Let women keep their abortion coverage

Success in any long-running campaign breeds complacency; first euphoria, then relief, later forgetfulness. Whether the campaign for universal suffrage or the crusade to curb childhood disease through immunizations, success leads to historical amnesia.

That’s certainly true of the decades-long battle for reproductive rights, another chapter in women’s never-ending struggle to achieve full personhood. Because the U.S. Supreme Court granted women the right to control their own reproduction in a 1973 ruling, Roe v Wade, forty-something Americans have no first-hand knowledge of back alley abortions. It’s likely they haven’t even heard second-hand stories of women who died from infections caused by coat-hanger terminations.

That helps explain why advocates for reproductive rights weren’t prepared for an all-out battle just to allow women to retain their health insurance coverage. It also helps explain why pro-choice Democrats found themselves outmaneuvered by U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), who sponsored an amendment to health care reform legislation which would sharply limit abortions.

“I think quite honestly it’s the complacency of having a pro-choice president and the perception of a pro-choice majority in Congress,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said in an interview last week.

“But I think that complacency was rocked to its core” by Stupak’s restrictions, she added, on her way to Capitol Hill to lobby against the restrictions. “It was a wake-up call that there is a constant attack on women’s reproductive rights.”

Stupak contends that his amendment, which was included in the health care legislation the House adopted two weeks ago, only maintains the status quo, a prohibition against federal funding for abortions. In reality, his amendment goes much further, discouraging  private insurance companies from offering coverage for abortions, even if women want to purchase those policies with their own funds.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive issues, coverage for abortions is common-place in the private health insurance market. So Stupak and his colleagues would do what they promised not to do: They would prevent consumers from keeping insurance with which they are satisfied.

Keenan’s organization has already sent a petition with more than 97,000 signatures to the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, warning against adopting Stupak’s highly restrictive language in the Senate bill.  It’s no surprise that those signatures materialized so quickly. Women and their advocates are highly motivated and well-organized, as evidenced by the uproar over new guidelines for mammograms.

But unlike the advocates for breast cancer treatment, proponents of reproductive rights battle a problem of perception. No one argues that breast cancer is a disease requiring treatment. Pregnancy, however, provokes a wide range of reactions — and the decision to end one stirs controversy, sometimes among family and friends. Despite the fact that abortion remains a legal medical procedure, its opponents would argue that it doesn’t constitute legitimate health care.

That view springs from ignorance or callousness (or both). Let’s say a 40-year-old mother of three finds herself unexpectedly pregnant again. Since she suffers severe hypertension, her physician advises her against taking the pregnancy to term because she’d risk a stroke or worse. That’s not medical care?

Keenan points out that women need a full range of reproductive services — including pre-natal care, contraception and abortion services. Indeed, an emphasis on contraception would reduce unintended pregnancies, thereby curbing abortions.

Recession-strapped families are wary of having additional children, according to the Guttmacher Institute, but many women have lost employer-provided insurance and are having to skip purchasing contraceptives because they are short of cash.  Those families that simply can’t afford additional children are likely to scrape up the cash for an abortion, if it comes to that.

That’s why health insurance reform which supports a wide range of reproductive services is sensible policy. Stupak, who is firmly anti-abortion, may not agree with that, but a lot of more moderate voices will.

239 comments Add your comment

Ray Pugh

November 20th, 2009
6:20 pm

El Jefe

November 20th, 2009
6:21 pm

Being pro-adoption, I find your reasoning to be very narrow minded. Abortion is the only option???

Imagine if those aborted children were allowed to be adopted – we may have had another George Washington Carver, Gandhi, Pope John Paul II or Margaret Thacher.

But, alas we will never know, those poor souls were discarded on the trash heap of progressivism.

Scott Evans

November 20th, 2009
6:53 pm

Um…are women too stupid to know what causes pregnancy or what? Yes, women have reproductive rights. They have the right to keep their legs together. And if they cannot control themselves for whatever reason, then they have choices which are: 1. The choice to keep the baby or 2. The choice to adopt the baby. The unborn are babies and it’s never right to kill a baby.

Just because

November 20th, 2009
7:10 pm

This discussion wouldn’t even be happening if the demos were so hell bent and determination to push health care down our throats!!!!

William Wilberforce

November 20th, 2009
8:02 pm

Women won’t achieve personhood unless I pay for the to kill their children?
Seriously! Why the heck do you mean by personhood.
George Orwell couldn’t have written better newspeak.

