My thoughts on the health care bill and abortion

[NJmaverick]

I am a very strong, make that extremely strong, advocate for a woman's right to choose. For those that are anti-choice I consistently argue that the abortion issue has no clear cut moral answers. As a result it's the right of each person to come to their own conclusion as to the moral implications of abortions. So by this argument the government should not hinder a woman's right to choose in any way shape or form.

Now by the same token the idea of asking people, who believe that the procedure is murder, to have their tax dollars used to directly fund the procedure certainly enters a very gray area. If each person is given the right to decide the moral/ethical implications of the procedure, how can you ignore those that feel it's murder? I could understand how upsetting it would be for those that believe it is murder to know their money was being used to pay for the procedures.

On the other hand the idea that procedure should only be an option for those who are financially well off does not meet the moral/ethical smell test.

So in the end I find this issue to be a morally complex issue/problem with no easy or clear answers. Although I wish there was a way to tax the anti-choice people to pay for every forced birth and the child raising costs (and any other costs).

For those that don't agree feel free to flame away. Although to be fair, a thoughtful reply would be more effective and useful.

[supernova]

1. Well, I don't want my tax dollars going to the DoD, either

I want nothing to do with war or warships or the tools of war, but I live in this society and as a group we have deemed them important.

I really don't understand what is so different, in that we all have to pay for things we individually find distasteful in order to live together as a nation. It's our social contract. I don't understand why abortion should be a different "grey area" with special permission to exist to use your words.

:shrug:

[Ardent15]

3. That's what I told a relative who supports the Stupak amendment

Relative: "I don't want my tax dollars to fund abortions."

Me: "I don't want my tax dollars to fund war crimes."

[supernova]

6. Heh. Good point

They really do forget that we live in a society were many people have multiple viewpoints about things.

[niyad]

5. isn't it interesting how many self-identified "pro-choice" advocates seem to have NO problem with

this bs woman-hating piece of legislation?

[supernova]

7. The Stupak amendment certainly is BS

We will keep having these skirmishes until we pass the ERA or something like it.

However as someone with a preexisting condition, there is worth in the bill for me and other DUers battling existing conditions. I consider it a down payment in the right direction.

[tonysam]

9. No, it's just that people around here don't seem understand the federal government

has been able to limit funding for abortions for 33 years--almost as long as Roe v. Wade has been around. All of a sudden, everybody is up in arms about it as if they thought all the time ALL women had UNLIMITED access to abortion.

As long as abortion remains controversial, Congress will continue to limit funding for it.

[Lars39]

11. The number of women affected by Hyde Amendment is being expanded:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6971688

[NJmaverick]

18. How is ethically torn the same as no problem?

I did ask for more reasoned and fair minded responses, did I not?

[niyad]

24. you can ask for anything you want, but my response stays the same.

if you are "ethically torn" you are NOT pro-choice. simple.

you don't like the reasoning, or the fact that you are being called on your bs, too bad. apparently, "reasonable", to you, only means people who agree with you.

[NJmaverick]

25. I am afraid you are mistaken

I don't care about your calling out, as it wasn't accompanied by a thoughtful and intelligent argument supporting your point of view. I am pretty sure I made that clear in my original post. My moral and ethical beliefs are not subject to the fickle winds of popularity. If you have a fair and reasoned view why this isn't a gray area and why I should ignore the very underpinnings of my strong pro-choice beliefs, you will have to much better than "because I say so".

[TwilightGardener]

33. Now that's utter bullshit. You can be PRO legal abortion and still think

it's an immoral personal decision.

[NJmaverick]

14. Have you faught to get your lawmakers to do just that?

[supernova]

20. I once had the concept that

we should be able to direct our tax dollars to agencies whose missions we support, kinda in the same vein you are able to donate to a specific United Way agency. In that scenario I'd give to DoS, HHS, NASA, DoE, in short just about everything but DoD. I suppose you'd call that more leftist-libertarian thinking.

But no, I've certainly never lobbied the gov't to organize that way. I don't think it would work. Some agencies would get everything they need, other vital services would go begging.


I'm completely pro choice, so why would you ask?

[NJmaverick]

26. I ask because there are many that argue against the war or pro war politicians

based on the "my tax dollars shouldn't be used for killings in Iraq" line of thinking.

[T Wolf]

2. I am more than upset that my tax dollars are funding the murder and rape of Iraqi women and

children.

But I do not have the right to refuse to pay for that atrocity.

There is NO gray area in this. Wrong is wrong and this bill is wrong. On this issue and practically every other one covered in the monstrosity.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. +1 nt

[NJmaverick]

15. You do have the right to fight to have it defunded though

[NJmaverick]

19. You don't have a right to refuse to pay

you do have the right to fight to see the war is over though.

[niyad]

4. it really is easy-- women have a right to the full range of medical services, PERIOD

the whining morality of the reichwingers is nothing more than blatant hatred for women and their sexuality, no matter WHAT rationale they try to use.

