Obamacare will cover abortions for $1 premiums

The Obama administration has figured out how to let Obamacare cover abortions despite the Hyde Amendment. (P.S.: Why doesn’t the Hyde Amendment prevent government funding for abortion pills, as in the insurance mandate?)   Health Insurance companies will have to offer abortions as a premium service for which the insured will have to pay extra.  But the extra fee will be no more than $1 per month.  From LifeSite:

It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “the final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.

“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”

via Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare | LifeNews.com.

HT:  Carl Vehse

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Does this honestly surprise anyone? This administration considers abortion a good thing (not a necessary tragedy as many pro-choicers do). It considers abortion not only a “right”, but a “right” that taxpayers should fund – and it always has for anyone that has paid attention.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Does this honestly surprise anyone? This administration considers abortion a good thing (not a necessary tragedy as many pro-choicers do). It considers abortion not only a “right”, but a “right” that taxpayers should fund – and it always has for anyone that has paid attention.

  • Booklover

    They call them “Progressive.” What are we progressing toward?

  • Booklover

    They call them “Progressive.” What are we progressing toward?

  • http://www.scandhouse.org/liberty Chris Barnekov

    I actually read the rule [after 4 decades as a policy analsyst in DC, I am fluent in bureaucratese] … the $1 is a MINIMUM monthly payment. The _actual_ payment will be whatever is needed to cover abortion costs. And one can’t avoid paying it except by dropping his entire insurance plan. It is 45 CFR 155.280 — published a few days ago in the Federal Register at a mere 644 pages for your reading pleasure.
    LifeNews.com misunderstood the new mandate : Many, if not most, plans ALREADY cover abortion, but policyholders don’t know it (plans usually don’t brag about it) … the new mandate will make this unmistakably obvious. The reason for the two separate payments is to get around language that bars spending tax dollars for abortion The enrollee will make two payments, one for abortion and another payment for all other services covered. This lets the feds claim that no “tax money” is funding abortion even if the rest of the premium ends up subsidized one way or another. They will claim that abortion is funded through premiums, not taxes. This may backfire: the effect will be to rub the fact of abortion coverage in the face of policyholders who have been unaware that they are paying for abortions.

  • http://www.scandhouse.org/liberty Chris Barnekov

    I actually read the rule [after 4 decades as a policy analsyst in DC, I am fluent in bureaucratese] … the $1 is a MINIMUM monthly payment. The _actual_ payment will be whatever is needed to cover abortion costs. And one can’t avoid paying it except by dropping his entire insurance plan. It is 45 CFR 155.280 — published a few days ago in the Federal Register at a mere 644 pages for your reading pleasure.
    LifeNews.com misunderstood the new mandate : Many, if not most, plans ALREADY cover abortion, but policyholders don’t know it (plans usually don’t brag about it) … the new mandate will make this unmistakably obvious. The reason for the two separate payments is to get around language that bars spending tax dollars for abortion The enrollee will make two payments, one for abortion and another payment for all other services covered. This lets the feds claim that no “tax money” is funding abortion even if the rest of the premium ends up subsidized one way or another. They will claim that abortion is funded through premiums, not taxes. This may backfire: the effect will be to rub the fact of abortion coverage in the face of policyholders who have been unaware that they are paying for abortions.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    We’re “progressong” toward the Eugenic Utopia.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    We’re “progressong” toward the Eugenic Utopia.

  • http://www.biteinteractive.com Brant

    @Booklover To quote from King Caspian: “I have seen what you call ‘progress’ in an egg. In Narnia, we call it ‘Going Bad’” ;)

  • http://www.biteinteractive.com Brant

    @Booklover To quote from King Caspian: “I have seen what you call ‘progress’ in an egg. In Narnia, we call it ‘Going Bad’” ;)

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I am a little lost. Can people opt out of the “premium” coverage?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I am a little lost. Can people opt out of the “premium” coverage?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Yes, Dr. Luther. People can opt out of premium coverage. But if they want to add abortion coverage, it will only cost them a dollar. I guess that’s the value of the life of an unborn child.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Yes, Dr. Luther. People can opt out of premium coverage. But if they want to add abortion coverage, it will only cost them a dollar. I guess that’s the value of the life of an unborn child.

