Abortion: More hypocrisy on health care
Ah, the hypocrisy.
Many of the critics of health care reform have insisted that they’re fighting Obama’s plans because, among other things, the legislation would interfere with and restrict patients’ personal choices. They claimed people who like their insurance should be able to keep the coverage they have.
Well, that argument doesn’t seem to apply when it comes to abortion coverage. The Stupak amendment, passed last week and added to the health care bill, will lead to restrictions on health care policies covering abortion. Even if women (or their husbands) currently have policies that cover abortions, they are likely to lose that coverage.
When the House narrowly passed the health care reform bill on Saturday night, it came with a steep price for women’s reproductive rights. Under pressure from anti-abortion Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawmakers added language that would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions — even if they use their own money.
The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.
The anti-abortion Democrats behind this coup insisted that they were simply adhering to the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs. In fact, they reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholder’s own dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
That’s perfectly okay with conservatives when it comes to abortion. Freedom of choice? Like the private market decide? Not so much.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
61 comments Add your comment
jconservative
November 10th, 2009
12:52 pm
Another example of big government liberalism.
It is getting where it is impossible to keep government out of your everyday life.
Jimmy62
November 10th, 2009
12:52 pm
There’s a big difference. To anti-abortion folks, an abortion adversely affect another human- The fetus. Freedom of speech does not force anyone else to do anything, but abortion forces someone to die. From the perspective of pro-lifers. So there’s no conflict there, if you look at it from their perspective.
From your perspective, obviously you don’t think the fetus has any rights. And that’s fine, that’s your opinion. But anti-abortion folks see it a different way, and when you judge hypocrisy, you can’t look at item 1 from your perspective and item 2 from theirs, and say that 1 and 2 conflict. That’s misleading and unfair.
righty
November 10th, 2009
1:20 pm
The basic underlying problem here is that abortion is murder. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. However, liberals continue to believe that until a baby is born, it’s not really a person and therefore killing it inside the mother’s body is inconsequential.
Forcing someone to buy insurance is an infringement on their rights as an individual on how best to spend their own money. After all, no one enjoys paying taxes, but we know that they’re necessary. Plus, the ability to tax is a power given to the government by the constitution, so everyone understands the reasons behind it. A mandate to purchase insurance (or any other insurance or consumer product for that matter) is nowhere enumerated within the US Constitution and is therefore a breach of federal power.
Comparing the Stupak amendment with forcing someone to buy insurance they don’t necessarily need or want is comparing apples and oranges. It’s not the same.
Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee
November 10th, 2009
1:31 pm
Fraud-bama – To reform healthcare, “We’ll have all the negotiations televised on CSPAN so that people can see who is making the arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making the arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.” – President Barack Obama. “You Lie.” – Joe Wilson.
Shawny
November 10th, 2009
1:31 pm
That is how congress works. They scratch each other’s backs for votes. Had the govt option covered abortion, many of the yes votes would have been no votes, and it wouldn’t have passed. It was stripped in an effort to get something passed. Certain congressmen knew that if they voted on a bill that had it in there, that they would be at risk in getting re-elected.
People in congress have 3 goals:
- get elected
- get re-elected
- bilk the taxpayer
Turd Feguson
November 10th, 2009
1:36 pm
I dont have any issue with abortion, however, it should not be covered under OboboCare and OboboCare should be tossed into the local landfill. This is nothing more than a Obobo/Federal power grab.
They all, Obobo, Dems, Reps should be tossed out on their behinds. This system of govt is now infringing on every personal front available. The sooner they all are done away with the better.
Vote Independent.
