• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Remember when Obama said his healthcare bill would not fund abortions? My how things change



Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law


The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."

"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention," Johnson said.

The abortion funding comes despite language in the bill that some pro-abortion Democrats and Obama himself claimed would prevent abortion funding and despite a controversial executive order Obama signed supposedly stopping abortion funding.
 
Last edited:

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is a states-rights issue, not a federal issue.

The government didn't tell the state of Pennsylvania how to establish their high-rish pool, and as far as I've been able to determine there's nothing in the health care law that forbids any state from establish their high-risk pools how they wish or stipulates that such pools would be denied funds if their high-risk pool funded abortions, in whole or in part.

The issue obviously is states will receive federal dollars to help setup their high-risk pools and some will likely partially fund abortions, but you have to remember that the argument against government funding of abortions was direct government funding, i.e., an individual purchases insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange and has an abortion using government subsidies. I know...it's essentially the same thing, but it's a matter of paying funds to individuals, public or private entities to partically pay for abortions on the government's dime OR giving funds to states who make their own laws yet denying them funding because their laws allow abortions.

State's rights...you argued for them to exist but hate them when they don't work in your political favor. It's twisted, I know...but...?
 
Last edited:

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a states-rights issue, not a federal issue.

The government didn't tell the state of Pennsylvania how to establish their high-rish pool, and as far as I've been able to determine there's nothing in the health care law that directs any state how to establish their high-risk pools nor stipulates that such pools would be denied funds if their high-risk pool funded abortions, in whole or in part.

The issue obviously is states will receive federal dollars to help setup their high-risk pools, but you have to remember that the argument against government funding of abortions was direct government funding, i.e., an individual purchases insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange and has an abortion using government subsidies. I know...it's essentially the same thing, but it's a matter of paying funds to individuals, public or private entities to partically pay for abortions on the government's dime OR giving funds to states who make their own laws yet denying them funding because their laws allow abortions.

State's rights...you argued for them to exist but hate them when they don't work in your political favor. It's twisted, I know...but...?
Read the OP Obama is approving the fed money being used for abortion. Obama when promoting healthcare said this would not happen. Another lie that shows Obama has no integrity or morals
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Instead of explaining it to you, I think you should read the commentary below.

FactCheck.org commentary concerning federal funding on abortions before health care legistlation was passed:

Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"?

President Obama said Wednesday (approx 8/19/09) that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."
PolitiFact.org commentary concerning federal funding on abortions when health care legistlation was eventually passed:

The Senate language on abortion, written by an abortion opponent, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., would allow companies in the exchange to offer abortion services, even to people who get federal subsidies. But Nelson inserted measures to ensure abortion services would be paid through patient premiums, not federal subsidies. In order to accomplish that, the Senate bill requires that anyone who selects a plan that covers abortion must pay $1 a month toward a segregated fund that would pay for abortion services. One plan in every state exchange must offer coverage that does not include abortions, so there would be an option for those who morally object to $1 of their premiums going toward abortion services. Legislators supporting the bill -- along with President Obama -- insist that segregation of funds stays true to the Hyde Amendment restriction on federal funds for abortions.

The Senate bill states very clearly that public funding through tax credits and government subsidies for elective abortion services offered in the exchange is prohibited. But more than that, the bill sets up a mechanism to ensure that abortion services offered in the exchange are paid entirely from patient premiums, premiums paid by people who have chosen a private plan that covers abortion. The executive order puts the weight of the president's word behind providing a way to ensure two checks go to insurers every month, so that abortion dollars and federal dollars are not commingled.
Again, I agree the latter is splitting very thin hairs, but there is a difference between purchasing health insurance on the Exchange (when established), purchasing same using government subsidies and purchasing same via the state sponsored high-risk pool where you reside. It's up to the states to determine what policies will come under their high-risk programs, but according to the PolitiFact commentary as long as states establish said HSPs as outlined therein, individuals can purchase whatever health care plan through them as they wish.

Again, state's rights...can't have it both ways here, big fella.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Instead of explaining it to you, I think you should read the commentary below.

