We really are on the slippery slope by not recognizing anything besides death of the mother as a viable reason for a late-term abortion.
It is like we went back to the dark ages the last few years. We have let religion set the course that will determine a woman's choice....not science, not medicine...religion. And insurance companies.
From MS Magazine:
More Outrage Over Stupak-PittsThis story could probably be told many times over.
“Our medical experts have determined that your life was not in danger and you could have carried the pregnancy to term. And, by the way, you owe us $9,000.”
Her voice breaking, D.J. Feldman, a Washington, D.C. federal employee, recently spoke to the press about her struggles with her insurance company after she aborted a much-desired pregnancy because of a fetal diagnosis of anencephaly (the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp). The insurance would only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or a threat to her life, so the fact that if Feldman had continued the pregnancy, it would have been both physically and emotionally grueling—resulting either in a fetal demise, a stillbirth, or a live birth of a newborn who would quickly die—had no effect on the insurance company’s decision.
The primary culprit in this situation is not really Feldman’s insurance carrier, however, but the U.S. Congress. For decades it has imposed such unconscionable restrictions on abortion coverage for federal employees, as well as on women in the military, Native Americans using government provided health facilities and women on Medicaid in a majority of states.
Feldman is speaking out now because of her outrage that the notorious Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House health reform measure would extend such federal bans on abortion coverage to the millions of women who are enrolled in the private insurance market. Under this amendment, any insurance plan that wishes to be part of the new national health-care exchange would be prohibited from offering abortion coverage, although most insurance plans currently offer this coverage.
She has been to congressional offices to tell her story. Doesn't sound like they listened.
As traumatic as D.J. Feldman’s story is, she acknowledges that she is more fortunate than many other women in her situation, since she and her husband were able to pay for her abortion themselves. But she doesn’t want other women forced into a similar situation, especially those without extra financial resources. Feldman has not only spoken to the press but also visited various Congressional offices to speak against Stupak-Pitts. “I realized I had a moral obligation to speak out,” she said.
The Senate health care bill does not contain abortion coverage either. It just doesn't forbid it as much as the House bill.
More about the taking away of women's rights to have good health. Only the possible death of the mother is considered by many an acceptable reason for a late term abortion.
2008 New laws restricting the rights of womenMore than a dozen countries have liberalized their abortion laws in recent years, including South Africa, Switzerland, Cambodia and Chad. In a handful of others, including Russia and the United States (or parts of it), the movement has been toward criminalizing more and different types of abortions. In South Dakota, the governor recently signed the most restrictive abortion bill since the Supreme Court ruled in 1973, in Roe v. Wade, that state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. The South Dakota law, which its backers acknowledge is designed to test Roe v. Wade in the courts, forbids abortion, including those cases in which the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Only if an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother is the procedure permitted. A similar though less restrictive bill is now making its way through the Mississippi Legislature.
United States and Russia headed toward more criminalization of abortion laws while many are liberalizing their laws. That's a shame. Read more at
NYT's Pro Life NationMore about the partial birth abortion ban of 2003 which many of our Democrats supported.
It was easy enough to get the ban on late term abortions. The Democrats helped it along.
Harold Ford
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003
Tom Carper:
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
Also voting for the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban were other Democrats. The bill did not allow for a woman's health to be considered. Just a life or death situation.
In the Senate:
John Breaux, Harry Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Byron Dorgan, Fritz Hollings, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Blanche Lincoln, Miller (GA), Ben Nelson, Pryor AK, Harry Reid.
Not voting.
John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden.
Fearful to take stands with women.
More from 2007...the Supreme Court upholds the Partial abortion ban of 2003. From the CS Monitor:
US Supreme Court allows late-term abortion banIn a major ruling dealing with abortion rights in America, the US Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning certain late-term abortions.
In a 5-to-4 decision announ-ced Wednesday, the high court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The move comes nearly seven years after the Supreme Court declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's health.
This time a different lineup of justices upheld a federal version of essentially the same law, even though it does not contain a so-called health exception that would permit the banned abortion procedure when a physician deemed it necessary to safeguard a woman's health.
The decision marks the first time since the landmark abortion precedent Roe v. Wade in 1973 that the nation's highest court has ruled in a way that places considerations of a woman's health as secondary to efforts by the government to restrict abortion procedures performed prior to fetal viability. That shift could embolden antiabortion forces to try to enact more restrictions at the state level.
Writing for the majority in Wednesday's decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the lack of a health exception does not automatically render the statute unconstitutional. "Whether the act creates significant health risks for women has been a contested factual question," he writes. "Both sides have medical support for their position.
Some say a woman's "health" can be too widely interpreted...some say women use their "health" as an excuse for an abortion.
And now Stupak Pitts in the House, and no abortion coverage in the Senate per Hyde.
For a supposedly enlightened country we are disregarding women's rights...setting progress back many years because of religious concerns.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
