As anyone who's been watching the news knows, US Health Care reform has taken front and center on the political stage. At Saturday as of this posting the House managed to get something through, but with one humongous caveat: The Stupak Amerndment, which states that state cash will neither fund abortion procedures nor reimburse any other companies for covering it. I'm personally holding my words until the Senate gets their plan in motion and something starts to solidify in all the proceedings going on, but what do you guys think?
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:25 pm
While I'm against abortion as an alternative, I do think it should be covered. While the government has many excuses at its disposal, many of them have holes and aren't really all that convincing.
Aside from the obvious religious connotations, I think the reasons to be used for excusing this is that abortion is not an emergency procedure, a doctor's order isn't needed and that it is generally seen as a matter of convenience rather than medical necessity (Abortion is usually only tolerated when the mother is in a life-or-death situation). These are the three common factors in everything covered in Health Care Plans.
I would prefer if they only covered life-saving abortions, but convenience abortions should be paid for out of pocket. Similarly, plastic surgery to correct disfiguring accidents or birth defects should be covered, but not plastic surgery because you want your nose to look like Marilyn Monroe's.
This way, people are paying taxes for life-saving measures, and we can pretty much agree that life-saving measures are important to cover.
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:59 pm
I agree with Oni. Emergency, life-saving abortions should be covered by healthcare plans. I would think that the Stupak doesn't include those since I don't know of anyone on either side who is against life-saving abortions.
The thing is, the government is full of religious people who wouldn't budge an inch towards abortion, no matter the situation. It's also full of people looking for the religious vote and support, so they do the same thing. It's pretty damn hard to get a foot down on abortion-related matters.
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:04 pm
Almost everyone who would have an abortion of convenience can already afford it without insurance. It's not prohibitively expensive.
It's a catch 22 and a bad argument, because most people pay for their own abortion already (I think less than 15% use insurance atm?).
The problem is any legislation against abortion is, in many peoples minds including mine, opening the door for even more legislation against abortion.