMe. The population of a fair sized American city…. every year. 92% are done for birth control. 52% are performed on women younger than 25. 64% are performed on never married women. The most astounding statistic…. over 43% of all women will have an abortion before they reach age 45.
Google up the site…. I won’t do it for you. The 8% of abortions performed fall into the category that you described. Rape, incest, spina bifida children, etc.
If we were killing 3,700 people every day in this country through any other means, there would be an outcry louder than you can believe. We get upset about killing 5,000 military in Iraq in 8 yrs, when we pass off 1.37M/yr just like they were a forgotten population. The only instance where a mother can kill a child and get away with it. Try that one week after the child is born.
Your logic begs explanation.

jconservative

September 29th, 2009
8:54 am

I am a political conservative. I believe in small government that does not intrude into the life of citizens. If the lady across the street wants to have an abortion it is none of government’s business. The government should neither stop it or pay for it. It’s just none of their business.

TheOne

September 29th, 2009
8:56 am

As a conservative, I am one of the “rare” ones who thinks abortion is okay as long as it is done with some constraints (partial birth abortions are an absolute no-no). However, despite my support for a woman making a choice, I think the woman should pay for it herself.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:03 am

Abortion is certainly immoral. But then, so is bringing an unwanted child into the world. Republicans are against anything Democrats are for, regardless of the merit.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:05 am

TheOne

September 29th, 2009
8:56 am

I suspect that in most caes, her partner would be more than happy to pay for it. Her birth control pills as well.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:07 am

SouthernGal

September 29th, 2009
7:54 am

And shuld be encouraged to, especially if they aren’t able to take care of themselves.

Peadawg

September 29th, 2009
9:09 am

“Republicans are against anything Democrats”

And vice versa. It goes both ways pal.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:10 am

Peadawg

September 29th, 2009
9:09 am

Not as viciously.

Atlanta Native

September 29th, 2009
9:14 am

Guess what, I am another conservative who is not part of the chanting “pro-life” crowd. Do I think abortion is murder? Yes. However, that is my philosophy and religion. I am free to express my opinion and religion, as I am a US citizen. I cannot use the law to enforce my religion on those who give little value to human life.

I do not believe the government has the right to tell people what they can do with their bodies. Even if they are killing the innocent unborn. I have always been in favor of the government giving free abortions, as long as they thrown in a free hysterectomy (sp?). Don’t want to lose your uterus? Show some responsibility for yourself and pay for your own. Or try birth control.

Partial birth abortions are a different story for a different debate.

Since “conservatives want to make it harder for women to have abortions”, does that mean liberals want to make it easier? If so, have fun talkin’ to St. Peter.

Kayaker 71

September 29th, 2009
9:15 am

It doesn’t surprise me that we are so willing to pay for someone’s irresponsible behavior. Gelding, this goes beyond politics and has nothing to do with being a Repub or a Democrat. I would suspect that of that 92%, a good percentage are conservatives, despite their rhetoric about the evils of the procedure.

The argument that it brings “non-productive” citizens into this world is really bogus. Who knows whether they will be productive or not. It is just a sorry excuse for dodging responsible behavior and nothing more.

Cloyd J. Bukoski

September 29th, 2009
9:16 am

Every sperm is sacred…..

F-105 Thunderchief

September 29th, 2009
9:18 am

Abortion = not of mine, or your business.

Peadawg

September 29th, 2009
9:18 am

“Not as viciously.”

Ya, ok! Whatever you say.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
9:21 am

Kayaker: you still didn’t provide a source for your 1996 numbers so we could hold it up for ridicule. :)

And I notice that no one on the wacky right wants to answer the question. Figures. Typical pro-birth crowd.

What should a pregnant couple do if they know in advance via genetic or other tests that the child they are carrying has health issues that will be expensive to treat?

Why do you love the fetus you don’t know and hate the people you do?

SOUTHERN ATL

September 29th, 2009
9:23 am

Excellent debate!

Atlanta Native

September 29th, 2009
9:41 am

Byte Me:

Raise the child and treat the child, even at the expense it will entail. The child has a soul and is a part of the couple.

If I was an atheist, I guess I’d say kill the meat sack, it’s too expensive. (The meat sack reference comes from a dismissive reference given to me as a Sky God person and, therefore not worth arguing with due to my “delusional belief in God”.)

bob

September 29th, 2009
9:44 am

Byteme, you might consider me to be wacky right, I say, let the parents pay for an abortion. If they were planning to have a child they have the money to pay for an abortion. If they have a child then decide they don’t want it, send him to Chicago and make him walk down the street carrying school books, that will get him killed off in a New York minute. Obama made such a mark on Chicago !

jconservative

September 29th, 2009
9:51 am

ByteMe

Re your question. It is none of your business what that couple does. It is none of my business what that couple does. It is none of governments business what that couple does. It is their decision.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
9:52 am

Atlanta Native is definitely pro-birth: loves the fetus, hates people.

bob is definitely showing his wacky side, but has the correct answer for most people.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
9:54 am

jconservative: it is indeed their decision. But the wacky right wants to make it the government’s decision (oh, the irony). So… we need to understand how they value things since they want to enforce their values on the rest of us.

mike

September 29th, 2009
9:57 am

TnGelding –

“Republicans are against anything Democrats are for, regardless of the merit.”