  • –helen

    I don’t think so, Dr. Luther. The people who aren’t “playing” pay for the people who are.
    It’s sort of like 600 member “entertainment” churches that still need subsidy from your ‘mission’ dollar to be the showplace of the district, while confessional churches of 50 have to survive, if they can, on their own.

    [Nobody at district cares if they do/don't survive.]

  • –helen

    I don’t think so, Dr. Luther. The people who aren’t “playing” pay for the people who are.
    It’s sort of like 600 member “entertainment” churches that still need subsidy from your ‘mission’ dollar to be the showplace of the district, while confessional churches of 50 have to survive, if they can, on their own.

    [Nobody at district cares if they do/don't survive.]

  • Jonathan

    I live and work in a very red state; my health insurance, paid for by myself and by the taxpayers of my state, has for years covered abortion services as well as all contraceptives approved by the FDA.

    Yet never a peep – ever – about this from our very red legislature or the religious right.

  • Jonathan

    I live and work in a very red state; my health insurance, paid for by myself and by the taxpayers of my state, has for years covered abortion services as well as all contraceptives approved by the FDA.

    Yet never a peep – ever – about this from our very red legislature or the religious right.

  • DonS

    To respond to the inquiry @ 6 and Dr. Veith’s response @ 7, actually, as I understand it, under the regulations individuals and organizations CANNOT opt out of funding abortion coverage, if they purchase health insurance through their state’s insurance exchange. The plan under Obamacare is that all insurance not obtained through your employer will be purchased through the exchange, as will be most policies purchased by small businesses. States can opt out, at the time they set up their exchanges. Fifteen states have opted out so far.

    Of course, no one really understands this stuff, or how it will work, including those who wrote it. As Nancy Pelosi said at the time, we have to pass the bill so that we can see what’s in it.

  • DonS

    To respond to the inquiry @ 6 and Dr. Veith’s response @ 7, actually, as I understand it, under the regulations individuals and organizations CANNOT opt out of funding abortion coverage, if they purchase health insurance through their state’s insurance exchange. The plan under Obamacare is that all insurance not obtained through your employer will be purchased through the exchange, as will be most policies purchased by small businesses. States can opt out, at the time they set up their exchanges. Fifteen states have opted out so far.

    Of course, no one really understands this stuff, or how it will work, including those who wrote it. As Nancy Pelosi said at the time, we have to pass the bill so that we can see what’s in it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So is anyone going to respond to Chris’s point (@3), or are we all just going to forge on, almost certainly not having read the full text of the rule ourselves, and assuming that some media outlet (that just might have a policy/political bias) got the story right?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So is anyone going to respond to Chris’s point (@3), or are we all just going to forge on, almost certainly not having read the full text of the rule ourselves, and assuming that some media outlet (that just might have a policy/political bias) got the story right?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 11: I’m not sure I understand what point that Chris made that you think requires a response, other than we’re crazy if we don’t entirely repeal this mess. Chris has read the regulations, and his comment makes sense to me, based on my understanding of the regulations, having read only small portions and summaries.

    I think Chris is right — most policies cover abortion currently. Some states, including mine and I’m guessing yours, mandate abortion coverage. Others do not. The issue at hand, however, is that now the federal government is mandating abortion coverage, and, since it will be heavily subsidizing policies offered through the state exchanges, would also be funding abortions, in direct contravention to the Hyde Amendment prohibitions. This separate abortion premium was the legislation’s work-around to the Hyde Amendment prohibition against federal subsidies of abortion — an accounting trick to designate sufficient private premium dollars to cover all abortions covered under the exchange plans, so the federal government can say that it does not fund abortions. It will just be subsidizing the non-abortion parts of the policies.