I don't want my dollars going to fund war, or bail out millionaires who are screwing us, because I think that is immoral.

so where, exactly, do you draw the line on what should and should not be funded, based on a person's morality?

[NJmaverick]

16. People have faught against funding the wars and the bailouts

many do so because they feel it is immoral

[tonysam]

8. It's been that way for years

Why are people so upset about it now? Hyde has been law for 33 years and survived a Supreme Court challenge; Stupak is similar.

[KansDem]

10. I find it curious that choice is guaranteed under the US Constitution...

...per "Roe v. Wade" (1973).

So, this asks two questions:

1) Why can't Constitutionally-guaranteed rights be funded with public money?

2) Why are we able to pick and choose which Constitutionally-guaranteed rights we really want to observe?

Last Saturday, I attended a public-option rally. There were several anti-public option protesters there as well with signs referring to their contempt for publicly-funded abortions. I thought, "How odd...that folks can pick and choose their and my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

I mean, one could argue that my tax money goes to killing innocent Iraqi citizens because a (GOP) president wanted war and the (GOP) congress voted to go to war, and I have to accept that. However, when I want a Constitutionally-guaranteed right funded by public money and someone else says, "No, I don't approve of that right...no public money!" then I had to say :wtf:

[NJmaverick]

17. The right is there, the funding is subject to vote and all people's opinions

Many people ahve faught against their tax dollars going toward the war. They argue that very thing that their money shouldn't be used to fund the war and the deaths that war causes.

[supernova]

22. It's my understanding that the right to abortion falls under the right to privacy

which was upheld by R v W. I.e., it's no one's business what a woman and her doctor decide.

[Silent3]

13. That's far too thoughtful a post.

We need to disregard your post as clever weasel words from an evil misogynist who wants nothing less than taking women back to the dark ages. :evilgrin:

[JerseygirlCT]

21. We don't get to choose how our tax dollars are used

point by point like that.

I don't want mine used to support the Iraq war, for instance. Or most corporate welfare.

It *is* a woman's choice - and only the woman involved, as well. The government doesn't get to mess with private medical decisions - they ought to be left to the patient, in consultation with her medical provider.

This only gets to be a gray area when you surrender the rights of the only decision-maker to those who dislike her (potential) decision. They have no right.

If they are opposed to abortion, they have the right not to have one. They do not get to interfere with others' rights.

[NJmaverick]

27. We do get to argue that votes should be made not to fund things

we find morally objectionable, do we not?

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Even civil rights?

Do you think they ought to be up for a majority vote as well?

Women's reproductive rights *are* civil rights.

[NJmaverick]

36. The right isn't subject to a vote. The funding for the procedure is what we are talking about here

that's how we get into the gray area. The issue isn't refusing the choice. Rather the issue is should the government pay for that choice. It's a very grey area for me.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Except we're now not at the gov't paying

Stupak makes it impossible for recipients to receive gov't subsidies and BUY their own insurance that includes abortion coverage.

I think the Hyde amendment is over the line and ridiculous; this is far beyond the pale, IMO. It is instructing the gov't to interfere with their rights.

And how many insurance cos. do you think will find this an excellent excuse to stop covering abortions? Isn't it enough that the far-right fear and terror campaign has eliminated ACCESS, physical ACCESS to providers already for many women?

[sinkingfeeling]

23. You overlook that we're supposed to be a nation. Meaning while I detest the actions of the USA in

foreign lands, I still know it is my responsibility to pay my taxes. No one group of people should have a special say as to what their tax or insurance dollars provide. It's a shame that the anti-war folks aren't as influential as the anti-abortion folks or the anti-gay folks are.

[NJmaverick]

28. We all lobby and vote to see our tax dollars spent in certain ways

that's pretty much the nature of our Democracy. I agree though that it's a shame that the real pro freedom people are not as effective as we would want or like.

[TwilightGardener]

30. I don't have a problem with the Hyde amendment and here's why:

If you want government and fundies and Catholics and whoever else OUT of your business and OUT of your uterus...don't then extend your hand for money from these same entities. Because now you are taking a PRIVATE issue (the very basis for Roe v. Wade) and putting it into PUBLIC hands, by asking the public and the Federal Government to pay for your procedure.

[supernova]

35. It's a medical procedure

Are you sure you aren't morally ambivalent about glaucoma surgery?

[TwilightGardener]

38. Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. Except to reiterate my point--

The legal basis for Roe is privacy--a woman and her doctor. Involve public tax dollars, and you are funneling public money into a private procedure that was rendered legal by the Supreme Court, not legislated by Congress.

[NJmaverick]

40. You make some very reasoned arguments and it's this line of reasoning

that leads me in to the ethical dilemma. After all not all medical procedures are publicly funded and not under all conditions.

[supernova]

41. Question: What medical procedures are public?

Do I watch your colonoscopy?

Do you watch my blood sugar results every year?

Health care is made of private decisions. You either fund them or you don't.