Do you really think Democrats are different? Really?

Wine Diva

September 29th, 2009
10:03 am

The hypocrisy is that we don’t give a damn about the person having the abortion or the fetus being aborted. Abortion will always be an issue to keep people divided.

Atlanta Native

September 29th, 2009
10:04 am

Byte me: I love people – did you not read my earlier posts? I said I do not have the right to use the government to tell people how to treat their bodies. Then again, my position upsets both the anti-choice and anti-life crowd, so I am used to it.

Heck, I am philosophically aligned against the death penalty, so that people have a chance to seek redemption. {DNA testing and all, too].

Good try Byte Me but you aren’t going to pigeon hole me like that. I believe you have a soul, too and would not support killing you if you were too expensive.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
10:10 am

Atlanta Native: I read more into your earlier post than you likely meant. Anyone both anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty gets bonus points from me. That’s a consistent position and I applaud the position even if I disagree with it. It’s the “death penalty + no abortion” and “no death penalty + abortion” crowds that needs to be called out for their cognitive disconnect.

But it’s also a special question concerning today’s health care debate: do we — as a society — pay for the abortion before birth or the super expensive care after birth? Can we financially afford the latter? Can we morally afford the former?

lovelyliz

September 29th, 2009
10:12 am

The neo-cons won’t be happy until the only folks who can have safe abortions are those who can afford first class, European vacations complete with a side trip to a “private” clinic.

So much for the life-begins-at-conception-and-ends-at-birth pro-life hypocrites.

Kayaker 71

September 29th, 2009
10:17 am

ByteMe,

You seem to recoil at the fact that government will have some say in whether or not an abortion is performed but think that government can do no wrong in running the rest of your life. This isn’t about government, it isn’t about privacy or about non-productive people. It’s about decency and responsibility, plain and simple. When two people undertake to do something that can produce an offspring, with long term implications, they assume a certain responsibility for that act. That responsibility is not being heeded in about 1,26M of our citizens……. every year. 47% of abortions are performed on women who have had at least on abortion already. 60% of abortions are performed on white women. Black and latino women are 2-3X more likely than white women to have this procedure…… and they represent a minority in this country. Does that look like we are acting responsibly? That sort of irresponsible behavior, especially if it involves killing someone, would be prosecuted if the mother waited until term. We even segregate child molesters from the mainstream of our society….. some living in tents in Atlanta. The ultimate child molestation is occurring about 1.26M times per year in our society and we pass it off as someone’s right. What logic!!

cranky old man

September 29th, 2009
10:20 am

Philosophically, would abortion be considered a sin or commission or omission? It would seem to be the former, because it requires action to accomplish. But one could also argue that it is simply a refusal to allow the use of one’s body for the benefit of someone else. If so, is it fundamentally different from refusing to, say, donate a kidney? Or even something as simple as donating blood? While it is certainly admirable to do these things, do we really want to be legally required to do them?

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
10:22 am

Kayaker: again, you keep repeating your numbers without having any factual basis. Lots of numbers… no basis in fact. Come back to the table when you’re ready to answer the question AND provide the basis for your numbers so we can hold them up to ridicule.

As it is, I’m just holding you up to ridicule until you provide the basis for your numbers, since I think you made them up.

cast

September 29th, 2009
10:26 am

I don’t know why this should be a political issue other than people like Cynthia make it so. I am definitely not a proponent of abortion but as it relates to health care in particular, abortion as a form of contraception, is nothing more than elective surgery. Morality aside, as a taxpayer, I would no more care to fund abortion as I would a face lift or any other cosmetic surgery. And current insurance plans which fund abortion most certainly should direct those funds to more necessary life sustaining procedures.

Atlanta Native

September 29th, 2009
10:31 am

Does the government have the right to make that decision for us? That is the question.

I do not want the government running healthcare, which is what will eventually happen under the present debate. I want government to serve its true function: to regulate. Once gov’t is running the healthcare system it cannot effectively regulate itself. Its like here in Georgia where the EPD is a division of the DNR, when they should often be at cross purposes.

Conservatives generally want less regulation. Result: the present financial meltdown and the S&L fiasco.

Liberals want gov’t to run things. Result: dumbed down schools and the entire State of California

Neither approach has any real merit in the long run, but appeases a constituency. What the government need to do is regulate things, not run them. [Armed forces, infrastructure, police, etc. aside]

Why the big push on this? Read Samuelson in Newsweek this month – its about the egos of the politicians. The ones in power are boomers. They wanted to change the world. Then they learned about the slippery slope as they watch their kids living in the mire that eventually resulted and now preach “zero tolerance”. They want to have done something correctly, so they are trying to get credit for saving the world and the people, though they truly care little about either, just as they did when the only reason the vast majority were at a rally to begin with was hoping to score.