I have a different defenition of personhood. How about this one, all human beings are persons, period. There are no 3/5 persons, no potential persons, no vegetative persons, no subpersons. ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE PERSONS!

jt

November 20th, 2009
8:09 pm

“It was a wake-up call that there is a constant attack on women’s reproductive rights.”

Why is it that a progressive will get all hot and bothered about the State’s infringement upon their body concerning abortions, but,

that same progressive would not hesitate one minute to use the police power of the State to prevent one from smoking a cigarette or eating a satuated-fat bar.?

The American People

November 20th, 2009
8:30 pm

Write an article about the SEIU 1000 members beating up Ken Hamidi for trying to exercising his right for free speech at their public meeting

ck hall

November 20th, 2009
8:53 pm

What an idiot you are! NO murdering of babies!!!

Peadawg

November 20th, 2009
9:36 pm

Let God decide who lives and who dies.

Common Sense

November 20th, 2009
9:42 pm

Ms. Tucker:

I am for “reproductive rights” also but that happens before you get pregnant. May I remind you that woman who are pregnant have already reproduced !

You mean you want them to keep their “delivery rights”.

Do you know if the new health bill has coverage for the unborn child? You know, if it needs treatment in the womb (some have even had heart surgery in the womb)? Absolutely incomprehensible how we can operate on a child, have insurance pay for that operation and then kill it later if we want.

Talk about callous……………………..

May God help us ……………………..

Common Sense

November 20th, 2009
9:49 pm

P.S. Food for thought ……………..

For millions of people, protecting our unborn children is just like getting rid of slavery before the Civil War. The Supreme Court and those supporting slavery were wrong then and abortionists are wrong now. Prior to 1865, slaves received death for striking owners but owners were exempt if slaves died from beatings as they were “property”. Today, it’s legal to kill unborn “property”.

“When you see a friend who is pregnant which of these do you say:

a) How is the “fetus” doing?
b) How is the “baby” doing?

TnGelding

November 20th, 2009
10:36 pm

I’ll leave this discussion to the females.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama

November 20th, 2009
11:16 pm

Fine, just don’t use taxpayer money for it, period.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama

November 20th, 2009
11:20 pm

BROKEN campaign promises and bringing change to Washington
• Obama entered office, vowing he would do what George W. Bush had not: lead the world to a global climate accord.
• Pass the stimulus bill and unemployment won’t go above 9.2%, it’s now 10.2%
• Recipients of federal stimulus dollars have overstated the number of jobs created or saved in GA by more than 1,500, according to an AJC analysis of public records
• Quote: “I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war….You can take that to the bank!”
• Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac need $30 BILLION more taxpayer dollars
• Health Care reform by Labor Day, Oct, Christmas, end of the year, NOT
• the White House is NOT for sale
• Transparency
• bipartisan support
• close Gitmo
• Timmy the TAX CHEAT Geitner
• ACORN
• find Osama bin Laden
• NO lobbyist on the White House staff
• all bills put on line so the public can read them first
• no tax increase for anyone making less than $250K
• and on, and on, and on……let’s say it again, mmm, mmm, mmm Barack the LIAR Obama

Azazel

November 20th, 2009
11:54 pm

El Jefe
You left out: another Charles Manson or Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer or Pol Pot or Ihr Adoplh

vince neil

November 21st, 2009
12:04 am

first of all pay for your own ()*)(&%$#@ abortion leeches…second i guess we can be glad that most of them have been and are performed on liberals and democrats thereby limiting their precsence and ability to multiply…..

Common Sense

November 21st, 2009
12:12 am

To TnGelding:

Does that include unborn females ?

I saw a bumper sticker once: “Equal Rights for Unborn Women”

ledbetter

November 21st, 2009
1:29 am

The ignorance in these comments already, just hours after this piece’s posting, is astounding.

Jetro Bubby

November 21st, 2009
2:24 am

Margrat Sanger and the liberals wanted to reduce the population of certain Americans, especially African Americans so they came up with an organization which evolved into planned parenthood. Sanger stated the Negro was inferior to the white race, and she got the black clergy to do her dirty work in the slums of Harlem and other places.

Keeping the abortion part of the public option is a best way to ensure rule this great country and achieve Sanger’s objective.