You sound like you don't believe in UHC. period.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Sorry, abortion is different from other procedures in terms of

public interest, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous and disingenuous. Neither the law nor your fellow citizens care if you "privately" have a colonoscopy--there's no moral issues or societal interest in a colonoscopy. Or a glucose test. These are beneficial procedures that affect no one but the patient and restore health, and they did not have to be deemed legal by the SC. But the ONLY reason abortion is legal is because of its private status, in which there are only two parties--a woman and her health provider. The father can't decide, Congress can't decide, the public cannot decide, or vote on it (except in certain states). Public money = a public say in the matter, because there are those in the public who believe strongly that it's immoral and would love any excuse to deny a woman her right to privacy. I say, don't give the public a say in the matter by taking federal money for the procedure.

[supernova]

46. What do you propose poor women do?

Because they sometimes have the condom break too.

THey sometimes have a nonviable fetus.

They sometimes have an abusive partner, who frankly shouldn't know becuase it would be an excuse for further abuse of the women and then the child.

They sometimes just want to get on with their lives.

You seem to think that every women is affluent and that poor women don't matter.

And yea, I pay for your healthcare, so I do want to see your x-rays.

[TwilightGardener]

47. Do you have a valid interest in my X-rays? Is there something about

my x-rays that may reveal something wrong being done to society? No, of course not. But anti-choicers believe that abortion is a societal wrong, and a crime--that was the legal status of abortion until the SC decision. That's why the term "privacy" in terms of abortion means more than just, say, HIPAA and medical records. As for poor women, I think they can have it covered on Medicaid (which I would guess doesn't fall under the Hyde Amendment because it's administered by states, and states can set their own laws on the matter--I'm not sure). If they can afford to pay for their health insurance in full, then they should be able to have it covered by private insurance if Stupak can be tossed out, or maybe they can get a rider. Women on subsidized insurance, I don't know--that will have to be worked out somehow.

[supernova]

48. Do you have a valid interest in my uterus?

Seriously, the state does not have a compelling interest in my uterus. What I do or don't do with it is no one's business but my own.

Now, about your x-rays... send 'em on over so that I can personally approve of your care and make sure you are doing the morally correct thing.

[TwilightGardener]

50. The entire anti-choice argument is that YES, we all DO have an interest

in your uterus if there's an embryo or fetus in it, because that is a member of society, to be protected by law. Your personal belief that it's your business is supported by the Supreme Court--until is isn't anymore. A few more Justices to the right, a few states making their own laws, and suddenly the public interest and (public say) in the contents of your uterus can come right back into the picture. Keeping the government, and taxpayers, out of our uteri (plural?) is what we demand, what we've been granted, and what we've got, at least for now. And there's nothing about my xrays that can tell you about my morals, or would be of valid interest to society.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. Well, gee, my husband doesn't have a sa y in whether I have a

colonoscopy, either.

And medical care is medical care - once we started allowing people to interfere with a private medical decision by claiming gov't support for health care gave them that right, we started sliding right on down the slippery slope... and have arrived here.

[TwilightGardener]

53. Is there something special in your colon that would

be of potential importance or value to society? Or to your husband, more specifically? Would a colonoscopy affect anyone other than you? That's the difference between other medical procedures and abortion. You can't wish that away, there will always be the argument that a baby is a baby is a baby, and babies must be protected by society and by law. As for your last sentence--I'm saying that the Hyde Amendment prohibiting public funds for abortion is a way to PREVENT the slippery slope of the public demanding a say in your uterus. The Stupak Amendment, on the other hand, overreaches by involving PRIVATE health plans, using Hyde as an excuse.

[Life Long Dem]

31. The same money for the electric chair.

[TwilightGardener]

32. ?

[Life Long Dem]

37. Tax payers money to fry people.

[TwilightGardener]

39. I don't like it either--I don't think the state should be involved in taking life, of any kind.

That said, executions are always a public matter, both state and federal.

[lunatica]

34. Well I'm anti war so my tax dollars shouldn't be used for war

But most people don't get the 'moral issue' of war and all it's accouterments. Yeah. It's OK to starve and murder children after they're born.

Yeah sure! It's such a delicate 'moral issue' for those who want nothing more than to control women.

This rant is not directed at you. :hi:

[Life Long Dem]

42. War is peace.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. There is another consideration that isn't being discussed.

The major nonprofit groups dedicated to reproductive health have a collective annual budget of about $1b. Planned parenthood alone has a budget of $900,000. There are roughly 800,000 abortions in the US each year. That's $1200 per procedure.

Maybe there's no need for money, public, private or out of pocket.

[supernova]

44. Um, not everybody is near a PP office

I'm luckly, I have two within about 10 minutes of my house, but PP is not everywhere they need to be... yet.

[NJmaverick]

49. Have we strayed from rights to a matter of convenience?

[JerseygirlCT]

54. You don't seem to understand

the breadth of what PP does, or what it costs to run a national non-profit, or how difficult fundraising is in this climate.