Chris
November 10th, 2009
1:55 pm
If a woman wishes to have an abortion, I say go for it…I will keep my moral ideas on the subject to myself…BUT why is it so hard for people to grasp the concept of pulling out their checkbook and PAYING for a service they wish to have? If you are going to make such a personal decision, why can’t you be responsible enough to PAY for it as well?
bob
November 10th, 2009
1:55 pm
why not cover all elective procedures ? I am getting old and it shows, I need a chin tuck so when I am looking for a job I can compete with the younger crowd, maybe an eye job to. Why should I have to pay for that, I need to put food on my families table, how good is healthcare if your are starving to death.
pat
November 10th, 2009
1:59 pm
I suppose murder can be a choice…I can walk next door and slash my neighbors throat, that woulbe be my choice, but one that would be frowned upon.
Murder, which is plain and simple what abortion is, is not health care. Unless you consider killing a part of removing all health issues.
The hypocracy is yours Cynthia, you want care for all these folks but all willing to kill soon to be born people with imputnity.
Even Norma McCorvey (AKA: Jane Row) knows it’s murder…I know, I have personally spoken with her. She relalized working at abortion clicnics that abortion is murder…
Jack
November 10th, 2009
2:05 pm
What we have here is another smoke-screen piece to avoid discussing the Muslim problem at Ft Hood.
mike
November 10th, 2009
2:08 pm
The problem is that abortion is not health care.
Turd Feguson
November 10th, 2009
2:24 pm
Abortion is healthcare. Think of all the women and poor destitute kids living in squalor who would probably better off had they not been born.
They live a paupers existence and the working class is forced to pay for their welfare. Kindve harsh, however, sometime abortion could be thought of as a win/win for everyone concerned.
Turd Feguson
November 10th, 2009
2:24 pm
PS…it makes for a healthier society.
AF
November 10th, 2009
2:32 pm
The problem with taking coverage of abortions out of health insurance is that it will again become a back alley, coat-hanger-in-the-uterus procedure that will kill people.
The heart of the conflict is between a woman being able to decide how her body is to be used and the belief that abortion is murder. There is not a perfect answer.
Those of you who don’t want abortions need to support efforts to reduce abortions. Like sex education in schools. How about supporting charities that provide food, clothing, shelter and health care for pregnant women who can’t afford it and/or for married women who have birth control failure and don’t want the child. How about supporting charities or the government subsidizing food, clothing, shelter, and health care for the unwanted child after it is born.
See. You just want to pontificate and be holier-than-thou about someone else’s life and welfare. Where are you when the consequences of your denying an abortion have to be faced?
Chris
November 10th, 2009
2:32 pm
Good point Turd Ferguson..Lets greatly expand abortions…That would surely get rid of 25% of the ignorant democrat voter-base!
Chris
November 10th, 2009
2:38 pm
AF…Restrictions on the people’s money to pay for abortions DOES not mean abortions are being denied. It means those who seek an abortion must actually PAY for their procedure. OMG! What a concept, financially support yourself!
Joan
November 10th, 2009
2:38 pm
Republicans oppose abortion, on religious grounds, considering it murder, even if a fetus is not viable. Conservatives oppose paying for abortions. Isn’t there some kind of compromise that can be worked out? Why can’t we say that abortions that are medically necessary should be compensated, and those that are a matter of choice, should be paid for by the prospective parent. It seems reasonable comprises could be effected. There is no constitutional right to an abortion however, no matter how you read that thing.
bob
November 10th, 2009
2:39 pm
AF, we do not have a public option with abortion coverage now and back alley abortions don’t seem to be a problem. As far as sex ed in schools, do you really think a sixteen, fifteeen or fourteen year old girl does not know what happens if she hops in the sack with someone ?
Chris
November 10th, 2009
2:40 pm
Joan…Your proposal is reasonable and well thought out. Something I could definitely go along with…
Sunshine and Thunder
November 10th, 2009
2:52 pm
I get it. The anti abortion element of the legislation is important. The fact that for the first time in its 230 year history this country is trying to force its citizens to purchase a product under the threat of imprisonment is not important.
Joey
November 10th, 2009
3:03 pm
I am pro-abortion. I think any woman or girl who wants or needs an abortion should be able to get it, same day.
I am strongly opposed to National Health Care. In my view the Legislation will demolish something that just needs a little repair job. Demolish it a replace it with something that will not, can not work.