Shaye

November 21st, 2009
3:17 am

I see someone invented the time machine after all… and then taught Neanderthals how to type. :P

If I am paying for my own insurance, then I am paying for my own abortion. And those of you who thinks it’s so easy to give a child up for adoption should try it. Come on, I dare you.

shepherdess

November 21st, 2009
6:48 am

it is a woman’s right to choose. the right of choice. that’s the deal. you men are out of it.

JOEL PARTAIN

November 21st, 2009
7:12 am

The shame to me is that with intensive education, readily available contraception and societal disapproval (not legislation) a large, large portion of abortions could be prevented.Guess what? The idiots that want to control everything in your life are against those measures, too.
An irony is that people who want to take women’s abortion rights away very often are for capital punishment. Maybe trying to keep two diametrically opposing viewpoints in a brain that is already overtaxed is what makes them so testy?

Grumpy

November 21st, 2009
7:37 am

“reproductive rights”, now that’s funny. Sucking a fetus out via vacuum, paid for with government cash = “reproductive rights”

I love how liberals can make even the most disgusting things sound so pure and innocent.

deborahinAthens

November 21st, 2009
7:46 am

El Jefe, as the world becomes more and more overpopulated and as the quality of life continues to spiral down into the trough we are looking at today, it is most unlikely that the next unaborted child will be a Beethoven! For women that live in poverty that don’t have access to cheap, affordable birth control, or whom, out of sheer ignorance get pregnant, that child is not raised in a nurturing atmosphere that fosters learning. We seem to have a lot more dysfunctional adults that we did just fifty years ago. And the other side of the coin is more troubling. We now have the science to detect genetic diseases in the womb. What good does it serve the human race to bring a child into the world that has Tey-Sachs, or Downs Syndrome? In the “old” days, when I was a child, a Down’s syndrome child rarely lived past puberty. Today, with science, they live well into their fifties or sixties. After the parents of the Down’s Syndrome child dies, who takes care of them? For we can be as politically correct as we like, but these people cannot take care of themselves without help. Where is that help going to come from? Why not abort the fetus (notice I did not say child).

Del

November 21st, 2009
8:00 am

“Reproductive rights”, “control of reproduction”, “personhood”? What kind of nonsense is this? Life begins in the womb and no one has the right to destroy it male or female. The exception being when a mother’s life is at risk by continuing the pregnancy. Elective abortions only because someone doesn’t want the baby is murder. There are many adoption options for unwanted children. Many where the cost of pre-natal care and delivery are fully paid for along with providing care for the mother. These options include special needs children.

War Jacket

November 21st, 2009
8:01 am

Look at this way. The cost of an abortion is much less than the cost of delivering a baby, much less the cost of raising a child into adulthood (and many times, these children are scared for life since they weren’t wanted in the first place.

On the other hand, abortion should not become a defacto form of birth control, so a woman should only be granted one federally subsidized elective abortion.

CJ

November 21st, 2009
8:01 am

Funny how the “pro-choice” people always want to tell US what we can do with our bodies, like what kind of health care we need to receive, what doctors we’re allowed to see and when, what we’re supposed to eat, how we’re supposed to talk and what we’re supposed to say, esle we’re “intolerant”.

Yet, when we stick up for the rights of a little one who cannot speak for themselves, we’re telling THEM what they can do with their bodies. Funny also how this little “non-person” suddenly becomes a person if there’s an accident liability check to cash.

ken

November 21st, 2009
8:21 am

Baby for a vote. SICK

Bob

November 21st, 2009
8:30 am

Many lib opine writers have now jumped this skewed reasoning that if an insurance program that starts in four years does not pay for abortions that women will be forced into back alley coathanger abortions. Don’t worry about rationing like the new mammagram guidelines that are the shape of things to come, after all, no women have ever died from breast cancer under 50 right. Lets just concern ourselves with paying for abortions.

Jack

November 21st, 2009
8:32 am

I know many women that have acquired “personhood” without having babies. I even know some men that have acquired “personhood” without having babies.

Bob

November 21st, 2009
8:33 am

Joel, thats a tired argument. The flip side is you want to end a life that has not had a chance but save the lives of killers. Kill babies, save Manson and KSM.

dmac

November 21st, 2009
8:36 am

I’m glad that abortion has become part of the debate over health care reform. The more the nutty right-wingers rant about killing babies, the more the rational majority of Americans realize that a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy.

Why would anyone want to force someone to have a baby that is not wanted?

