Reproductive Care

[crossride]

Why is it that the normal "conservative" and "liberal" tendencies seems to be reversed when this issue is the topic? Suddenly the conservatives want to control the people, and the liberals want to let the people make their own decisions. I know, quite the generalization, but I was just wondering...

[saunterelle]

Crossride, they think that because they don't ethically agree with something (that is completely legal BTW) their tax dollars shouldn't have to pay for it. I didn't agree with the Iraq war but I never argued that my tax dollars shouldn't help foot the bill.

[ferrous]

Crossride: This thread was not started to discuss the merits of abortion but to shine a light on part of Obama's Health Care plan that would put certain Health Care Providers at odds with their own beliefs.

If passed, there is a probable clause in it that might withhold funding to Catholic Hospitals or worse might even dictate that these hospitals provide government mandated Reproductive care to patients asking for the procedures.

Although Saunterelle mocked me at my source, I was careful to only quote Sen. Obama’s quoted wording.

On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama pledged to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion mandates would be included in his health care reform proposals, saying that "in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose." Under his plan, he said, "insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care ...that's going to be absolutely vital."

Here’s another source that verifies his Obama’s stance on Reproductive Care:

www.plannedparenthoodnj.org/news/articles/20090520_GOPgearsup

In this article from the New Jersey Planned Parenthood the heart of this thread is exposed:

Inside Health Reform
May 20, 2009
Julian Pecquet

House Republican leaders have sent a letter to President Barack Obama calling for restrictions on abortion services, in what some see as the opening salvo of a battle over abortion within the health reform debate. Democrats' calls for a public plan and for individual and employee mandates have sparked fears that the government will mandate abortion coverage as a condition for insurance plans, a pro-life advocate says.

The battle over abortion became a major issue during the 1993-94 Clinton-care debate and was one of several factors that helped doom the reform effort then. And the issue's enduring potential for divisiveness was on full display over the weekend when Obama addressed the graduating class at the Catholic Notre Dame University, where the president called for "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words" on both sides of the debate but acknowledged that "at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

The GOP letter calls for a discussion on "areas of potential common ground on health care reform" and largely consists of mostly vague and politically charged language critical of "rationing care" and "empowering government bureaucrats at the expense of patients and doctors." But a paragraph on abortion stands out because of its level of detail and the fact that this hasn't been a central issue to date in the health reform debate.

"We also believe," the May 13 letter states, "these goals can be accomplished through health reform that maintains current law provisions regarding restrictions on federal funding of abortion services, restricts federal funds from flowing to abortion providers, and does not impose mandates either on insurance carriers or medical providers to participate in activities that violate their religious and moral beliefs."

A House Republican aide tells Inside Health Policy that "as the health care discussions continue, there is a likelihood the majority might try to legislatively mandate treatments through health care reform. Health care providers shouldn't be forced to perform any practice they are morally against."

Douglas Johnson, federal legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said his group was "happy to see the Republican leadership lay down a marker." He said the Democratic-led Congress' tight timeline for health reform all but guarantees that the fight over abortion "is going to ramp up quickly" as Democrats get closer to unveiling legislative language.

"They can only pass this through stealth, speed and subterfuge," Johnson said. "We might as well do what we can to make it difficult for them."

Johnson said his group was particularly worried about proposals for a public plan and for individual and employee mandates, because these could lead the federal government to administer an abortion plan or mandate abortion coverage as a condition for insurance plans to participate in a health insurance exchange. His group has called for "pro-life Americans" to "vigorously oppose" any "federal health care reform legislation that does not explicitly exclude abortion from the scope of any government-defined or government-mandated package of health care services."

Johnson pointed out that Medicaid paid for 300,000 abortions a year in the first three years after the Roe v. Wade decision before the Hyde amendment (which bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's life) reduced it to about 300 a year.

But that flies in the face of what pro-choice groups such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America want. In a "wish list" signed by PPFA and more than 60 other pro-choice organizations and submitted to the Obama transition team in November, the groups, according to a document quoted in the NRLC's newsletter, called for the president to "put forward a health care reform plan that guarantees access to comprehensive, high-quality, affordable health care for all... Comprehensive benefits must include access to the full range of reproductive health services, including contraception, maternity care, and abortion care."

Appearing before the annual conference of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, then-Sen. Obama said "in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose."

Planned Parenthood did not return several calls for comment by press time.

Also according to the NRLC, Columbia University's school of public health recently issued a report calling for the inclusion of abortion in a national health care system, arguing that existing federal and state laws prohibiting the use of public funds for abortions spills over into the private sector, with four states prohibiting private insurance from covering most abortions and 11 states restrict or prohibit abortion coverage under policies sold to public employees. The report is endorsed by 38 deans of university public health schools.