If it takes the abortion issue to bring this legislation down, I will be happy to suspend my pro-abortion position.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
3:18 pm
The blood of the innocent unborn drips from the facade of the Supreme Court, the Halls of Congress reek with the rotting decay of our Constitution and the White House is leperous with marxism. God help us.
Cynthia Tucker Misses The Point « Vogue Republic
November 10th, 2009
3:51 pm
[...] Cynthia Tucker Misses The Point Like really misses the point. She calls republican support for the Stupak Amendment hypocrisy because it doesn’t allow the free …. [...]
pat
November 10th, 2009
3:53 pm
I think most people oppose murder on most any level. Religion does oppose murder but most atheists oppose murder too. So I don’t think most people consider murder a good thing, religious or not.
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
4:09 pm
It is my understanding the amendment may also prevent coverage to women who have spontaneous (unintended) abortions, so some wording is necessary to take of that.
Also, I do not advocate abortion as birth control, since there are readily available inexpensive and effective means of contraception. Pres. Obama stated in the past the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy.
Many who are pro-life do not support either reproductive education nor contraception and would rather have government control to prohibit reproductive education and availability of contraceptives, even to adult women.
I agree with the saying “If men could get pregnant, then there would be no abortion issue”.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
4:19 pm
In 1968 ….. the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed a “man” CAN be forced for “2 years” to leave his job, family, friends, girlfriend, dog, cat and be sent to another country in a war he does not believe in to be killed or maimed by other men. It’s called the “draft” and although we are not usinig it at this time it’s Constitutional.
In 1973 ….. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a “woman” CANNOT be forced to carry an unborn child to term for “9 months” even though she is free to remain home and be with her family, friends, husband, boyfriend, dog, cat, etc. It’s called abortion on demand and it’s Constitutional.
Now, why do I bring this up now? Tomorrow is veterans day and a full 25% of the 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall are draftees. In WWII, the draft rate was a little over 66%.
Many of you will say, “well this is apples and oranges”. You are correct. One of these totally opposite rulings is much worse than the other but both are still the law of the land. If you can’t figure out which one …………. I can’t help you.
Note: By the way, in 1983 the Supreme Court also ruled that women can’t be drafted. Equal protection under the law …………………? Hummmmm ………………..
Bicycles
November 10th, 2009
4:25 pm
I have a wonderful idea. It’s incredibly easy too. If there is any chance you don’t want or can’t manage taking care of a brand new human being, don’t do anything that could get you/or another pregnant! Why is it soooo difficult for people to be personally responsible? If you continue to praise bad behaviour, ie pay for abortions, you will continue to get bad behaviour. Learn to take care of yourself, then entertain the idea of reproducing.
Question
November 10th, 2009
4:28 pm
Turd Feguson at 2:24 pm
Actually the best win/win option is Obama/Pelosicare paying for sterilization of generational government dependents — eventually we’d lose the “generational” part. Just think of the societal benefits!!!
Linda
November 10th, 2009
4:37 pm
AF @ 2:32 You said, “Those of you who don’t want abortions need to support efforts to reduce abortions.”
We do. It’s call abstinence, safe sex, birth control & not watching Oprah.
Abortion & stem cell research are both legal. The question is whether or not they should be taxpayer-funded. If women were able to get “free,” taxpayer-funded abortions, don’t you think we would be encouraging irresponsibility & unwanted pregnancies?
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
5:06 pm
Even under current law, the ratio of intentional termination of pregnancy (intended abortions) to total pregnancies in GA from 1994 to 2006 fell from 22% to 15%; with the steepest decline occurring between 1994 and 1999. (Georgia Division of Public Health, OASIS).
Obviously, the right to abortion does not lead to increased numbers of abortion, rather the opposite.
Kevin
November 10th, 2009
5:14 pm
I always chuckle with ironic glee whenever I see Cynthia write the word “hypocrisy.”
