Removing abortion from the Health Care Bill is discriminatory........this medical

[secondwind]

condition is uniquely a woman's, and women shouldn't be excluded from benefits....

And establishing the "Office of Unborn Children's Health"? WTF is that all about?

The religious right is insinuating itself slowly but surely into our everyday lives.

[Greyhound]

1. Not slowly but I agree with the rest. n/t

& R

[Buzz Clik]

2. Holy crapoli! What an amazing flow of logic:

Abortion is an important medical procedure: check
Abortion is specific to women: check (mostly)
If abortion is missing from the health care bill, women will be excluded from the benefits:

Gratefully, abortion is not the only medical procedure women require in their lifetime.

Although abortion rights are important to me, putting abortion in the bill is not.

[unblock]

7. try not to dwell on the op's perhaps imprecise phrasing

it is discriminatory to cut out a procedure that disproportionately affects one gender over the other.

whether there are compelling reasons to overcome that discrimination is a matter for debate, but you can't really argue that there's not a discriminatory element at play here.

to take it to an extreme, let's say they chose to cut out all gynecological care, anything having to do with womens' reproductive organs, breast cancer detection, diagnosis and treatment, and so on, while keeping anything associated with male reproductive organs such as testicular cancer, prostate cancer, and penile plastic surgery.


your argument would still hold, that women could still get treatment for broken bones and brain cancer, but you can't deny that there's a discriminatory element.

[GarbagemanLB]

3. If abortion is the only thing stopping a good public option, I'm sorry but I support its removal.

[kiva]

4. Just a red herring.

The folks that oppose a public option are just using this to gain support--'Oh noes, think of the babies!!!!'. This is a tried and true method, though it doesn't always work. Howard Smith learned this when he attempted to sabotage the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adding a prohibition against gender discrimination.

That said, just who else are you willing to sacrifice? What if opponents don't want mental illnesses covered under the public option? What about people with expensive pre-existing conditions? Slippery slope.

[kenfrequed]

29. Twice as right

It is a huge double bladed two headed red herring.


You scare the pro-lifers with the BS "Department of Abortions" idiocy.

Then you turn around and scare the pro choice people with the idea that the right wing will strangely compromise and pass universal healthcare if abortion is neutralized.


The overwhelming majority of abortions are paid for out of pocket, so insurance plays little role. The public option does not illegalize those very few insurances that DO provide reproductive services as a part of their coverage.


Stop biting on this hook.

[noiretextatique]

5. abortion is a medical procedure

that should be covered by insurance...period end of story. what else would you be willing to exclude to appease rw lunatics? heart surgery? prostate cancer treatment?

[Thothmes]

12. Plastic surgery

is also a medical procedure. Some times it is medically warrented, in those cases it should be covered by the plan. Abortion is also a medical procedure. Some times it is medically warrented, in those cases it should be covered by the plan. Some plastic surgeries and some abortions are not medically warrented, they are discretionary, they should not be covered. Viagra and Cialis are drugs which can be prescribed for a specific medical condition, they should be covered by the plan. Viagra and Cialis being prescribed for "recreational purposes" should not be part of the plan. JMO.

[Justitia]

16. I just love it. So who determines the medical necessity of boner pills? This oughtta be good.

[Thothmes]

19. That is what a physician is for.

[noiretextatique]

31. the same applies to abortion eom

[Thothmes]

33. I agree, if there is a medical reason for an abortion

rape, incest, health of mother, by all means cost of the procedure should be covered by the National Health plan.

[noiretextatique]

34. how does one "prove" rape?

or incest? and if one can prove it, how much time would it take? you do understand that by delaying an abortion by requiring a court decision (like a rape conviction) likely means the woman will be too far along for an abortion. it's much simpler to allow women access to health care...period.

[Thothmes]

35. That is a discussion for the patient and her physician

Did I say anything about waiting for a conviction of rape to decide to terminate a pregnacy. Women have access to health care. Abortion is not the only health care that concerns women. I do not think that the health care system should pay for procedures or medications that are not medically warrented.
Reconstructive surgery for a women that has had a radical mastectomy is medically warranted. Plastic surgery to bump up bra size is probably is not.
Cialis for erectile disfunction is medically warrented. Cialis to keep it stiffer longer probably is not. Abortion is cases of rape, incest, fetal viability or severe fetal imparement is medically warrented. D&C because you forgot to take your pills or he didnt use a condom is probably not. In all of these cases, the recommendation of the physican should be the determining factor as to whether the procedure is medically warrented.

