Democrats Pledge to Provide Federal Health Insurance Coverage for Abortions
The Chicago Tribune reports:
Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband’s health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.
Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband’s health-care proposal as “a true universal health-care plan” that would cover “all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination,” referring to abortion.
Obama says: me too!
Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover “reproductive-health services.” Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.
The goal: to make abortion safe, legal, and rare frequent.
“reproductive-health services”
You can’t get much more Orwellian than that statement.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 7/19/2007 @ 12:38 amIt would be nice to hear details from the candidates, as my understanding is that there are currently federally-funded abortions but they are restricted to cases of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. If Edwards and Obama are proposing extending this to everyone, while leaving the restrictions intact, it might actually have the effect of lowering the number of abortions.
Nels Nelson (680124) — 7/19/2007 @ 1:23 amHow?
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/19/2007 @ 1:49 amMy question exactly. How does federally-funded abortions reduce the number of abortions?
That said if abortions are still going on in this day and age, after the sexual revolution some thrity years ago, with all the knowledge about how babies are made and with a variety of contraception easily available then perhaps teaching children ‘how to put a condom on a cucumber’ is just Planned Parenthoods sheepish way of scamming kids into getting pregnant so that Planned Parenthood can eternally collect tax-paid $$$$.
As a woman I say we abort Feminists who created this nasty stuff. Maybe stick a tube in the back of their necks and suck out their brains…oh wait my mistake Feminists are brainless.
susan (7faf4d) — 7/19/2007 @ 4:34 amMight as well as abort guys who knock girls up, don’t marry them, and don’t provide financial support for their children.
sam (b42669) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:37 amSo, tax payers will be paying for both the prenatal care of a fetus and also for the destruction of that fetus.
People say (moi? never) that liberals want to tax anything that moves.
Well, I guess once it stops moving, then they’ll go away.
Not good.
SMG
SteveMG (d95455) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:49 amAnother lie by omission. That’s like me saying “President Bush has pledged to fund killing innocent Iraqis. He wants to kill more innocent Iraqis!”
No he hasn’t, and he doesn’t — I disagree with Bush’s Iraq policy, but I don’t think he’s trying to kill Iraqis for the sake of killing Iraqis. He’s pledged to fund a program he apparently believes will reduce violence in middle east in the long-term. One element of that is that there will be some collateral damage, that will almost certainly kill some innocent Iraqis.
Same with this program. It’s about funding overall family planning services, which include more birth control, more sex education, etc — measures intended to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, thereby reducing the number of abortions. If those measures fail, then another method of dealing with unplanned pregnancies is abortion.
So is funding abortion necessarily a program that permits more abortions? No, and it cause there to be fewer late-term abortions. I’d like to see a first-response program, that helps women with unplanned pregnancies have easy access to early abortions, for free — as in, within the first month or two. Not because I think abortion is the best method of birth control, but because if a woman’s going to have an abortion, I’d rather she do it before the brain stem/nervous system are forming.
Of course, I’d rather see it be a non-governmental effort. But I do think there’s a benifit in encouraging early abortions over waiting around trying to gather up the courage/funds as a fetus is forming.
Phil (427875) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:56 am“The goal: to make abortion safe, legal, and rare frequent.”
No jackass. not even close.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:19 amMore Fun
“Records Show Ex-Senator’s Work for Family Planning Unit”
According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:22 am‘Might as well abort guys who knock up girls, don’t marry them, and don’t provide financial support for their children’
Unfortunately, Feminists have created the absurd concept that ‘it’s our bodies, our choice’ and in doing so have placed all reproductive responsibility upon our shoulders; we women said to you men that you don’t have a say with regard to our repoductive responsibility.
The Feminist philosophy basically screwed females into believing that when females get pregnant ‘it’s our bodies, our choice’; males have been deemed meaningless, this is what I mean when I said that Feminists castrated their way to the top.
Therefore because of what the Feminist movement has demanded ‘it’s our bodies, our choice’ She demanded She assume all reproductive responsiblity over the males and now she must own up.
After what Feminists have done these past thirty years I as a woman am in no position to demand that he be responsible.