Swami Dave
November 10th, 2009
5:18 pm
AF:
The issue is the attempt to hold taxpayers (via government dollars) accountable for the consequences of decisions made by others. As has been stated by a number of others, this does not impact the legal availability of the service (whether or not one agrees with it), but puts forth the simple and rational notion that taxpayers do not have to pay to provide it.
Freedom is a grand thing!
-SD
Joan
November 10th, 2009
5:30 pm
Well, whatever they do with the bill, if they made it clear that a woman could have welfare if she had up to two children, but when she dropped the third one, she would be cut off of all welfare, that might really slow down the pregnancies. Sure, there would be casualties, but whose fault would that be?
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
5:41 pm
By far the greatest number of pregnancies are provided by affluent urban and lower middles class rural whites in GA. Pregnancies to those generally ascribed as welfare recipients are compensated for by an infant mortality 2 to 3 times greater than whites.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
5:50 pm
I guess no one wants to debate the logic of the Supreme Court in my 4:19 ?? That’s o.k. Most people don’t (especially when I bring it up in person) because they really have no logical response.
It boggles the mind that you can send a man off to be killed against his will but you can’t tell a woman she can’t kill her unborn child.
Which bring me to my next thought:
The Federal government is so out of control that it is time for the States to call for a Constitutional Convention. It is their right to do so under Article V of the Constitution …………. and to take back their rightful sovereignty in all areas not specifically granted to the Federal government under the Constitution. It’s the only way to “check and balance” (a Constitutional Amendment) the Supreme Court and is there for that very purpose.
Oooops ……… I must correct myself. There is one other check and balance against the Supreme Court ……….. it’s called nullification (i.e., “Judge Taney has made his decision now let him enforce it” – President Andrew Jackson).
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
6:03 pm
Indeed, it boggles the mind that the Cherokees do not wish to have that SC decision enforced now, and seek damages for The Trail of Tears.
It also, boggles the mind that people really do believe women want to have abortions — to kill their unborn. Why is that?
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
6:21 pm
To be honest ……….. selfishness. Putting yourself before the life of your unborn child.
Let me ask you another question. When is a “mother” most a mother? Before the child is born or after when other people (including a man) can take care of it?
I’ll answer it for you ………. a woman is most a mother when the child is in her womb and most dependent on her.
P.S. You really didn’t address the issue of forcing a man to go and be killed against his will. It’s still the law of the land.
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
6:28 pm
I’ll answer it for you ………. a woman is most a mother when the child is in her womb and most dependent on her.
Precisely, my point!! So, why is abortion an issue, other than the notion of murder, when abortions rates are declining and ir is usually NOT a choice women would make.
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
6:36 pm
As, for the other issue, traditionally women are left behind to care for home and children while men go to war and kill the women and children of others — I can understand the apprehension of being forced into state sponsored murder and terrorism.
I have a strict constructionist view of the military — no standing armies.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
6:37 pm
Azazel:
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Maybe I’m missing something in your thoughts but I believe abortion on demand should be illegal. One is too many. And if it’s NOT a choice woman would make that fine but I don’t think they should have the choice anyway. An unborn child has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in my opinion. That trumps all else.
P.S. (Second time) You still didn’t address the issue of forcing a man to go and be killed against his will. It’s still the law of the land.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
6:39 pm
To Azazel:
The I assume you feel the draft should also be unconstitutional since it is forcing a man to do something against his will ……….. namely going somewhere to be killed.
jconservative
November 10th, 2009
6:44 pm
Joan said:
“There is no constitutional right to an abortion however, no matter how you read that thing.”
————–
Where in the Constitution does it say you do not have a right to take care of your own body as you think best?
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Government knows best how you should take care of your body?
Where in the Constitution does it say the Government is obligated to pay for any of your personal expenses?
jconservative
November 10th, 2009
6:48 pm
“…the issue of forcing a man to go and be killed against his will. It’s still the law of the land.”
Actually, the law does not require anyone “…to go and be killed…”.