FactCheck.org commentary concerning federal funding on abortions before health care legistlation was passed:



PolitiFact.org commentary concerning federal funding on abortions when health care legistlation was eventually passed:



Again, I agree the latter is splitting very thin hairs, but there is a difference between purchasing health insurance on the Exchange (when established), purchasing same using government subsidies and purchasing same via the state sponsored high-risk pool where you reside. It's up to the states to determine what policies will come under their high-risk programs, but according to the PolitiFact commentary as long as states establish said HSPs as outlined therein, individuals can purchase whatever health care plan through them as they wish.

Again, state's rights...can't have it both ways here, big fella.
So Obama lied and made sure there was a loophole to further his agenda of federal funded abortions
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, initiallly, he did...sorta.

Abortions that would have come under the "public option" would have been covered provided that they meet the same criteria as those that would have been approved under Medicaid per the Hyde Amendment. However, as we all know the public option was removed from the final health care reform legistlation.

What eventually was approved was the concession as outlined in the PolitiFact commentary. Specifically, if you read Section 265 of HR 3962, it makes clear that only abortions that meet certain guidelines will be paid for using government funds (the Hyde Amendment again).

Section 265 - Limitation on Abortion Funding

(a) In General - No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(b) Option to Purchase Separate Supplemental Converage or Plan - Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any non-federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, as long as:

(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and,
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using:


(A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(B) other non-federal funds required to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(c) Option to Offer Separate Supplemental Coverage or Plan - Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any non-federal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, as long as:

(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act
;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and,
(3) any non-federal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health beneftis plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.
Since high-risk pools are established by each state, they make the deterination as to what health care plan will come under their high-risk pools and eventually their state-sponsored Health Insurance Exchange, and must comply with the requirements as outlined above using non-federal funds to authorize abortions. Therefore, it stands to reason that any state-sponsored health care program whether a high-risk pool or Health Insurance Exchange would follow the same guidelines as outlined in the PolitiFact commentary where each individual participant contributions $1 toward a fund which the state controls to pay for abortions for clients in their state who accept health care plans that allow for abortions.

Again, state's rights...

Case closed.
 
Last edited:

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well, initiallly, he did...sorta.

Abortions that would have come under the "public option" would have been covered provided that they meet the same criteria as those that would have been approved under Medicaid per the Hyde Amendment. However, as we all know the public option was removed from the final health care reform legistlation.

What eventually was approved was the concession as outlined in the PolitiFact commentary. Specifically, if you read Section 265 of HR 3962, it makes clear that only abortions that meet certain guidelines will be paid for using government funds (the Hyde Amendment again).

Section 265 - Limitation on Abortion Funding



Since high-risk pools are established by each state, they make the deterination as to what health care plan will come under their high-risk pools and eventually their state-sponsored Health Insurance Exchange, and must comply with the requirements as outlined above using non-federal funds to authorize abortions. Therefore, it stands to reason that any state-sponsored health care program whether a high-risk pool or Health Insurance Exchange would follow the same guidelines as outlined in the PolitiFact commentary where each individual participant contributions $1 toward a fund which the state controls to pay for abortions for clients in their state who accept health care plans that allow for abortions.

Again, state's rights...

Case closed.
More justifications for Obama lies. He decieved the public and left a loophole to move forward his liberal pro abortion agenda
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,195
Reaction score
32,355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
More justifications for Obama lies. He decieved the public and left a loophole to move forward his liberal pro abortion agenda
It's not federally funded abortion. The money that pays for abortions comes from the individuals paying an extra dollar for the plan specifically for abortions.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's not federally funded abortion. The money that pays for abortions comes from the individuals paying an extra dollar for the plan specifically for abortions.
Got a link to back that up?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,195
Reaction score
32,355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Got a link to back that up?
The bill itself. If individuals want to get a plan that covers abortion (and gets federal funding), they must pay an extra $1 per month that goes in a seperate pool to cover abortions.

Also, possibly related.

http://www.facebook.com/aclu.nationwide
ACLU Nationwide BREAKING: Obama shockingly adds abortion coverage ban to new insurance pools for women with pre-existing conditions. More soon.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The bill itself. If individuals want to get a plan that covers abortion (and gets federal funding), they must pay an extra $1 per month that goes in a seperate pool to cover abortions.

