Should the government pay for a woman's right to choose an abortion?

[Blue_Roses]

Contrary to what the religious right says, abortions are not paid for by the government. Do you think they should be considering it is a constitutional right to have one?

[LeftyMom]

1. I think we should have single payer health care, which would include reproductive health care. nt

[undeterred]

40. Amen.

:thumbsup:

[LostinVA]

47. Beat me to it

[baldguy]

63. Right - it's about health care & privacy.

Not abortion.

[ismnotwasm]

71. Yes, and thank you n/t

[Political Heretic]

74. Right on.

[TooBigaTent]

2. Health care is health care. If it is (still) legal, then it should be covered.

[Solon]

3. Under a Single-Payer plan, yes. n/t

[dsc]

4. unless and until there is national health care then no

It would be absolutely unfair to have people die of heart attacks and cancer which went untreated but have their tax money pay for abortions.

[Hoof Hearted]

38. Why?

[dsc]

49. paying for elective abortions should come after paying to save people's lives

I don't think that should be a contraversial notion.

[JoFerret]

52. If you want to argue pure cost alone

then abortion is cheap. Very cheap.

[dsc]

53. that is irrelevent

I realize for most people on this board pro lifers are less than human and unworthy of rights, but try to imagine you were a liberal Catholic pro lifer who needed a transplant. You are working and saving for it but really have no real hope. You read in the paper that the same government who refuses to pay for your transplant is paying for a woman's fifth abortion in as many years. Wouldn't you be just a little pissed off? It is absolutely selfish, not to mention totally hypocritical, to say the government has no business discussing abortion except to cut the check.

[JoFerret]

55. Now THAT is truly irrelevant

As I said. Abortion is "cheap."
you are setting up false arguments.
health care including reproductive care should be free and universal.
leave the choices to "god".

[dsc]

62. My post was crystal clear

If the government refuses to make health care a public good then it shouldn't be a public good, period. In addition to everything else it would be political suicide.

[JoFerret]

73. ...and irrelevant. N/t

.

[onenote]

5. Yes and no.

Should health care cover abortions? Yes, and if the government provides health care, then the government should pay for abortions.

But, no, the fact that the constitution protects a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion does not mean that the government should pay for one any more than it means that the government should buy guns for individuals, pay their church dues, or pay for the means by which individuals exercise their right to free speech.

[RichGirl]

6. In a discussion with a fundie...

...about abortion, she said "Well, I don't want MY tax dollars to pay for abortions." I replyed "I don't want MY tax dollars to pay for the killing of innocent Iraqi women and children." End of discussion.

[raccoon]

58. Great response. nt

[suston96]

7. The Constitution protects my right to own guns....where can I send my list.....? nt

[KittyWampus]

8. Elective procedures/surgery shouldn't be covered at this point, including fertilization treatments

However, once someone decides to get or is pregnant receiving optimal care is mandatory.

[democrattotheend]

10. Do you consider abortion an elective procedure?

I'm not saying it is or isn't...just trying to understand your comment.

[KittyWampus]

14. as a woman who has had one, IMO it's generally elective. Though certainly of more consequence

than many other elective procedures.

There are medical situations that mitigate circumstances for girls and women. For some, a pregnancy is dangerous and thus abortion is not elective but recommended or supported by medical necessity.

[katandmoon]

17. Then C-sections shouldn't be covered either. Nor any other type of pregnancy/delivery-related care

Since, except for rape victims, pregnancy is an elective condition.

[KittyWampus]

19. that's absurd. Once you're pregnant ensuring a healthy fetus and delivery are MANDATORY.

and I put that in my first post.

[katandmoon]

64. So? So what? Pregnancy is still an ELECTIVE condition. Why should I have to help pay for your

C-section as a result of it? You CHOSE to get pregnant, you can pay for all the associated costs yourself.

[TBF]

50. That's crazy. I had an emergency c-section because the baby could not

be delivered normally (in layman's terms it was turned funny & stuck). So that should not be covered? You'd rather the baby die?

[katandmoon]

65. The issue isn't whether the baby should die, the issue is that you CHOSE

to get pregnant and therefore the associated costs are your responsibility. Have all the fancy treatment you want. Just pay for it yourself, don't expect me to. It wasn't my choice that you get pregnant.