    So, the bottom line is that we now have a federal government which is mandating abortion coverage, heavily subsidizing health insurance, yet claiming that it is not funding abortion, so as to assert that it is in technical compliance with the Hyde Amendment.

    And then the government gets mad when taxpayers engage in shady tax avoidance schemes. Fine example it sets for complying with not just the letter, but the spirit of the law, wouldn’t you say?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 11: I’m not sure I understand what point that Chris made that you think requires a response, other than we’re crazy if we don’t entirely repeal this mess. Chris has read the regulations, and his comment makes sense to me, based on my understanding of the regulations, having read only small portions and summaries.

    I think Chris is right — most policies cover abortion currently. Some states, including mine and I’m guessing yours, mandate abortion coverage. Others do not. The issue at hand, however, is that now the federal government is mandating abortion coverage, and, since it will be heavily subsidizing policies offered through the state exchanges, would also be funding abortions, in direct contravention to the Hyde Amendment prohibitions. This separate abortion premium was the legislation’s work-around to the Hyde Amendment prohibition against federal subsidies of abortion — an accounting trick to designate sufficient private premium dollars to cover all abortions covered under the exchange plans, so the federal government can say that it does not fund abortions. It will just be subsidizing the non-abortion parts of the policies.

    So, the bottom line is that we now have a federal government which is mandating abortion coverage, heavily subsidizing health insurance, yet claiming that it is not funding abortion, so as to assert that it is in technical compliance with the Hyde Amendment.

    And then the government gets mad when taxpayers engage in shady tax avoidance schemes. Fine example it sets for complying with not just the letter, but the spirit of the law, wouldn’t you say?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Chris appears (@3) to contradict Veith’s (and LifeSite’s) main point here (appearing in both of their headlines): the “$1″ premiums. As he said:

    The $1 is a MINIMUM monthly payment. The _actual_ payment will be whatever is needed to cover abortion costs.

    Nonetheless, Veith went on to say (@7):

    But if they want to add abortion coverage, it will only cost them a dollar.

    Assuming that Chris is correct (he being the only person here who has even claimed to read the actual text of the regulation), it seems rather unwise to spread misinformation on this topic, much less to make it the focus of our ire. There’s plenty to be upset about, but the “$1″ claim doesn’t seem to be part of it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Chris appears (@3) to contradict Veith’s (and LifeSite’s) main point here (appearing in both of their headlines): the “$1″ premiums. As he said:

    The $1 is a MINIMUM monthly payment. The _actual_ payment will be whatever is needed to cover abortion costs.

    Nonetheless, Veith went on to say (@7):

    But if they want to add abortion coverage, it will only cost them a dollar.

    Assuming that Chris is correct (he being the only person here who has even claimed to read the actual text of the regulation), it seems rather unwise to spread misinformation on this topic, much less to make it the focus of our ire. There’s plenty to be upset about, but the “$1″ claim doesn’t seem to be part of it.

  • DonS

    Yes, it is a “minimum $1″ premium, not a flat $1 premium. The premium would be adjusted periodically to ensure that it fully covers all abortion benefits. Bart Stupak first brought this issue up here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/bart-stupak/stupak-says-every-enrollee-office-personnel-manage/
    when Obamacare was still pending. Of course, he later folded and voted for the monstrosity, based on a promise by Obama that he would issue an executive order related to abortion funding.

  • DonS

    Yes, it is a “minimum $1″ premium, not a flat $1 premium. The premium would be adjusted periodically to ensure that it fully covers all abortion benefits. Bart Stupak first brought this issue up here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/bart-stupak/stupak-says-every-enrollee-office-personnel-manage/
    when Obamacare was still pending. Of course, he later folded and voted for the monstrosity, based on a promise by Obama that he would issue an executive order related to abortion funding.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I hate abortion as much as anyone, $1 sounds like it is within reason for both likelihood and cost. Most abortions are early and cheap, say about $500. Given that the most responsible people are both more likely to buy insurance and less likely to need an abortion, the actual risk spread over those folks is probably pretty near $1.