Feminists can’t have it both ways demanding on the one hand that ‘it’s my body, my choice’ then turn right around and demand that he take full responsibility for ‘knocking girls up’.
susan (7faf4d) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:23 amBut you can make nonsensical demands to “abort Feminists.” [eyeroll]
sam (b42669) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:39 amYeah, they’re all for bringing the child into the world, but caring responsibly for them? Too expensive. That’s what it’s about folks….money.
The president is going out of his way to aggressively state his opposition to expand healthcare access to 4 million kids through the popular, decade-old State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). Bush made his opinion clear:
“I believe government cannot provide affordable health care. I believe it would cause — it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the S-CHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill.”
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:58 amI don’t have a problem with abortion being legal. I’m a man, and I won’t have one, and I hope I haven’t put someone in a position to have one, and I’ve tried to be very careful not to put anyone in that situation…that said, I don’t want my money going to provide an abortion either!!! I don’t see any reason the government should be in the business of providing funding for any abortion. I know they probably didn’t pay for the sex, so why pay for the elimination of the result???
reff (be88cf) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:06 amFeedback, P:
“The goal: to make abortion safe, legal, and rare frequent.”
1. Clearly, that’s not the stated goal.
2. It doesn’t follow that national insurance which covers abortions means more abortions, and saying you support national insurance that covers abortions does not mean you support more abortions.
3. This is a gratuitous cheap shot, unbecoming on this site. I’m thankful you don’t do it more often–normally, your tone and commitment to logic are the reason I keep returning, as opposed to this BS.
Tom (0bab66) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:17 amWhere’s Hillary Clinton on this? The “safe, legal and rare” line is hers (and before that, her husband’s).
Crust (399898) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:18 amNo, it’s not. As you’ve aptly noted, President Bush supports certain objectives in Iraq that may be either right or wrong, but which if right, cannot be accomplished without some collateral damage. The same cannot be said of federal health insurance, which can either be made to include or exclude abortion by a stroke of the pen.
For your analogy to work, President Bush would have to be offered a war plan that accomplishes all his objectives without killing any innocents, with no other collateral problems (e.g., not working), and have him veto the measure saying “this bill looks great overall, but it’s not ‘comprehensive’ enough. More specifically, it allows our military to accomplish all of our objectives, save one: it doesn’t allow us to kill enough innocent Iraqis. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making the needless killings of innocent Iraqis safe, legal and rare, but in the end, who are we to decide?”
Xrlq (0e2175) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:27 amXRLQ, are you saying that the “collateral damage” of supporting things like early abortions and the morning-after-pill in order to reduce the number of late-term abortions is different from the “collateral damage” of causing some innocent Iraqi deaths in our effort to prevent many more innocent Iraqi deaths through all-out civil war? That’s how I read what your saying.
To me, if a woman is going to have an abortion inevitably, giving her a morning-after pill is simply choosing a smaller tragedy over a larger one. Now, granted, you can say “but she might not have an abortion at all.” I can say “but if we withdraw the troops right now, the Iraqis might spontaneously get together and sing a song and stop killing each other.” To me, the analogies are similar.
Phil (427875) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:43 amSam
I can say ‘abort Feminist’ because that’s feminisms area of expertise.
In any case, no doubt if you and I were to have sex resulting in pregnancy you would no doubt be required by your collective conscience to say to me ‘it’s your body, your choice’ otherwise you’d be deemed one of those ‘oppressive patriarchs who just wants to see his woman stuck barefoot and stupid cookin up slop for you in the kitchen’.
Unfortuntely your one-eye rolling around in all directions seems to have clouded your perspective.
susan (7faf4d) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:57 am“The Feminist philosophy basically screwed females into believing that when females get pregnant ‘it’s our bodies, our choice’; males have been deemed meaningless, this is what I mean when I said that Feminists castrated their way to the top”
Absolutely, susan. Smart comments.
In the deceptive name of ‘feminism’, women have done more to sabotage the dignity, credibility and quest to assume responsibility for our actions and instead produced the opposite of what the movement purported to be doing. Nothing me makes more ashamed of my gender than feminist twaddle and dishonesty.
“So, tax payers will be paying for both the prenatal care of a fetus and also for the destruction of that fetus.”
And throw in the post-traumatic counseling for emotional duress and depression that often follows having an abortion.
