About This Blog
Let me start out today by stating the facts. Abortion is legal in this nation. The abomination known as the Hyde Amendment currently prevents government money from being used to pay directly for abortions.
These two facts are now clashing with each other in health care reform negotiations. Here's a few tastes...
ABC's Jake Tapper reports....
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, an abortion opponent, said later that "no matter what your views are on abortion, you shouldn't ask people to use their tax dollars if they think that abortion is taking a life — to use their tax dollars for those purpose — for that purpose…."
A group of conservative Democrats led by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) has proposed a compromise that would neither require nor forbid private insurers to cover the procedure as long as no federal funding is used; another group of Democrats and Republicans held a news conference Wednesday to call for an explicit ban on funding.
In their proposal to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Ryan and four other Democrats say that allowing insurers to chart their own abortion policies as long as taxpayer money isn't used for the procedures represents "a common ground solution" that effectively maintains current law on abortion funding.
Backers say the bill has been carefully scrubbed for months to remove policies that might alienate either side, such as financial support for the morning-after pill.
But Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said Wednesday that the bill would effectively subsidize abortion providers by increasing funding for family-planning services and would "further encourage promiscuous sex."
Congress should add a provision to the legislation to permanently exclude abortion from taxpayer-funded health care or health insurance.
How many angels can dance on the end of a pin? Let's count a few....
If radical anti-abortion groups, like Perkins', had their way, all reproductive services (contraception, morning after pills, as well as abortions) would never be paid for with "taxpayer dollars." Tony Perkins tells us all we need to know about the radical nature of the anti-abortion movement in this country. The movement is first and foremost an anti-sex movement....."further encourage promiscuous sex."
If the anti-abortion radicals, those who regard an abortion doctor's assassin as a patriotic hero who was simply following his god-inspired conscience,.....if those anti-abortion forces have their way in the health reform "debate", women everywhere in America will see abortion and reproductive services curtailed.
Obama's basic plan will include an "exchange" where private health policies, as well as a public policy, will be offered to those Americans who do not have coverage from an employer. In addition, those Americans who cannot afford a plan from this exchange will be provided a government subsidy to pay for the plan chosen from the exchange.
The extremists would prohibit any health policy in that exchange from covering the cost of an abortion. You see, tax dollars would be used to pay for an insurance policy that covered the cost of abortion. Not the abortion itself.....but the insurance policy. Even this, the radicals cannot tolerate.
However, setting the radical anti-abortion groups wishes aside for a moment......just how ridiculous is the "argument" that no tax dollars should ever be used to fund an abortion?
In my opinion, pretty ridiculous.
As of 2006, there were 14.6 million government employees. Where does the money come from to pay these employees? From tax dollars. Should those millions be excluded from paying for an abortion with the tax dollars they are paid? Should those employees simply get the money necessary for an abortion from their friends or family members who don't receive their paychecks from tax dollars? Shouldn't a federal employee who opts for an abortion have to demonstrate that the money used for that abortion came from a source other than their federal employer? If not, why not?
For those who would pre-emptively argue that federal employees have earned those tax dollars by, you know, working.....and are, therefore, entitled to do what they wish with their own money......wouldn't the money, in my hypothetical, still originate from tax dollars? And wouldn't that fact deeply disturb the oh-so-sensitive, god-like consciences of the radical anti-abortionists?
In the midst of the totally insane town hall buster-uppers, the gun toters, the vile hand held signs, the Nazi-Obama equivalencies, the socialist stupidities, the death threats.....American women are in danger of having their legal reproductive freedoms further limited by the same forces who today justify assassinating abortion doctors, the same forces who would also prohibit tax dollars from being used to pay for contraception because that would encourage "promiscuity."
The folks working to limit women's legal reproductive options will stop at nothing. They are radicals, extremists. Their "conscientous rights", for some incomprehensible reason, they believe, must be guarded by all costs and means. Not, mind you, because any of these radicals have, or will, ever be forced to have an abortion themselves......they are just so easily offended if someone else does.