    Compare that to oral contraceptives that average $30 every month vs $500 on average of only once in 4 lifetimes and only once in ten lifetimes for people responsible enough to buy insurance against it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I hate abortion as much as anyone, $1 sounds like it is within reason for both likelihood and cost. Most abortions are early and cheap, say about $500. Given that the most responsible people are both more likely to buy insurance and less likely to need an abortion, the actual risk spread over those folks is probably pretty near $1.

    Compare that to oral contraceptives that average $30 every month vs $500 on average of only once in 4 lifetimes and only once in ten lifetimes for people responsible enough to buy insurance against it.

  • WebMonk

    sg, I’m not sure if you read the comments, but the cost is NOT $1. That is the minimal amount that absolutely must be charged. The actual cost will be $X, where $X is larger and determined by the healthcare insurance company.

  • WebMonk

    sg, I’m not sure if you read the comments, but the cost is NOT $1. That is the minimal amount that absolutely must be charged. The actual cost will be $X, where $X is larger and determined by the healthcare insurance company.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @16, Okay, it is a minimum of $1 because the cost has not been determined by experience, but just crude calculations tell us that it shouldn’t cost a ton of money to insure someone against something that doesn’t cost much and has a low annual incidence rate. It is almost silly to buy insurance for something like that. Consider car insurance. Lots of policies have deductibles of $500, because it is considered that such a small cost to repair damage is not worth insuring.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @16, Okay, it is a minimum of $1 because the cost has not been determined by experience, but just crude calculations tell us that it shouldn’t cost a ton of money to insure someone against something that doesn’t cost much and has a low annual incidence rate. It is almost silly to buy insurance for something like that. Consider car insurance. Lots of policies have deductibles of $500, because it is considered that such a small cost to repair damage is not worth insuring.

  • Jonathan

    “Lots of policies have deductibles of $500, because it is considered that such a small cost to repair damage is not worth insuring.”

    I disagree.
    Deductibles of $500 or higher bring down the cost of premiums, and, since car insurance is mandatory, lower premiums might make the difference whether someone drives. A person might well risk having to pay out of pocket (particularly if he’s at fault) in order to keep his insurance company form raising his premiums and costing him his driving privilege (and livelihood, perhaps).

    .

  • Jonathan

    “Lots of policies have deductibles of $500, because it is considered that such a small cost to repair damage is not worth insuring.”

    I disagree.
    Deductibles of $500 or higher bring down the cost of premiums, and, since car insurance is mandatory, lower premiums might make the difference whether someone drives. A person might well risk having to pay out of pocket (particularly if he’s at fault) in order to keep his insurance company form raising his premiums and costing him his driving privilege (and livelihood, perhaps).

    .

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Good point, Jonathan.

    Still, it hardly seems worth it to buy insurance against a $500 loss/expense.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Good point, Jonathan.

    Still, it hardly seems worth it to buy insurance against a $500 loss/expense.

  • james

    It’s my understanding that countries where abortion is legal actually has fewer abortions per capita.

    Do we really want fewer abortions or do we just want to be outraged? I’m not saying outrage isn’t awesome. It can provide quite a buzz, but let’s not kid ourselves. If we want fewer abortions outrage doesn’t really get us there.

  • james

    It’s my understanding that countries where abortion is legal actually has fewer abortions per capita.

    Do we really want fewer abortions or do we just want to be outraged? I’m not saying outrage isn’t awesome. It can provide quite a buzz, but let’s not kid ourselves. If we want fewer abortions outrage doesn’t really get us there.