Dana (25f824) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:05 amMy thinking behind saying that federally-funding might reduce the number of abortions is that the current restrictions for Medicaid-funded abortions are stricter than those of many private insurance plans. If Edwards and Obama propose repealing the Hyde Amendment (and now that I think about it, they’d probably fall all over each other to say that they do) then what I’m saying would make no sense.
Nels Nelson (680124) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:20 amThe goal: to make abortion safe, legal, frequent & cheap free. Next goal: outreach.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:27 amso, “strike” doesn’t actually work….
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:28 amAnother lie by omission. That’s like me saying “President Bush has pledged to fund killing innocent Iraqis. He wants to kill more innocent Iraqis!”
Phil – you’re confusing tactics with strategy. Say the Iraq strategy involved the tactic of booby-trapping neighborhoods where known Al Qaeda hang out. This would no doubt result in unnecessary civilian deaths. Bush could say no to this tactic as part of the overall strategy.
Likewise with the family planning strategy. Abortion could be one tactic to reach the objective – or not.
Now I’m going to pose an indelicate question to Elizabeth Edwards. Had Elizabeth’s mother known Mrs. Edwards would suffer from cancer later in life, would she have been justified in aborting her to spare her this pain? Would Elizabeth find this to be an acceptable reason? This is not meant to be a flip comment. Babies are aborted for much less serious reasons.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 7/19/2007 @ 9:49 amAbortion rights advocates remind me of the Shakers, whose adherence to celibacy ultimately doomed their religion to society’s fringe. (Of course, abortion rights advocates aren’t celibate but there is evidence they don’t reproduce at replacement level, so the results are similar.) In the long-term, anti-abortion advocates may prevail on this issue simply by reproducing over replacement level.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:32 amTakeFive, you’re assuming that Bush hasn’t already instituted various policies that cause unnecessary deaths. Many people feel differently, and believe that simply being in Iraq causes unnecessary deaths.
That’s fine, lets try and figure out if those deaths are unnecessary. But just because some people think that the war is causing unnecessary deaths doesn’t mean that unnecessary deaths’ are bush’s GOAL.
Patterico asserts in his post that because Obama and Edwards support federal funding of abortions, their GOAL must be to increase abortions (in other words, to promote unnecessary abortions).
Now, Patterico may believe that federal funding will promote unnecessary abortions. And we should try to figure out if that’s true. But it doesn’t mean that promoting unnecessary abortions is the GOAL of either Obama or Edwards.
So go ahead and say that the proposed policy will cause unnecessary abortions. That’s your opinion. But don’t say that the GOAL of the policy is to cause unnecessary abortions.
Phil (427875) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:46 amWhether this is the *stated* goal or not: “to make abortion safe, legal, and frequent”…in reality, that’s the effect it will have.
LBJ tried to “end” poverty by giving money to poor people. While the *stated* goal was to reduce poverty, the actual effect was to trap millions of people in a cycle of dependency, subsisting (barely) just above abject poverty for generations. Unless you are incredibly cynical, you can’t say that’s what LBJ intended. But that’s what happened.
That’s exactly what will happen here, regardless of how “noble” the intentions are.
luke pingel (b0a8b8) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:48 amWhat other possible outcome can funding abortions have, other than to increase them?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:59 amAbortion has become so common place over the years that most Americans, even those who may
find abortion bad, do not give it too much thought. The millions of lives destroyed by this horrible phenomenon has played a major part in the decay of our culture.
Obama will do or say anything that will enhance his chances of becoming President.
That is the very kind of person we do not need as President. True Presidential timber is
revealed by the office seeking the person not the other way around.
Click on my web site to see my evaluation of Obama and his Sex Ed/Abortion
position.
Edward Cropper
Edward Cropper (082de5) — 7/19/2007 @ 11:02 amsusan,
Meaningless in decision making, meaningless in parenting, but there’s one way in which we still have a huge, enormous, inescapable meaning and responsibility: funding the woman’s choice for up to 23 years. We may be utterly worthless, but we’re the best ATM’s ever. We dispense non-taxable, no strings attached cash.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/19/2007 @ 11:07 amWhat other possible outcome can funding abortions have, other than to increase them?
Well, one outcome I suggested already is that it will cause women who are already going to have abortions to have them sooner than they would if they had to fund them on their own – making the morning after-pill more accessible, especially would appear to have this effect.