3rd Party Guy

November 21st, 2009
8:39 am

I love the extremes in this world of ours. Here, a woman can kill a baby virtually at will. In Somalia, a woman gets stoned to death for adultery.

CJ

November 21st, 2009
8:54 am

dmac–control what goes INTO your body, and you can then control the little lives it produces!!!

connie

November 21st, 2009
9:00 am

As a woman, I want you to know you do not speak for me. The following person speaks for me.

We Shall Not Weary, We Shall Not Rest
By Richard John Neuhaus
Once again this year, the National Right to Life convention is partly a reunion of veterans from battles past and partly a youth rally of those recruited for the battles to come. And that is just what it should be. The pro-life movement that began in the twentieth century laid the foundation for the pro-life movement of the twenty-first century. We have been at this a long time, and we are just getting started. All that has been and all that will be is prelude to, and anticipation of, an indomitable hope. All that has been and all that will be is premised upon the promise of Our Lord’s return in glory when, as we read in the Book of Revelation, “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” And all things will be new.

That is the horizon of hope that, from generation to generation, sustains the great human rights cause of our time and all times—the cause of life. We contend, and we contend relentlessly, for the dignity of the human person, of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, destined from eternity for eternity—every human person, no matter how weak or how strong, no matter how young or how old, no matter how productive or how burdensome, no matter how welcome or how inconvenient. Nobody is a nobody; nobody is unwanted. All are wanted by God, and therefore to be respected, protected, and cherished by us.

We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until all the elderly who have run life’s course are protected against despair and abandonment, protected by the rule of law and the bonds of love. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every young woman is given the help she needs to recognize the problem of pregnancy as the gift of life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, as we stand guard at the entrance gates and the exit gates of life, and at every step along way of life, bearing witness in word and deed to the dignity of the human person—of every human person.

Against the encroaching shadows of the culture of death, against forces commanding immense power and wealth, against the perverse doctrine that a woman’s dignity depends upon her right to destroy her child, against what St. Paul calls the principalities and powers of the present time, this convention renews our resolve that we shall not weary, we shall not rest, until the culture of life is reflected in the rule of law and lived in the law of love.

It has been a long journey, and there are still miles and miles to go. Some say it started with the notorious Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 when, by what Justice Byron White called an act of raw judicial power, the Supreme Court wiped from the books of all fifty states every law protecting the unborn child. But it goes back long before that. Some say it started with the agitation for “liberalized abortion law” in the 1960s when the novel doctrine was proposed that a woman cannot be fulfilled unless she has the right to destroy her child. But it goes back long before that. It goes back to the movements for eugenics and racial and ideological cleansing of the last century.

Whether led by enlightened liberals, such as Margaret Sanger, or brutal totalitarians, whose names live in infamy, the doctrine and the practice was that some people stood in the way of progress and were therefore non-persons, living, as it was said, “lives unworthy of life.” But it goes back even before that. It goes back to the institution of slavery in which human beings were declared to be chattel property to be bought and sold and used and discarded at the whim of their masters. It goes way on back.

As Pope John Paul the Great wrote in his historic message Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) the culture of death goes all the way back to that fateful afternoon when Cain struck down his brother Abel, and the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And Cain answered, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” And the Lord said to Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” The voice of the blood of brothers and sisters beyond numbering cry out from the slave ships and battlegrounds and concentration camps and torture chambers of the past and the present. The voice of the blood of the innocents cries out from the abortuaries and sophisticated biotech laboratories of this beloved country today. Contending for the culture of life has been a very long journey, and there are still miles and miles to go.

The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. I expect many of us here, perhaps most of us here, can remember when we were first encountered by the idea. For me, it was in the 1960s when I was pastor of a very poor, very black, inner city parish in Brooklyn, New York. I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”

And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed.

In that moment, I knew that I had been recruited to the cause of the culture of life. To be recruited to the cause of the culture of life is to be recruited for the duration; and there is no end in sight, except to the eyes of faith.

Perhaps you, too, can specify such a moment when you knew you were recruited. At that moment you could have said, “Yes, it’s terrible that in this country alone 4,000 innocent children are killed every day, but then so many terrible things are happening in the world. Am I my infant brother’s keeper? Am I my infant sister’s keeper?” You could have said that, but you didn’t. You could have said, “Yes, the nation that I love is betraying its founding principles—that every human being is endowed by God with inalienable rights, including, and most foundationally, the right to life. But,” you could have said, “the Supreme Court has spoken and its word is the law of the land. What can I do about it?” You could have said that, but you didn’t. That horror, that betrayal, would not let you go. You knew, you knew there and then, that you were recruited to contend for the culture of life, and that you were recruited for the duration.