[Justitia]

38. YOU say boner pills are medically warranted. What if I disagree? An erection is a medical need?

I think not. Men don't need erections to live, sorry. Boner pills are NOT medically necessary, neither are boners.

As you feel about abortion, that's how I feel about boner pills - lifestyle choices and all.

So, who gets to decide each other's medical care here?

[Thothmes]

39. I did not say that they were warrented.

The AMA has determined that ED is a medical condition that is treatable with various medications, including surgery. My statement was is that the physicians should be the ones to make those decisions.It does not make difference what your or my opinion is in these matters. One of the primary bitches about the current system is bean counters get to make the decision. My opinion is that the public system should not pay for elective proceedures period. Doctors would be the folks that decide if a procedure or medication is medically warrented. Would you rather have a politician in Washington making those choices?

[Justitia]

48. uh, they already are - the plethora of abortion restrictions are evidence of that. -eom

[Iris]

62. There was a time when doctors made decisions for pregnant women. It sucked then and would suck now.

Kate Michelson, former president of NRA, was forced to go in front a a panel of doctors, explain how she got pregnant, and then ask for their permission to have an abortion. The reason she wanted the abortion? She already had 3 children and her husband had abandoned her after she got pregnant with the 3rd.

[noiretextatique]

72. oh please stop it

abortion IS health care...period. you are right about one thing: the decision is between a woman and her doctor. NOY YOU...and not 19 ma;e democrats. such a simple concept, but clearly something prevents you from grasping it.

[noiretextatique]

32. every man has a right to an erection

and apparently it's a sacred right given the number of viagra commercials on teevee. but those some of those men would deny a woman an abortion. it's really great when our so-called allies are willing to sell us out

[guruoo]

54. Do you believe allowing abortion coverage is more important than, for instance, cancer treatments?

This is the dilemma, as I see it. What we may be doing here is risking every
other life-saving procedure (for women too) to keep single payer funding for just one.

[Lars39]

56. Why pit one against the other?

The risks of pregnancy and childbirth, coupled with the costs of childrearing can be every bit as devastating as having cancer.

[guruoo]

65. 1. Non Sequitur. 2.False comparison

You've read the book!

[Lars39]

66. More like been there and done it.

BC survivor

[guruoo]

70. Mom

kept it to herself until it was so far along that the doctor
knew what it was by simple visual examination.

[immoderate]

6. Nice of you to sacrifice someone else's rights.

Would you give up the urologist?

--imm

[guruoo]

55. I'd be willing to pay my own way on that if it would assure single payer passage

[polmaven]

20. Well, then...it's a good thing

that you will never need to have one. It is pretty easy to support removing a medical procedure from a health care bill when you are absolutely sure you will never need it to be there, huh?

[joeglow3]

41. You have yet to explain how it is NOT an elective procedure

when it is not a procedure due to medical issues.

[polmaven]

42. It is a MEDICAL procedure...

A LEGAL one. Elective or not, it should be covered. And the poster to whom I was responding didn't say anything about it being elective. As long as HIS needs are provided for, so what does it matter if a woman's needs are dropped to get there?

[joeglow3]

44. Is plastic surgery a medical procedure?

And is also elective. The only criteria you seem to have is that it be legal and a medical procedure. Under your reasoning, ALL plastic surgery should be covered.

[polmaven]

47. So you are now comparing plastic surgery

which may be done for reasons of vanity with abortion. Do you even think about these things before you post? Do you REALLY think ANY woman who has an abortion does so for frivolous reasons or arrives at the decision easily?

Oh, and by the way, plastic surgery is not always "elective", either.

[joeglow3]

50. You are not reading my posts

It has clearly been discussed that there are cases of people who get plastic surgery for medical reason (cleft lip, accident, etc.) and those who get it for vanity purposes (Hollywood???).

It has also been pointed out that many abortions are performed for medical reasons (risk to mother, abnormalities in the fetus, etc.). There are also abortions that are performed for those who have no extraordinary risks, but make the choice for personal reasons.

Using your logic, why is an abortion for personal reasons any different than any other medical procedure for personal reasons?

Note, I support the right to choose. However, if we are going to have government healthcare, we, as a society, need to be cognizent of the strains both on medical resources and money. Our primary goal should be to provide medical care for those at true physical risk. Anything beyond that needs to be analyzed. Based on that analyzation, how do we determine which medically unnecessary procedures are covered and which are not?

[chimpymustgo]

67. Let me guess: you're a guy. You really have no say on the matter of a woman's abortion.

[joeglow3]

69. Therein lies the one drawback with government healthcare

When the government pays for it, we ALL have a say. Just like the reduction in treatments for breast cancer in the UK.