If you don’t like late-term abortions (to me, these are by far the most disturbing) then it would seem to me that making abortions possible, but just expensive and hard to get, would increase the number of late-term abortions.
That said, I’m not saying it wouldn’t increase the number of abortions. How many women say they were going to have an abortion, but it was just too darn expensive? I’d like to compare that number to the number of women who say they wanted to have an abortion right away, but it took quite a while to get the money together/find a place to do it, so they had it done much later than they’d wanted to.
I don’t know either of the above numbers right now. I’m just saying I need them before I’ll buy the idea that federal funding of abortions will increase the number of abortions.
Phil (427875) — 7/19/2007 @ 11:12 amPlame’s lawsuit dismissed!
Vatar (bbc421) — 7/19/2007 @ 11:19 amOk, wait, abortions are merely “collateral” damage, an unfortunate “byproduct” of other legitimate goals/objectives? Rather than, say, a Constitutional right or a stated and pursued goal? Now who’s being disingenuous?
I see you read the Washington Post version of it. They left out this little nugget of information:
$80K a year is “poor”? I guess if you are a proponent of socialized medicine, then you think excluding 80K a year families from subsidized medicine is not “caring responsibly for them”. It’s like we’re on an episode of the Simpsons: “Somebody please think about the children! (Except the unborn ones. For them, just look the other way).”
Linus (cc24db) — 7/19/2007 @ 11:30 amWhat I want to know if this is a “right” will they also pledge to finance sex change operations as part of universal healthcare as well? How about “mental” healthcare and “rehabilitation” for alcoholics and drug abusers?
I mean those are rights too, aren’t they?
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 7/19/2007 @ 12:42 pm…you’re assuming that Bush hasn’t already instituted various policies that cause unnecessary deaths.
Phil – I make no such assumption and to do so would be merely speculation. What I am asserting is that your analogy is flawed.
If abortion is a tactic in the larger strategy of family planning, and is to be assured federal funding, then I don’t think it’s a leap in logic to assume it will be a tactic frequently employed. If you want to decrease something, you don’t subsidize it.
Contrast this to the doctors that are ditching their Medicare patients for certain procedures because the remittances are too small. Could the abortion procedure obey this same law of economics?
While I wouldn’t go so far as the say the goal is to make abortion more frequent, I do believe the goal is to weave abortion so tightly into our society that the absence of abortion will be the only thing rare about it.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 7/19/2007 @ 1:12 pm“I do believe the goal is to weave abortion so tightly into our society that the absence of abortion will be the only thing rare about it.”
Absolutely.
I also believe lining this statement is an unspoken quest to absolve society morally from a burden of ‘guilt’ over the act.
If its societally permissible to the point where our government pays for it (another validation) then it becomes just another typical normal part of American life. No stigma, no moral debate. It will make it easier on the conscience (at least on the surface).
Except that nothing at all to do with abortion is innocuous.
Dana (25f824) — 7/19/2007 @ 1:37 pm“If abortion is a tactic in the larger strategy of family planning, and is to be assured federal funding, then I don’t think it’s a leap in logic to assume it will be a tactic frequently employed. If you want to decrease something, you don’t subsidize it.”
If you want to cut back on the need for heart surgery one would expect funding for eductional programs on diet and exercise. You want to do it the easy way: ” Hey let’s just ban heart surgery. That’ll work!”
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/19/2007 @ 2:20 pmThe right isn’t in favor of family planning. It’s against birth control education. It’s for abstinence and against abortion.
It’s against insurance for bith control but for covering viagra.
“If abortion is a tactic in the larger strategy of family planning, and is to be assured federal funding, then I don’t think it’s a leap in logic to assume it will be a tactic frequently employed. If you want to decrease something, you don’t subsidize it.”
If you want to cut back on the need for heart surgery one would expect funding for eductional programs on diet and exercise. You want to do it the easy way: ” Hey let’s just ban heart surgery. That’ll work!”
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/19/2007 @ 2:20 pmClayton Cramer says this will cost the Democrats votes.
He also has pointed out why restrictions on abortion don’t seem to help as much as we would like. I found this analysis useful and sobering.