[TBF]

67. Do you feel that way about public schools as well? You sound quite bitter.

[Scout]

69. exactly. having children is a lifestyle choice. n/t

[REP]

27. "Elective" and "Emergent" are medical terms; you are using it improperly

"Elective" doesn't mean "optional." A woman with a life-threatening pregnancy or carrying a non-viable fetus could well have an elective abortion; 'elective' merely means she doesn't need it that instant to prevent death.

You may have had an abortion and felt you could have 'elected' not to have it; that's not an elective abortion however.

[katandmoon]

66. According to Websters

Main Entry:
1elec·tive Listen to the pronunciation of 1elective
Pronunciation:
\i-ˈlek-tiv\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1531

2 a: permitting a choice : optional <an elective course in school> b: beneficial to the patient but not essential for survival <elective surgery>

[democrattotheend]

9. Is the question whether Medicaid should pay for them?

If so, I think that yes, abortion should be covered under Medicaid like any other medical procedure. But I think religious organizations that pay for health insurance for their employees should have the right not to cover abortion if it violates their religious beliefs.

[shagsak]

11. paid for by the government?

It's also a constitutional right for me to bear arms, but I don't forsee the government shipping out glocks anytime soon.

[ecstatic]

12. I think the cost should be lower nt

[adoraz]

13. No

Abortion is one of those things that I don't completely agree with Democrats on. I think abortion is a terrible, terrible thing that should be avoided, but I understand that in some cases it may be necessary. I guess you could say I "support" it, but I still think that in most cases it shouldn't be done. I wouldn't support the government paying for it.

[Hoof Hearted]

41. In that case don't have one.

See how easy that is?

[adoraz]

54. I'm not a woman.

And no need to act like a jack ass. I was just answering the question. :shrug:

[Clark2008]

68. Then this isn't your issue.

I'm sorry, but biology dictates this and men simply cannot carry a fetus (not, yet, anyway).

Your opinion is noted, but shouldn't matter. Sorry.

[adoraz]

70. what are you smoking?

not my issue?

It's everybody's issue.

You do know where the money that the government spends comes from, correct? In case you don't know, it doesn't just magically appear. I don't want the government using my tax money on abortions. I rather they spend it on something else.

As I said, I "support" abortions, but I don't think government should be paying for them. The concept is ridiculous. That's my opinion, and it's just as valid as yours.

[jody]

15. DoD can fund abortions when mother is in danger or rape or incest. (10 USC 1093)

§ 1093. Performance of abortions: restrictions

(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.— Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.

(b) Restriction on Use of Facilities.— No medical treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

[Orangepeel]

16. I think that's a distraction designed to inflame

there are many places where the ability to have an abortion has been legislated down to such narrow circumstances that paying the actual medical costs are moot. Some women have to take off work to travel hundreds of miles more than once -- first to hear about all the potential dire consequences and then to have the procedure after a waiting period. Fundies protest against emergency contraception and Plan B alternatives that reduce the need for surgical options.

[endarkenment]

18. Access to healthcare should not be gated by wealth. nt.

[madfloridian]

20. The religious right is trying to STOP abortions. Your argument is misleading.

Some here are swallowing it all down with a spoonful of sugar.

[Blue_Roses]

56. read it again then.

the argument is this: should the government pay for abortions. Fundies say they do. (I know this because I worked at an abortion clinic for three years!)

Bottom line: Fundies use this to push a wedge, knowing that if tax dollars are going for abortion there will be an uprise (or so they think) but, to see where the consensus is and frankly the education of how abortions are regulated (believe me, some have no idea how this works) is VERY telling in defending Roe v. Wade.

[LWolf]

21. Yes. Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

Including reproductive health care.

If choice is a right, I think it has to be paid for by the government.

Otherwise, "rights" are only available to those who can afford to pay.

[BklynChick]

22. good health insurance covers it, and should.

[colinmom71]

23. As the current government "health system" is designed, I'd have to say no for now...

For now, federal government sponsored health coverage is pretty much just Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP programs. They are designed as targeted care for economically disadvantaged populations as defined by federal standards. They are not designed as a universal system nor as an economic equalization system, only as supplemental benefits to those in dire straits.