"A new national health care plan should provide the full range of family planning services, medications and devices," the report says, "and assure confidentiality so that women seek needed care in a timely way."

One health policy consultant suggested that the abortion issue could be used to undermine other aspects of health reform that some groups dislike. "I guess they're trying to appeal to their base with the abortion stuff," the consultant told Inside Health Policy. "If you're trying to oppose something, you try different strategies to see what sticks and that has not come up before (in the health reform debate)."

Although it hasn't taken center stage, the issue of abortion has already come up in the context of health reform. Obama's choice of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to head HHS. Sebelius' nomination was opposed by key GOP members who were upset she accepted funding from an abortion provider.

HHS has also announced its intention to rescind a Bush administration regulation that allowed providers to refuse abortion services. Critics of the Bush regulation argued that the policy was written too broadly and that providers are already allowed exemptions from providing services to which they object on moral grounds. At Notre Dame, Obama spoke for the first time of the need for a "sensible conscience clause."

Obama has also eliminated the Bush-era restriction on giving aid to international groups that provide abortions, and eased restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

The abortion issue is currently gaining greater traction because of a combination of factors, including Obama's need to choose a replacement to retiring Justice David Souter from the Supreme Court; the defection of pro-choice Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) to the Democratic Party; and Obama's address Sunday (May 17) at Notre Dame University, during which 38 protesters were reportedly arrested on campus, mostly for trespassing.

And a new Gallup poll, conducted May 7-10, finds that more Americans -- 51 percent -- consider themselves "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice" (42 percent), adding weight to the argument that the fight over abortion still resonates.

"The poll marks the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995," according to Gallup, and the findings "represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002."

_______________________

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963). The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

Obama’s Plan: “Under his plan, he said, "insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care ...that's going to be absolutely vital."

Would this be a case of Congress passing a law that would that would deny groups their rights of “Free Exercise” or do they have “Compelling Interest” to deny these rights?
_____________________

Hopefully this thread can be discussed without the now ever present scene of name calling… As for my own personal stance on abortion, I believe it is sometimes necessary in case of rape, incest, when the “Potential Child” is severely deformed, or it posses a serious threat to the mother’s health.

I do not support abortions as an on demand, convenient form of birth control. Or a government run program where “they” might decide whether the mothers are; “unable and unwilling to care for potential children.”

[capttankona]

Aug 21, 2009 11:36:39 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Perhaps never moral for you (or Sarah Palin) but the rest of us logical folks can see that the potential human (cluster of cells) feels no pain and has no conscience. It is not "killing children" as you love to claim.

Well, I beg to differ. Morality is based in religion, not logic. It is never moral to flush human life down the toilet, just because it is incovnient for the woman to carry the child to term. You may believe it is, but you are not a moral person. You don't even believe in the Great Maker, the Creator or any Deity. By your code, whatever I desire is not a sin.

[capttankona]

Aug 21, 2009 16:02:46 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Crossride, they think that because they don't ethically agree with something (that is completely legal BTW) their tax dollars shouldn't have to pay for it. I didn't agree with the Iraq war but I never argued that my tax dollars shouldn't help foot the bill.

Actually, your comparison is way off base. It is the responsiblity of all citizens to pay their taxes to this country. Guess what, it is the responsibility of this country to maintain and provide for the military, specifically, as the Constitution states.

However, there is not a Constitutional clause that says I must pay for anyones medical bills for any reason. I find abortion immoral and I will not put in one dime to fund it. And, I will sue this country if they attempt to make me, since this country does not have Constitutional authority to mandate health coverage or a tax to pay for it.

[saunterelle]

Aug 26, 2009 16:23:59 GMT -5 capttankona said:

Aug 21, 2009 11:36:39 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Perhaps never moral for you (or Sarah Palin) but the rest of us logical folks can see that the potential human (cluster of cells) feels no pain and has no conscience. It is not "killing children" as you love to claim.

Well, I beg to differ. Morality is based in religion, not logic. It is never moral to flush human life down the toilet, just because it is incovnient for the woman to carry the child to term. You may believe it is, but you are not a moral person. You don't even believe in the Great Maker, the Creator or any Deity. By your code, whatever I desire is not a sin.

Morality is based on your community: Parents, neighbors, friends, etc. Not "religion." Religion is twisted all the time to fit people's moral agenda. People can get along just fine without religion being a part of their lives.

[saunterelle]

Aug 26, 2009 16:31:51 GMT -5 capttankona said:

Aug 21, 2009 16:02:46 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Crossride, they think that because they don't ethically agree with something (that is completely legal BTW) their tax dollars shouldn't have to pay for it. I didn't agree with the Iraq war but I never argued that my tax dollars shouldn't help foot the bill.