Without a link, all I have is your word for it...... and I won't read a 2000 page bill, quote the part that backs you up.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
More justifications for Obama lies. He decieved the public and left a loophole to move forward his liberal pro abortion agenda
How is it justifying a "lie" when not only did I provided you with commentary on the matter from before and after health care legistlation was passed, but also when I provided that section of the legistlation that clearly states "no federal funding or subsidies will be used to cover abortions either at the federal level or the state level except in those cases where by law they are covered where the health of the pregnant mother is concerned?


Got a link to back that up?
Without a link, all I have is your word for it...... and I won't read a 2000 page bill, quote the part that backs you up.
Oh, Crunchie...stop jumping in all half-cocked trying to play partisian. You don't need to read the legistlation (although it would help education you if you did). Just read my posts (#4 and #6) for the exact content on this matter word for word. Not editted, no paraphrasing...just the the law. (You should be tired of getting hit over the head with it, man! :smash: LOL)
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,195
Reaction score
32,355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's not federally funded abortion. The money that pays for abortions comes from the individuals paying an extra dollar for the plan specifically for abortions.
The abortions will be paid with the fund set up with frderal funds
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
From the article

The language in the Pennsylvania solicitation for that plan, however, seemed to suggest abortions could be covered.

While the solicitation said that “elective abortions are not covered,” it also stated the plan would include “only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements” of a number of Pennsylvania statutes -- including one stating that abortions can be provided by physicians who determine in “his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary ... in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.”

To Johnson, that suggested that “federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection. The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama administration has now approved this."
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Remember when Obama said his healthcare bill would not fund abortions? My how things change



Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law


The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."

"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention," Johnson said.

The abortion funding comes despite language in the bill that some pro-abortion Democrats and Obama himself claimed would prevent abortion funding and despite a controversial executive order Obama signed supposedly stopping abortion funding.
Just curious, why would we not want to fund a legal medical procedure?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just curious, why would we not want to fund a legal medical procedure?
Because there is a law set in place that prohibits tax dollars from paying for abortions. Not only that, but because Obama promised that in his bill there would be no tax payer funded abortions. He even called that rhetoric a lie yet is so bold as to prove them true. Not only that, but abortion in 99% of cases is not a medically necessary procedure. Should we be paying for everyone to have cosmetic surgery?
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just curious, why would we not want to fund a legal medical procedure?
Some consider it to be the legal killing of innocent unborn human beings and want no part of it.
The majority of Americans, including some who are pro-choice do not want to fund abortions. There was something in place (the Hyde amendment?) that has prevented it in the past. Now I guess that's out the window? and now we will be funding them? Obama lied again.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I want to correct a reference I made in post #6.

HR. 3962 isn't the full and final health care reform legistlation approved by Congress and signed by the President, and DOES NOT contain language concerning abortions. What I quoted in post #6 was from a copy I had on file of what was presented online as the final health care legistlation that was before the Senate prior to the bill going back to the House for final ratification and reconsiliation. The full health care reform legistlation that was actually ratified by Congress and signed by the President was done in three parts:

(Note: Links to each bill in their final form as posted on GovTrack.gov are provided below.)

H.R. 3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
H.R. 3962 - Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010
H.R. 4872 - Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010

H.R. 3590 is that portion of health care reform legistlation that actually covers the issue of funding for abortions at either the state or federal levels, towit:

Under Sec. 1303 - Special Rules:

Subparagraph (1)(a)(B)Abortion Services -
(i)Abortions for which public funding is PROHIBITED - The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(ii)Abortions for which public funding is ALLOWED - The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
Subparagraph (C) under the same section, "PROHIBITION on Federal Funds for Abortion Services in Community Health Insurance Option":

(i) Determination by Secretary - The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary --

(I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2);
(II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and
(III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United states does not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option's coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
And now to that portion of Section 1303 that clarifies this issue from the state's level:

Subparagraph (C):

(ii) STATE REQUIREMENT - If a State requires, in addition to the essential health benefits required under section 1323(b)(3)(A), coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a community health insurance option offered in such State, the State shall assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other federal funds, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for a State's required coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).