Now, there are some states (5 last I researched this issue) who supplement their Medicaid programs at the state level to provide coverage for elective abortions. For those women who financially qualify for those kinds of amended state programs, then the state is likely mandated to provide their own government sponsored abortion coverage. But then, all states have the right to decide whether to provide amended services within their Medicaid system. For example, Georgia instituted a supplemental pre-natal care program about 17 years ago which funnels extra state level tax funds into the Medicaid program and allows increased income rates. The program pays for medically necessary care related to the pregnancy, so for women in this pre-natal care program, abortion would be publicly covered in GA only if the woman's life or health were endangered. Otherwise, the woman herself would have to fund the abortion on her own.

When we do achieve a universal coverage system, then yes all women should be able to receive equal access to abortion as part of a comprehensive women's health care plan. Once a universal system approach is instilled, the government cannot justly discriminate between what types of Constitutionally protected medical choices a woman may make as a matter of equal protection and due process... (Thus one reason religious conservatives will argue against universal care...)

[Occam Bandage]

24. Under single-payer, I can't see why not. Currently, I can't see why.

Under single-player, it would be a medical procedure, and thus covered.

Currently, the fact that its legality is Constitutionally protected does not mean it must be government-paid. You have the Constitutional right to go outside right now, walk to the nearest store, and buy and read a copy of the New York Times. That does not mean that Uncle Sam needs to give you the buck-twenty-five you'd need to buy it.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

25. In my mind there is a difference between a right and a liberty

Although the term "right" is often applied when I would use the term "liberty," the two are distinctive as I have always understood matters.

Most of the Bill of Rights are actually civil liberties, where the government is prohibited from interfering in their exercise except in narrowly defined circumstances.

They are distinguished from true rights such as the right to vote, where the government must take affirmative steps to make sure they may be exercised.

Abortion to me has always been more of a liberty than a true constitutional right, so while the government may not ordinarily prohibit a woman from having an abortion, and may not unreasonably interfere with her decision, it need not go out of its way to guarantee she can get one.

Just my two cents -- flame away as respectfully as you can.

[ileus]

26. maybe they should also buy me a pistol

you know constitutional right and all...

[Hieronymus]

28. Of course it should be taken care of by single payer, like other health care.

[REP]

29. Does the gov't pay for our right to no bill of attainder?

The way the question is phrased is absurd. If you mean, should there be government funding for abortions, the answer is yes - just as there should be government funding of all health care. Duh.

[sakura]

30. Should the government pay for viagra?

Just wondering. Because a couple of years ago, when I was on blue cross/ blue shield of Oregon, Viagra was covered, but birth control wasn't.

[Colobo]

34. No, although Viagra is not a birth control method.

[sakura]

35. Uh...yeah. But that's not my point (obviously)

They both relate to sex. One is definitely a lot more "elective" than the other, though. I would love to hear the reasoning of the folks at Blue Cross (or other insurers) who decided that it's more medically necessary for an aging man to be able to get it up than it is for a fertile woman to not have seventeen kids. Having that many kids is a definite health risk-- being able to have sex is not.

[Colobo]

31. It should be considered a birth control method, and I think the government

should cover about 50% of the expenses. After all, government hardly pays for personal options of birth control.

[ihavenobias]

32. It makes sense from a cost perspective

The number one reason given for choosing an abortion is inability to afford/care for a child at least according to the last numbers I saw.

With that in mind, ensuring affordable abortion likely means less tax payer cost in the long run. You'd think that'd be relevant to the conservatives who fight against government programs for children's health care, after school programs, etc.

PS---Which candidate is actually pro-life? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6465791

[Zavulon]

33. No.

By "government" you mean "federal?" If so, no, unless the pregnancy was involuntary (rape or incest, not just a birth control accident).

Such programs should be local. If a state or city government wants to pass the bill over to taxpayers, so be it, but I don't support the federal government doing it for a variety of reasons, one of which is the reason I'll never support universal health care in this country: too big of a responsibility for too inefficient of a bureaucratic behemoth.

[yardwork]

36. Actually, in many states Medicaid pays for some abortions.

[Hoof Hearted]

37. YES - because there should be single-payer universal healthcare

for ALL healthcare needs that are not purely cosmetic.