Actually, your comparison is way off base. It is the responsiblity of all citizens to pay their taxes to this country. Guess what, it is the responsibility of this country to maintain and provide for the military, specifically, as the Constitution states.

However, there is not a Constitutional clause that says I must pay for anyones medical bills for any reason. I find abortion immoral and I will not put in one dime to fund it. And, I will sue this country if they attempt to make me, since this country does not have Constitutional authority to mandate health coverage or a tax to pay for it.

So, according to you, it's perfectly fine to spend our tax dollars bombing the hell out of a country who did nothing to us but providing medical care for our people is out of the question. Your thinking is seriously warped.

[capttankona]

Aug 27, 2009 13:15:39 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Aug 26, 2009 16:31:51 GMT -5 capttankona said:

Actually, your comparison is way off base. It is the responsiblity of all citizens to pay their taxes to this country. Guess what, it is the responsibility of this country to maintain and provide for the military, specifically, as the Constitution states.

However, there is not a Constitutional clause that says I must pay for anyones medical bills for any reason. I find abortion immoral and I will not put in one dime to fund it. And, I will sue this country if they attempt to make me, since this country does not have Constitutional authority to mandate health coverage or a tax to pay for it.

So, according to you, it's perfectly fine to spend our tax dollars bombing the hell out of a country who did nothing to us but providing medical care for our people is out of the question. Your thinking is seriously warped.

No, that is not what I said. When you decide to grow up and actually engage in a truthful conversation, perhaps we can discuss it. But, since you only advance your BDS every time you post, there is nothing to discuss.

Perhaps it is time for you to seriously consider moving out of this country, since you hate the founders and their document to restrain the federal government so much. Because your twisted thinking is that I should pay for what ever the Congress deems necessary, even when there is not a single law or Constitutional provision to give them the authority to do so.

But, continue to make shit up, it is your credibility that is damaged, not mine.

[capttankona]

Aug 27, 2009 13:08:21 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Aug 26, 2009 16:23:59 GMT -5 capttankona said:

Well, I beg to differ. Morality is based in religion, not logic. It is never moral to flush human life down the toilet, just because it is incovnient for the woman to carry the child to term. You may believe it is, but you are not a moral person. You don't even believe in the Great Maker, the Creator or any Deity. By your code, whatever I desire is not a sin.

Morality is based on your community: Parents, neighbors, friends, etc. Not "religion." Religion is twisted all the time to fit people's moral agenda. People can get along just fine without religion being a part of their lives.

Wrong. Morality is based on religion, though shalt not kill, honor thy mother and father, etc.

[saunterelle]

Aug 27, 2009 18:38:13 GMT -5 capttankona said:

Aug 27, 2009 13:08:21 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Morality is based on your community: Parents, neighbors, friends, etc. Not "religion." Religion is twisted all the time to fit people's moral agenda. People can get along just fine without religion being a part of their lives.

Wrong. Morality is based on religion, though shalt not kill, honor thy mother and father, etc.

Those are givens in our society. And why is it that bible thumpers are the first to want to execute prisoners when their book says "thou shalt not kill?"

[ferrous]

Moral codes are based in Societal needs rather than being limited to isolated communities'

In a religious societies, morality is viewed as a God-given understanding embedded in human nature, recognized by human reason, and valid for all members for all times.

(That is why there are laws to prevent groups from dictating their own moral beliefs while violating societal law... That is why Warren Jeffs was put away for a very long time.)

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-24-polygamist-trial_N.htm

In a society based in scientific values, prospective logic would make moral decisions based on the logical outcomes from of the decisions available.

Can anyone explain what moral decision (either religious or scientific) would justify the killing of millions of viable, defenseless "potential children" to save some women the inconvenience of owning up to their own responsibilities?

[capttankona]

Aug 27, 2009 18:43:04 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Aug 27, 2009 18:38:13 GMT -5 capttankona said:

Wrong. Morality is based on religion, though shalt not kill, honor thy mother and father, etc.

Those are givens in our society. And why is it that bible thumpers are the first to want to execute prisoners when their book says "thou shalt not kill?"

My, you are so ignorant. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Or, "Whoever takes a man's life, by man will his life be taken; because God made man in his image." Or, if you don't cotton with that, "And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah."

The bible is replet with with examples of punishment by death for murder. So don't feed me one line of crap and call it a meal. You simply are to simple minded to pull the wool over anyones eyes on this board, except Mink perhaps. But she is a willing subject and does not have the heart of a free woman.