The contention between the culture of life and the culture of death is not a battle of our own choosing. We are not the ones who imposed upon the nation the lethal logic that human beings have no rights we are bound to respect if they are too small, too weak, too dependent, too burdensome. That lethal logic, backed by the force of law, was imposed by an arrogant elite that for almost forty years has been telling us to get over it, to get used to it.

But “We the People,” who are the political sovereign in this constitutional democracy, have not gotten over it, we have not gotten used to it, and we will never, we will never ever, agree that the culture of death is the unchangeable law of the land.

“We the People” have not and will not ratify the lethal logic of Roe v. Wade. That notorious decision of 1973 is the most consequential moral and political event of the last half century of our nation’s history. It has produced a dramatic realignment of moral and political forces, led by evangelicals and Catholics together, and joined by citizens beyond numbering who know that how we respond to this horror defines who we are as individuals and as a people. Our opponents, once so confident, are now on the defensive. Having lost the argument with the American people, they desperately cling to the dictates of the courts. No longer able to present themselves as the wave of the future, they watch in dismay as a younger generation recoils in horror from the bloodletting of an abortion industry so arrogantly imposed by judges beyond the rule of law.

We do not know, we do not need to know, how the battle for the dignity of the human person will be resolved. God knows, and that is enough. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta and saints beyond numbering have taught us, our task is not to be successful but to be faithful. Yet in that faithfulness is the lively hope of success. We are the stronger because we are unburdened by delusions. We know that in a sinful world, far short of the promised Kingdom of God, there will always be great evils. The principalities and powers will continue to rage, but they will not prevail.

In the midst of the encroaching darkness of the culture of death, we have heard the voice of him who said, “In the world you will have trouble. But fear not, I have overcome the world.” Because he has overcome, we shall overcome. We do not know when; we do not know how. God knows, and that is enough. We know the justice of our cause, we trust in the faithfulness of his promise, and therefore we shall not weary, we shall not rest.

Whether, in this great contest between the culture of life and the culture of death, we were recruited many years ago or whether we were recruited only yesterday, we have been recruited for the duration. We go from this convention refreshed in our resolve to fight the good fight. We go from this convention trusting in the words of the prophet Isaiah that “they who wait upon the Lord will renew their strength, they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not be weary, they will walk and not be faint.”

The journey has been long, and there are miles and miles to go. But from this convention the word is carried to every neighborhood, every house of worship, every congressional office, every state house, every precinct of this our beloved country—from this convention the word is carried that, until every human being created in the image and likeness of God—no matter how small or how weak, no matter how old or how burdensome—until every human being created in the image and likeness of God is protected in law and cared for in life, we shall not weary, we shall not rest. And, in this the great human rights struggle of our time and all times, we shall overcome.

CJ

November 21st, 2009
9:01 am

dmac–welcome to the real world: the so-called “nutty right-wingers” are just a fraction of those opposed to this brutality, and yes, the majority of Americans are appalled at the prospect of taking an innocent life unless in cases of rape and incest.

If ultrasounds were given for every abortion, or at least the option was there, more would be against it, as they would see a living baby, that pulls away when the probe is inserted. One planned parenthood clinician recently resigned after seeing the little baby react to the probe.

You and Cynthia are the ones who are out of touch with the issues.

DAVID

November 21st, 2009
9:05 am

Ms. T…………Why in h@ll should my TAXes pay for your dam@ abortion….

jconservative

November 21st, 2009
9:08 am

El Jefe. Common Sense.
Looking for common ground. I do not care for abortion. I do not care for millions of babies & kids dying for lack of proper medical care.
I will sign your No Abortion bill if you will sign my Medicare for Kids
bill.

Do we have common ground?

Del

November 21st, 2009
9:10 am

dmac,

You’re off in far-left la la land about the rational majority of Americans realizing woman should have the right to end their pregnancies. The majority of Americans don’t agree with that at all, many for their Christian beliefs and others because of the documented horror of an abortion procedure itself. There are many options for unwanted children through adoptive services. No one other than the ideology driven hard-left agree with unfettered abortion on demand at the expense of tax payers.

jconservative

November 21st, 2009
9:15 am

Nope: Abortion is murder and “Medicare for Kids” is a sick political ploy to try to justify the former.