  • DonS

    james @ 20: “It’s my understanding that countries where abortion is legal actually has fewer abortions per capita.” — We are not even talking about the legality of abortion. That issue has been determined by the Supreme Court, which decided that the Constitution provides for a fundamental right to abortion. We are, instead, talking about the government mandating that insurance premiums cover the procedure. In other words, we are now at the place where the federal government is forcing each one of us to subsidize abortion in a private transaction with an insurance company, even if we have a personal conviction that abortion is murder, and even though the government itself is prohibited by law from paying for abortion.

    It’s interesting how abortion and contraception proponents seem to intentionally misrepresent the issues at hand.

  • DonS

    james @ 20: “It’s my understanding that countries where abortion is legal actually has fewer abortions per capita.” — We are not even talking about the legality of abortion. That issue has been determined by the Supreme Court, which decided that the Constitution provides for a fundamental right to abortion. We are, instead, talking about the government mandating that insurance premiums cover the procedure. In other words, we are now at the place where the federal government is forcing each one of us to subsidize abortion in a private transaction with an insurance company, even if we have a personal conviction that abortion is murder, and even though the government itself is prohibited by law from paying for abortion.

    It’s interesting how abortion and contraception proponents seem to intentionally misrepresent the issues at hand.

  • DonS

    Circling back to the insurance deductible issue, just because a deductible is required doesn’t mean the underlying event isn’t insured. It just means that the policyholder is required to meet the deductible before the insurance company provides compensation for the insured event. The purpose of deductibles is to reduce claims activity by excluding small claims that should be affordable to the insured, and where the cost of claims processing may exceed the amount of the claim. By imposing modest deductibles of $500 or $1,000, as many as 80% of potential claims can be reduced from the system, greatly reducing the resultant cost of insurance. In fact, this is why the present move toward fully paid mandatory coverage for things like preventive care and contraceptives is exactly the opposite step to that which we should take if we genuinely want to reduce the cost of health care. Making things free greatly increases demand for those things, overwhelming the health care system, driving up costs, and choking practitioners with claims paperwork. Insurance is intended to prevent people from suffering catastrophic financial loss, not to help them avoid a $30 monthly cost for birth control, or a $200 cost for an annual physical. But that’s where we now find ourselves.

  • DonS

    Circling back to the insurance deductible issue, just because a deductible is required doesn’t mean the underlying event isn’t insured. It just means that the policyholder is required to meet the deductible before the insurance company provides compensation for the insured event. The purpose of deductibles is to reduce claims activity by excluding small claims that should be affordable to the insured, and where the cost of claims processing may exceed the amount of the claim. By imposing modest deductibles of $500 or $1,000, as many as 80% of potential claims can be reduced from the system, greatly reducing the resultant cost of insurance. In fact, this is why the present move toward fully paid mandatory coverage for things like preventive care and contraceptives is exactly the opposite step to that which we should take if we genuinely want to reduce the cost of health care. Making things free greatly increases demand for those things, overwhelming the health care system, driving up costs, and choking practitioners with claims paperwork. Insurance is intended to prevent people from suffering catastrophic financial loss, not to help them avoid a $30 monthly cost for birth control, or a $200 cost for an annual physical. But that’s where we now find ourselves.

  • DonS

    Oh, by the way, comment 22 is a bit off-topic, and can be categorized as a “rant”. ;-)

  • DonS

    Oh, by the way, comment 22 is a bit off-topic, and can be categorized as a “rant”. ;-)

  • Jonathan

    james’ point is well taken; this is about opposing Obama, not reducing abortion. Interesting that DonS wants to “impos[e]” “modest” deductibles of $1,000 [!], in the same breath he rants about mandatory insurance coverage for women’s health. For DonS, it’s all about what he pays for things, nothing else.

  • Jonathan

    james’ point is well taken; this is about opposing Obama, not reducing abortion. Interesting that DonS wants to “impos[e]” “modest” deductibles of $1,000 [!], in the same breath he rants about mandatory insurance coverage for women’s health. For DonS, it’s all about what he pays for things, nothing else.