(iii) EXCEPTIONS - Nothing in this subparagraph shall apply to coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) by the community health insurance option. Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be covered to the same extent as such services are covered under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
Now, as far as high-risk pools are concerned, you have to review Section 1101 - "Immediate Access to Insurance for Uninsured Individuals w/a Pre-Existing Condition". Subparagraph (b)(2)(A) details that only a State or non-profit private entity can take part in high-risk pools. And as I've just outlined above, no State will be given Federal funds to cover abortions.

I don't think it can be any clearer on the matter of abortions, folks. Unless it is an abortion situation that is covered by another law, no Federal funding under health care reform legistlation will be used to pay the cost of an abortion at either the State or Federal level.

Again, state's rights...

This is a non-issue, folks that has :spin: written all over it.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,195
Reaction score
32,355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some consider it to be the legal killing of innocent unborn human beings and want no part of it.
The majority of Americans, including some who are pro-choice do not want to fund abortions. There was something in place (the Hyde amendment?) that has prevented it in the past. Now I guess that's out the window? and now we will be funding them? Obama lied again.
No, he didn't, this whole idiocy spawns from a deliberate misrepresentation of the law being put forth by conservative partisan hacks in an effort to spin public opinion against the bill. It's ****ing despicable how many times the GOP and its lackeys have straight up lied about this bill. See Objective Voice's quotes from the bill. In addition to the Hyde amendment, which is still in effect by the way, this bill spells out in straight up black and white that no federal funding can be used for abortion procedures. If a state wishes to decide to cover abortions, that state must take steps to ensure that all funds used for abortions are separated from federal funding completely. Literally every single dollar spent on an abortion will come from the patient or the state. Period.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
But we're not talking about breast implants or other elective surgeries such as plastic surgery. We're talking about abortions. Stick to the topic.

BTW, I know at one point certain cosmetic procedures such as those for children born with clifted lips was to be covered under health care reform legistlation. Are you saying you wouldn't be in favor of plastic surgery for children born with this birth defect even though such surgery has proven beneficial for the child's overall health?

My point: If we're going to discuss "elective surgical procedures" let's atleast discuss those that are relevent.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But we're not talking about breast implants or other elective surgeries such as plastic surgery. We're talking about abortions. Stick to the topic.

BTW, I know at one point certain cosmetic procedures such as those for children born with clifted lips was to be covered under health care reform legistlation. Are you saying you wouldn't be in favor of plastic surgery for children born with this birth defect even though such surgery has proven beneficial for the child's overall health?

My point: If we're going to discuss "elective surgical procedures" let's atleast discuss those that are relevent.
92% of Women Cite "Social" or "Other" Reasons
New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions

By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.



Why do women have abortions? For over 15 years, those asking that question have had to rely on a 1987 study that some were concerned might have become outdated in light of the declining number of abortions and shifting abortion demographics.



Now a new study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood's special research affiliate, brings our understanding of women's abortion decisions up to date. While showing that women's basic reasons have largely remained the same, the study presents some compelling new data that those reaching out to abortion-prone women will want to consider.



A couple of conclusions are very apparent from this data. First, those who wish to use the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, life of the mother, and genetic disability to argue for the necessity of abortion on demand will continue to find it difficult to make that case based on the reasons women offer for their abortions. Ninety-two percent cited what might be termed "social" or "other" reasons, rather than medical reasons or sexual assault, as the primary basis for their abortions.



And those who cited medical reasons often appear to have been stating their own opinions (fear that drug or alcohol use may have harmed the baby, inability to handle morning sickness, etc.) rather than reporting any formal diagnosis by a doctor. Less than a percent each of women even mentioned rape or incest as a factor in their abortions at all.
New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions

:roll:
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
But we're not talking about breast implants or other elective surgeries such as plastic surgery. We're talking about abortions. Stick to the topic.

BTW, I know at one point certain cosmetic procedures such as those for children born with clifted lips was to be covered under health care reform legistlation. Are you saying you wouldn't be in favor of plastic surgery for children born with this birth defect even though such surgery has proven beneficial for the child's overall health?

My point: If we're going to discuss "elective surgical procedures" let's atleast discuss those that are relevent.
I am elective abortions should not be allowed just like elective plastic surgery should not be allowed
 
Top Bottom