Note to pro-choice women:

25% of the 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall were men (women can’t be drafted) who DID NOT WANT the state to CONTROL their bodies. They lost that argument with their lives and t’s still the law of the land.

Del

November 21st, 2009
9:16 am

jconservative,

We have Medicaid and SCHIP. There is no reason why a child has to die in this country due to lack of healthcare.

Bob

November 21st, 2009
9:25 am

jconservative, Do we really have millions of sick and dying kids in America. Can you go back through the obits in any Georgia newspaper and find one dead kid because of no healthcare. We have had s-chip for years for kids, why do you make crazy things up ? Millions of dead kids ?

CJ

November 21st, 2009
9:27 am

“…until every human being created in the image and likeness of God—no matter how small or how weak, no matter how old or how burdensome—until every human being created in the image and likeness of God is protected in law and cared for in life, we shall not weary, we shall not rest. And, in this the great human rights struggle of our time and all times, we shall overcome…”

Well said.

Liberals want to punish the feeble and weak, which is why they want to CONTROL the health care system, so they can ration out the people who they think are a burden to society. It’s called “survival of the fittest”, which is the driving force of Darwinism.
Darwinism is RACISM/EUGENICS at it’s finest, which makes it hard for me to understand minorities like Cynthia would be for it.

Levity

November 21st, 2009
9:49 am

I have no problem allowing abortion in cases of incest, rape, or when a doctor determines the baby is not healthy.

My main issue is that people like Barack Obama will use abortion for birth control.

Remember this speech, “I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old, I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby,” – Barack gave this speech in Pennsylvania on March 31, 2008 during the campaign, it was widely broadcast on the networks. Look it up and read for yourself if you don’t believe me….

CJ

November 21st, 2009
9:57 am

Levity–now you know what he thinks about little babies. Makes you feel really hopeful of how this new takeover of healthcare is going to affect your little ones, both born and unborn?

He may think a baby is a punishment, but some people think they’re a blessing from God.

I have a problem with someone aborting their child if it has deformities or health issues, as doctors have been wrong on so many cases in diagnosing things like this…many have been operated in the womb, and have done just fine…this devaluing of human life deeply concerns me for the future of this country. If we don’t value the weak and feeble, who and what DO we value? Money? Success?

Societies that treat the feeble with disdain tend to crumble, look back through history.

The problem is, people making judgments such as these refuse to learn from history.

Hitler had certain “criteria” that a human had to pass before they were considered viable as a person.
Blond hair, blue eyes, light skin, etc. We are heading path when we decide who should live and who should die.

jconservative

November 21st, 2009
11:02 am

jconservative
November 21st, 2009
9:15 am

Who was the jerk who entered a comment at this time using my handle?

jconservative

November 21st, 2009
11:16 am

Data for United States in 2006
Number of deaths: 2,426,264
Death rate: 810.4 deaths per 100,000 population
Life expectancy: 77.7 years
Infant Mortality rate: 6.69 deaths per 1,000 live births

Source: CDC

Common Sense

November 21st, 2009
11:42 am

I’m the “jerk” that mistakenly put in your handle instead of “to” you at the 9:15 post.

Now that said, would you like to debate what I said? Specifically, why the law of the land per the U.S. Constitution/Supreme Court says the state can control a man’s body for two years and send him to be killed against his will but can’t control a woman’s body for nine months to protect another human life ……………..

El Jefe

November 21st, 2009
11:42 am

jconservative,

Medicaid for Kids – sound like something out of “Brave New World” Shall the government also raise the kids – to keep them safe from bad parents?

To all the progressives – it is okay to kill unborn babies, but killers tried and convicted should live – that is twisted and sick.

With Social Security broke, like all the other government funded programs, maybe they should have been allowed to be born so they could add their taxes to the government coffers.

jconservative – you stats from the CDC – check the methodology for counting live births v. the way most European countries count live births.

deborahinAthens – I guess we will never know now will we. Killing off the unborn will greatly limit the future.

Progressives, there are large number of people willing to adopt your unwanted burdens, your “trash”. Personally, if you are too stupid not to understand what makes a baby, maybe you should turn yourself in for a late life abortion.

Joey

November 21st, 2009
11:49 am

I am pro-Abortion. However, if opposition to abortion is what it takes to kill the Democrat National Health Care Bill(s), I will convert to Pro-Life whatever length of time it takes to accomplish that.