Or else, I can say all erectile dysfunction gets treated and as a women, you have ZERO say. That is an unproductive way to approach this.

[Lars39]

45. All pregnancies and childbirth runs the risk of death.

Every single one.

[joeglow3]

51. As do all abortions

Every one of them. That is not a medical necessity. In 2001, there were 399 deaths from childbirth:

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm

In 2000, there were 11 deaths from abortions:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

Once again, looking at this from an objective standpoint (which we need to do with government healtcare), this is a VERY VERY negible difference and hardly enough to use as support to fund medically unnecessary procedures.

[Lars39]

52. The risk for death or permanent injury during pregnancy and childbirth

is far greater than that of abortion. Who are you to decide what is a medical necessity?

[joeglow3]

53. I provided stats...you provided none

If you can provide stats to support your view, I would agree.

Regarding medical necessity, I don't have any clue what the breakdown is. However, my wife has been an RN at an OB/GYN clinic and they have had many patients get abortion over the 8 years they have been open and she has worked there. While the total number of patients getting abortions are very large compared to their total patient load, she has said that the majority had no diagnosed issue with the mother or the fetus.

Now, I completely support their right to end the pregnancy, but I see no evidence that it is anything more than a personal choice.

My opinion could easily change if you can provide data supporting your position. However, all the data I have found show nothing even close to anything more than a neglible difference.

[Lars39]

58. You are bogged down in "it's a personal choice".

So the hell what? Your wife has decided how many children she wishes to have....considering the risk to her health, finances, when she wants to finally be free of raising kids, how good a father you are going to be, how she would organize her work and her life to accomodate an extra child, what a possible special needs child would mean to the rest of the children and your marriage.

All of these concerns (and I'm sure there are more) are part of what goes into the decision to carry on with a pregnancy. The host must be willing, because if not, you are talking about forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will, which amounts to reproductive slavery. Your wife might be privy to a woman's medical records, but she doesn't know squat about everything else going on in those women's lives.

[joeglow3]

64. What other elective procedures do we allow because people want it?

LASIK? E.D.? Cosmetic surgery?

I am not claiming to have an answer. An easy follow up question is what are our standards for getting "fixed." This is also elective.

All I am saying is that I want to make sure everyone is getting the cancer treatment they need, blood pressure treatment they need, etc. AFTER these needs are met, then lets worry about about medical issues that are not medically required.

I think this breaks down to two different issue and you think all abortions fall under the same umbrella as the need to provide everyone with chemotherapy if they need it.

[Lars39]

68. When every single pregnancy and delivery can kill you or maim you for life,

then every abortion becomes medically necessary.

[joeglow3]

71. EVERY single cut (no matter how small) can kill you or maim you

My father got a VERY small cut on his knee about 10 years ago at work. Next thing he knows, it is swelling up and he goes to the ER. Turned out he had a staff infection from the cut and was about 6-12 hours from losing his leg and a day or so from possibly dying. So, since you can possibly die from a small cut, do we allow all people with one to flood the ER?

Of course not. When implementing government healthcare, we have to use an OBJECTIVE analysis. The odds of dying or being maimed from a small cut are VERY tiny. Thus, we don't allow people to run in droves to the hospital. Likewise, the same thing goes from pregnancy (where you have a 0.0000998% chance of dying).

[Lars39]

73. Sorry, not even comparable.

[joeglow3]

75. I am simply using your logic.

[colinmom71]

49. Sorry, but may I ask that you clarify your statement...

I'm not sure if you mean removing abortion as a covered option under a public health coverage system, or if you mean sinking a public option overall. I'm guessing the former over the latter...

Unfortunately, there are some women in the US whose overall health is better served by terminating an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. I am a woman whose own life could be threatened by an accidental and unwanted pregnancy. Should I be denied a private and medically justified abortion just because a publicly funded health care plan was crafted to placate "pro-life" activists?

As a family, we spend a lot of money (albeit as tax free income) to fund our health insurance. I'm lucky enough to have insurance that covers abortions, via medical need or per choice. So, why should I have such a legal and medically justified procedure available and covered, and no one else?

[winyanstaz]

57. Nice of you to throw women's rights under the bus...

nor do you seem to care about all the dead women this would create.
Myself, I want my granddaughters to have control of their own bodies and the right to an abortion if they and their doctor deems it necessary.
Men would scream bloody murder if we threw out all surgery that dealt with their sexuality and bodies, such as research on prostate cancers.
Either we treat all equally or we are discriminating.