This is debate is not about people and care, it is about political hubris. Read Cynthia’s column again – its about how much better her group is than the other, not the pros and cons of the actual legislation and where it will end up. Think about the fact that insurance companies can fire people if they do not do a good job. Government jobs are, somehow, a property right, according to the Supreme Court. They cannot be fired without due process, which has come to mean multiple hearings. Do you want people who cannot be fired without multiple hearings in chaqre of your life? Remember the 911 operator here in Atlanta that slept on the job but was retained as she was ‘too expensive to fire”? Coming to a clinic near you.

If anyone, on either side, in Washington really cared, then we would be talking about rescuing Medicaid/Medicare to create a safety net and providing reimbursement for doc-in-the-boxes to keep minor issues out of emergency rooms. Instead they want to create a new program and bask in glory. I think Samuelson nailed this one.

Kayaker 71

September 29th, 2009
10:35 am

Byte Me,

One more time, I will do your homework for you. The figures come from the Centers for Bioethical Reform. Google up “abortions statistics” and click on the first site on the first page. The summary is from the Guttmacher Institute’s latest Fact Sheet on Abortion.
That should not be so difficult, even for you, now should it? Quit trying to kill the messenger, Byte Me, it says a lot about your character.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
10:46 am

“Centers for Bioethical Reform”. Seriously, Kayaker??? You’re using their numbers as “facts”??

Hahahahahahahahahaha…. That’s like using the the political parties for your data on budget facts. ROFLMAO!!!!

sam

September 29th, 2009
10:48 am

if you’re against abortion, dont have one. otherwise mind youre own damn business.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
10:49 am

Thanks for the laugh, Kayaker. My work here is done. I’m outta here.

Kayaker 71

September 29th, 2009
11:03 am

It is easy to call people names, deny what is right in front of your face by demeaning the one who says it…. If you don’t believe this site, try the CDC estimate published in 2008. Sadly, about the same numbers perpetrated by the same groups of people. I don’t care if you believe reliable data or not. To deny these figures, published by numerous organizations, both partisan and non-partisan is to admit your stupidity and lack of appreciation for a tragedy that is occurring in our country. It is easy to say, as Sam did, if you don’t like what is going on, mind your own damn business. I suppose you could say that about a lot of things…. but this involves the loss of human life. Since Roe Vs Wade was passed, 49,551,703 potential citizens have been done away with, 92% of whom were done because of irresponsible behavior on the part of the potential parents. That doesn’t make you pause a little and reflect? If not, I am wasting my time writing all of these posts and appealing to the logic and compassion of responders. It just doesn’t seem to be there.

Cohen

September 29th, 2009
11:09 am

“Destroy another fetus now, I don’t like children anyhow.”

J-Rog

September 29th, 2009
11:15 am

The article claims that “Federal law forbids using taxpayer money to pay for abortion,” which is somewhat misleading. The reference is to the Hyde Amendment which is an annual provision attached to appropriations bills that only prevents funding of abortion in Medicaid. It’s not a permanent law on the books, and it only applies to Medicaid. So it doesn’t apply to the discussion of abortion in the proposed legislation.

I understand the author’s frustration with the apparent hypocrisy of conservatives not wanting to come between a doctor and patient, until it’s about abortion. But if you look at it from a pro-life person’s perspective, the issue is not about a doctor and patient, it’s about a doctor, patient, and unborn human life. It’s only getting in the way of what the woman might want to do because there is another individual’s rights to take into account.

sam

September 29th, 2009
11:16 am

kayaker, do you also get involved anti-war protests? or do any work with starving children in america or abroad? where do you stand on helping save people who are dying because they dont have access to proper healthcare? me personally, I dont like the idea of abortion but in some cases it necessary (translation, its not a black and white issue)…i’d rather spend my energy trying to help those among us than those that are not….to me the funny thing about anti-abortion folks is they seem to hate people…

Cohen

September 29th, 2009
11:27 am

sam,

The unborn, although not readily seen, ARE among us.

Zedd

September 29th, 2009
11:39 am

Cynthia, do you have an explanation as to why my comments awaiting moderation were never posted? I even tried toning it down in the second and third attempt. Is the AJC now censoring comments that oppose the opinion writers?

Chris Broe

September 29th, 2009
11:45 am

Today’s piece is just a no good, badly-spun look at abortion statistics, (so it should fit right in here).

Roe v Wade. 1973. 36 years ago. ~1.3 million abortions per year.

The 50-millionth abortion is imminent, and Cosmopolitan magazine is planning a gala celebration.

The 50-millionth abortion will get surprise balloons and a trip to Sea World and fifteen minutes of fame. The 50-millionth abortion is estimated to occur in 2012, (about the same time when Nostradomus predicted that a swarm of Aztec babies will destroy earth).

sam

September 29th, 2009
11:57 am

cohen, dont go getting all exestential on me.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
12:05 pm

Chris Broe

September 29th, 2009
11:45 am

Which partially expalains why the government allowed the illegals easy entry.