Yours,
Wince and Nod (931cf0) — 7/19/2007 @ 2:28 pmWince
[…] So what DOES get their panties in a wad? The fact that John Edwards’ and Barack Obama’s proposals to expand access to health insurance would include funding for abortions. Patrick Frey of Patterico’s Pontifications writes that their goal is to make abortion “safe, legal, and frequent”. […]
appletree » Blog Archive » Conservatives Outraged About Abortion Funding, But Not Lack Of Funding For Children’s Health (164637) — 7/19/2007 @ 2:48 pmIf you want to cut back on the need for heart surgery one would expect funding for eductional programs on diet and exercise. You want to do it the easy way: ” Hey let’s just ban heart surgery. That’ll work!”
AF –
There are education programs – sex ed in school, counseling and prophylactics available thru Planned Parenthood yet unwanted pregnancy persists. No one has said anything about not funding education. Likewise, the government spends millions advertising their health food pyramid, yet coronary artery disease also persists.
It’s interesting that you would compare a life saving procedure with a life taking one, but perhaps you were trying to point out that they are both largely (ie, making an exception for forceful copulation in the former and genetics in the latter) a result of personal choices.
Now if you knew that artery clearing surgery was financially out of reach, and you received the education you mentioned, would you perhaps be a bit more conscious of your diet? Do you think this might lead to fewer heart surgeries and a healtier population?
Perhaps this is not a valid comparison. I think we need to compare abortion with another elective surgery. How about liposuction. Say that you had a choice of using the education you speak of, eating right and exercising, or just waddling down to the clinic for a taxpayer funded fat removal. Do you think you’d have to wait in line?
And what the hell, I just can’t resist pointing out this juicy irony : You want to do it the easy way
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 7/19/2007 @ 3:18 pmexcuse me for jumping in –
“It’s interesting that you would compare a life saving procedure with a life taking one”
…that’s the dif – supporters of this funding don’t believe it is a ‘life’ being taken. Its just a mass of goo and tissue and nothing viable so why not pay for it?
again, apologies for jumping in.
Dana (25f824) — 7/19/2007 @ 3:28 pm“No one has said anything about not funding education.”
you’re lying or you’re stupid
“I think we need to compare abortion with another elective surgery. How about liposuction.”
Ask a woman whose ever had an abortion if she’d compare to it liposuction. You’re a insulting little bitch aren’t you?
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/19/2007 @ 4:44 pmyou’re lying or you’re stupid
Uh dude, random google searches don’t really count as proof of anything (other than laziness). See, this would be like finding the words cranial, anal, and impaction in the dictionary and concluding it’s your biography.
Your self-righteousness on the admittedly crass comparison of liposuction to abortion seems a tad unconvincing. But it was your comparison of a necessary and life saving operation to an elective, and innocent-life ending procedure that convinced me you were more likely to be reached by taking the low road. Apparently I read you correctly.
Nevertheless, I’m sure with a few more “lying, stupid, insulting little bitches” thrown my way, the intelligence of your argument will shine through.
TakeFive (2ce4fc) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:35 pm**TakeFive – “Perhaps this is not a valid comparison.”
That is the fundamental problem with this issue and what makes it so difficult. It is unique and analogies make no sense. There are no useful comparisons.
In China, the state uses the threat of prison to force women to abort. Here, some would have the state use the threat of prison to force women to stay pregnant.
I am a man, and no Solomon and don’t know the answer to this, but I’m very uncomfortable in general with having the state force people to do things. At the same time, I can’t agree with the position that the woman can kill the child for any reason until the moment it is born. Surely there are bad reasons for having an abortion, and with our increasing medical knowledge and the prospect of “designer babies,” the probability of such reasons increases too.
I’ve thought it unfortunate that Roe v. Wade put us in the position where the argument has been characterized as all or nothing on both sides. The polls I’ve seen seem to show a lot of people feel as I do, conflicted and uncomfortable, and willing to accept solutions that involve compromises.
JayHub (8ba390) — 7/19/2007 @ 9:56 pmClearly, we need to expand this programs to all families that make less than $80,000 per year. That is a typical tactic for the Dems, simply redefine something to the point that it no longer resembles its original meaning. How can Edwards and Obama be expected to be taken seriously when they are referring to a family as poor that earns $80,000 per year?
JD (a04d17) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:29 pm