[solstice]

8. Under Clinton, female Federal employees could use their health nsurance to pay for abortions.

Under Bush, they couldn't.
Under Obama, they can't.

[polmaven]

21. But, but, but....

President Clinton is ---- Deeee Ellll Ceeee!

[Iris]

9. "office of unborn children's health" - has this actually received traction?

has this office actually been formed?

[dflprincess]

13. If they were truly concerned about the health of "unborn children"

they wouldn't oppose a plan that would give all women access to prenatal care. These anti-choice, anti-women bigots might even realize that access to decent health care might make it easier for some women with difficult pregnancies to take them to term. Not only because of the prenatal access but in cases where the baby will be born needing more medical help the parents wouldn't have to consider the cost of that care when making a decision.

[polmaven]

22. Yeah, I haven't heard of it either....

Apparently not paying close enough attention during the weekend.

"Office of unborn children's health" - How ludicrous is THAT? Gotta call my Congressman's office today and ask about that one!

[kimmylavin]

59. No, not formed.

Proposed.
By Coburn.

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=33928

Ridiculous.

[premiumblend]

10. Abortion is part of women's health care.

[hedgehog]

11. The thought of abortion just sickens me BUT it needs to be

covered by the Health Care Bill for the same reasons it needs to be legal.

1. If someone is determined to get an abortion, she will get an abortion. Making it inaccessible by making it illegal or too costly just leads to dangerous abortions by untrained people.

2. If abortions aren't paid for, then doctors and patients will find themselves arguing with a bureaucrat somewhere about whether a procedure was an abortion or not.

[polmaven]

23. Exactly!

1)Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions. It will only stop safe abortions.
2)All legal medical procedure should be covered under any and ALL health care plans.

[donheld]

14. If this is the case then let congress remove abortion funding.

Then let the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional

[DatManFromNawlins]

36. Won't happen

There's no reason for the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional since a person can have whatever health care coverage they please.

[glowing]

15. I am so tired of mostly old white guys deciding on women's health issues.

God forbid we were talking about denying Viagra or Prostate Exams.. but when it comes to women's health and needs, nope.. Just don't open your legs...or you deserve it.

If you start monkeying with women's health issues, next birth control is out the window.. right along with education and regular check-ups. I'm tired of the Christian-Taliban dictating their doctrine in a secular govt.

[tritsofme]

17. Barring legislation otherwise, would the Hyde Amendment presumably preclude federal funds

from being used for abortion in any public option?

All of this crowing about abortion in the healthcare debate by these pro-life folks seems to be a non sequitur.

[boppers]

18. Breast implants.

It's one of the issues I use to wake up people, and make them think about gender, and health: the lowly saline bag.

If you ask many people if healthcare should pay for breast implants for women, they often have a near immediate gut reaction of "no".

Then, asking them if healthcare should pay for implants.... for survivors of breast cancer, they often are forced to stop, and think.

[polichick]

24. Let me guess - Viagra would be free. nt

[Thothmes]

26. Should be if prescribed by a physician for

an existing medical condition. I don't think they should be covered if just for "recreational purposes"

[polichick]

28. Right now, insurance companies are more likely to cover Viagra than birth control...

The op suggests more inequitable treatment to come.

[Thothmes]

30. Depends on the Democrats in Congress

as to how much inequallity there is in the program

[SoCalDem]

25. How about "Office of Invisible Brains".. headed by a republican

actually they do have a brain

[crimsonblue]

27. So does this mean I have to save my semen...

because every sperm is sacred.....

[vaberella]

37. Did anyone see the health debate today? It was being discussed. n/t

[Vinca]

40. You'd think women had abortions because it's a fun thing to do.

If only men could get pregnant . . .

[polmaven]

43. Abortion would not only be covered,

but the morning after pill would be available over the counter at every neighborhood store.

[kimmylavin]

60. It would come in cereal boxes.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." - Florynce Kennedy

[redqueen]

46. No, it isn't. It's a reflection of how large a country this is, and the fact

that the Fed isn't going to use this as an opportunity to force the issue on individual states.

[kimmylavin]

61. The individual states' laws were discriminatory.

That's why there was a federal ruling on this in the first place.

[Iris]

63. pity the woman who lives in a state that considers her life worth less than that of a fetus

[GivePeaceAchance]

74. I think they will probably address it in another form they need some ad campaigns to explain a lot..

of myths the Christian right have about abortion and help them understand the health risks to mothers, they are given a lot of misinformation for them to have the beliefs they do. Of course there will always be some that are just plain unreachable and won't listen to anything contrary to what they believe.