[sakura]

39. If there is a single-payer, presumably the government, then the answer is yes.

The decision to have an abortion isn't an easy one, and it should be one that is left to the doctor and the patient. Lumping it in with elective procedures such as a nose job or face lift is ridiculous-- in most cases (barring reconstructive surgery due to birth defect or an accident) those procedures are truly optional. In contrast, a woman deciding on an abortion needs one. It's too traumatic an experience to be anything but medically necessary-- whether for physical or emotional reasons. To insert one's personal opinion about whether or not people should be having them is as relevant as opining about the need for amputation. Having said that, the insurer should also be making sure that other possibilities are explored-- like making sure patients have access to accurate information about birth control, providing coverage for birth control and medical procedures such as vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc. Just because the insurer (or the government) covers it doesn't mean it is promoting it, any more than it's promoting open-heart surgery or antibiotics. In every case, the doctor and patient are making the decision that it's the best medical option for the patient. Period.

edited for clarity

[sourmilk]

42. Perhaps you should phrase your question a little more clearly?

If you are asking if the government should pay for a woman's right to choose an abortion, the answer is obviously NO.

If you are asking if the government should be considering making it a constitutional right to have an abortion, the answer is NO AGAIN. Women have THE LEGAL RIGHT to abortion since Rowe v. Wade, but it is not, as far as I know, enshrined in the Constitution.

[Yupster]

45. Roe versus Wade

said the right to an abortion was indeed within the Constitution. That's what the Supreme Court decided. They said abortion is a Constitutional right.

The explanation of where it could be found was pretty interesting. They mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment, and also they mentioned a penumbra, a shadow which surrounded the Bill of Rights.

As an old history teacher, the 14th Amendment idea is pretty commical.

After the Civil War, three amendments were passed to the Constitution.

The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves.
The Fourteenth Amendment made the freed slaves citizens of the state they resided in.
The Fifteenth Amendment gave freed male adult slaves the right to vote.

The idea that the Fourteenth Amendment has anything to do with abortion is just nonsensical on its face.

I don't know enough about law to say whether penumbras of rights buried within other rights makes any sense or not.

Personally, I think the laws on abortion should be made by legislators, either Congress or state legislatures.

It is clear to me that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution one way or the other.

[sourmilk]

46. Thanks - pretty starange and interesting stuff...

I knew it was LEGAL - but a Constitutional right? WOW.

I think that abortion law should be federal law, not up to individual states, myself...

[Midwestern Democrat]

43. NO. n/t

[Marrah_G]

44. This is like a question one would hear on Rush

[Blue_Roses]

57. first of all,

I don't listen to Rush. Secondly, the question stems from a conversation with a fundie relative. I worked as a counselor in a pregnancy termination clinic for 3 years and many fundies use this as a wedge, believing that tax dollars go towards having abortions. We know it's a lie, but nevertheless, it's still out there.

There is nothing wrong with my question and I resent you assimilating this to fucking Rush Limpball, but then I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering...:eyes:

[Marrah_G]

59. Actually........

..since it stems from a conversation with a fundie relative then it absolutely makes sense and the comment I made abut Rush was spot on.

Reading back, I can see where it looks like I was calling you a conservative. My point was that Rush and his kind constantly use that same argument. They use that same question to try and bludgeon the pro-choice side.

My apologies if I offended.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. IMHO: Yes, but it could be a problem when trying to get single payer.

The RWers would use this issue to turn public opinion against it and hold it up in Congress.

It sucks to say that but I'm thinking practically.

[JoFerret]

51. With a universal single payer system

yes.

[GoldieAZ49]

60. No nt

[noonwitch]

61. Medicaid in Michigan covered it until around 1990

It got put on the ballot and the voters rejected it.

[Straight Shooter]

72. I would rather pay for it with tax $$$ than a woman have to wait while she saved to pay for it.

Much better to have the abortion sooner in the gestational period than later. That's just my non-medical opinion. The less developed the fetus is, I would hope the less complicated the procedure would be. I also think it would be better for the woman's emotional health not to delay abortion, which for many is a tormenting decision as it is. Again, just my non-professional opinion.

[Breeze54]

75. They pay for Viagra but not BC... so, YES, abortions should be covered!!!

It's still legal and will remain so!