There is an elaborate system of appeals in place that will be activated in the event the draft will be reinstituted.
Just saying – no position on your debate.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
7:00 pm
To jconservative:
Two points:
#1) The main issue to me is that it involves two people – not just one. That’s the problem. Do do have the right to control your own body ……….. but not someone else’s (in this case an unborn human being that has the right to live).
#2) Regarding the draft I hear you but if we ever get into another big one (and we will) the draft will be re-instituted. Thousands (who can’t afford attorneys) will go to their deaths against their will (25% in Vietnam and 66% in WWII). Even medics/corpsman (a past way of dealing with the issue) get killed. My whole point is how is that still the law of the land when the “state” cannot tell a woman to carry an innocent child to term.
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
7:00 pm
CS:
I do not support abortion as a form of birth control!!!
I have attended autopsies of infants, from newborn to about 5 days old, burned, drowned and beaten — murdered!
Scenes I will never forget.
Were they doomed from conception? Abortion or burning, was their fate the same?
Yes, I would rather these pregnancies be terminated early on, rather than imagine the moment of horror inflicted upon these children– one of them before he took his first breath.
There are consequences to everything. Who am I to judge?
jconservative
November 10th, 2009
7:08 pm
A lot of people believe that life begins at conception & that is OK.
(In fact, if the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb, then the fertilized egg is aborted from the mothers body – that’s the way God made the human body, if you are at all religious). And those people want to use the police power of the State to force the birth in all pregnancies. Life begins at conception, so they say.
But a lot of those same folks DO NOT want to use the police power of the State to insure the care of that new baby after birth. (Are they saying life ends at birth?)
I say, if you use the police power of the State to insure the birth of all conceived “persons”, then you must also use the police power of the State to insure the care of that “person”. In short, a national health care plan for all children until they reach adulthood, 18 years of age.
Paid for by the State. In other words, all kids go under Medicare.
It does no good to force the birth of a child only to have that child die of lack of adequate medical care (the USA is one of the world’s worst nations in infant mortality).
This has been my position on the issue since the Roe decision.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
7:19 pm
To Azazel:
I hear you but just because there are terrible incidents with “born” children (no matter what age) doesn’t justify doing the same thing to those unborn.
Did you see the recent news account where the head of a planned parenthood clinic resigned after the saw her first ultrasound abortion? She now works on the pro-life side.
Common Sense
November 10th, 2009
7:21 pm
To JConservative:
At least you’re consistent. Appreciate the dialogue.
jconservative
November 10th, 2009
7:40 pm
Common Sense
On the draft. When Carter & Reagan instituted the stand-by draft & stand-by “draft boards” the laws were changed. The appeals process is much broader & the stand-by boards are trained to use the newer appeals laws. But I understand that if a broad national emergency hits all bets are off.
I was drafted in 1967, before the lottery, and the appeals process was almost impossible. (I received a postponement and then volunteered for the draft). That appeals process is now more equitable.
But I understand your argument re the force of law and the consequences for the unborn child. Apparently where we differ is I want to use government power to insure the care of that now born child. I will argue, socialism or not, that if every child is given preventive health care from birth, the cost of health care will plummet in 40 years.
My apology for sounding like I am lecturing. It’s just the way I talk.
Azazel
November 10th, 2009
7:53 pm
CS:
I do not wish to justify anything! Those children would not have been born into their horrific deaths had their mothers aborted them. Which kind of life termination is preferable? Which would any of us choose — expulsion from the uterus as a mass of mindless protoplasm, or as a fully formed human that feels pain, sometimes for several minutes before death, while the fingers are incinerated?
jconservative makes some good points — why force women to produce children they cannot/will not care for?
Why is there more attention paid to the fetus than the newborn? In some parts of GA homicide ranks in the top 10 causes of death among children. Where is the outrage for that? Should a child (1 to 9 years of age) receive the same protection as a fetus? Yes, and more because they laugh, and play, and create wondrous thing from their question child-mind — things that fetuses cannot do.