  • DonS

    Jonathan @ 24: Well, that was a very nice example of a baseless ad hominem attack, wasn’t it? Not to mention a bald effort to take the absolute worst construction of another’s arguments in an effort to smear them and avoid confronting the real issues. Congratulations! You qualify to run for Congress, or, better yet, create political ads. You should be proud.

    Should you decide you would like to have a substantive discussion of serious issues, please advise.

  • DonS

    Jonathan @ 24: Well, that was a very nice example of a baseless ad hominem attack, wasn’t it? Not to mention a bald effort to take the absolute worst construction of another’s arguments in an effort to smear them and avoid confronting the real issues. Congratulations! You qualify to run for Congress, or, better yet, create political ads. You should be proud.

    Should you decide you would like to have a substantive discussion of serious issues, please advise.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “this is about opposing Obama”

    People opposed these policies before Obama became president. They will still oppose these policies when he is out of office. It is the policy, not the man, that is opposed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “this is about opposing Obama”

    People opposed these policies before Obama became president. They will still oppose these policies when he is out of office. It is the policy, not the man, that is opposed.

  • Pingback: Be Sure To Thank Bart Stupak For Your $1 Per Month Premium Abortion Charge | Wis U.P. North

  • Pingback: Be Sure To Thank Bart Stupak For Your $1 Per Month Premium Abortion Charge | Wis U.P. North

  • james

    Abortion and who pays for it is a non-issue. It’s all false-outrage.

    When the conservative righteous start clamoring about their outrage over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how we can’t afford to borrow to pay for them – then I just might begin to believe that there is some genuine moral concern over abortion or who’s going to pay for them.

  • james

    Abortion and who pays for it is a non-issue. It’s all false-outrage.

    When the conservative righteous start clamoring about their outrage over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how we can’t afford to borrow to pay for them – then I just might begin to believe that there is some genuine moral concern over abortion or who’s going to pay for them.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    James:

    Wars and who pays for them is a non-issue. It’s all false-outrage.

    When the Liberal Left start clamoring about their outrage over abortion and who’s going to pay for them – then I just might begin to believe that there is some genuine moral concern over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how we can’t afford to borrow to pay for them

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    James:

    Wars and who pays for them is a non-issue. It’s all false-outrage.

    When the Liberal Left start clamoring about their outrage over abortion and who’s going to pay for them – then I just might begin to believe that there is some genuine moral concern over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how we can’t afford to borrow to pay for them

  • james

    That would be an interesting point Mike, except that most liberals support the very things that can reduce the need for abortions such as birth control and social programs that help children.

    If the conservatives had initiatives that would reduce the need for these wars you might have an argument. Unfortunately, there was no need to go to war with Iraq, conservatives spew religious rhetoric that maintains unnecessary divisions, and stands with oil companies that benefit greatly from the war machine.

    Thank you though. It forced me to think about my position.

  • james

    That would be an interesting point Mike, except that most liberals support the very things that can reduce the need for abortions such as birth control and social programs that help children.

    If the conservatives had initiatives that would reduce the need for these wars you might have an argument. Unfortunately, there was no need to go to war with Iraq, conservatives spew religious rhetoric that maintains unnecessary divisions, and stands with oil companies that benefit greatly from the war machine.

    Thank you though. It forced me to think about my position.

  • Norine Gelden

    I can only hope that women will cease to be treated as second class citizens and be respected for the intelligent decision makers that they are. No more motherhood by force. The Hyde Amendment is immoral and forces a lower class to grow and grow unchecked by their will.

  • Norine Gelden

    I can only hope that women will cease to be treated as second class citizens and be respected for the intelligent decision makers that they are. No more motherhood by force. The Hyde Amendment is immoral and forces a lower class to grow and grow unchecked by their will.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Um… Norine? You do know that abortion is legal in this country, don’t you? That’s right, “No more motherhood by force.” Not since 1973, anyway.

    The Hyde Amendment is immoral? On what grounds? By what standard?

    Nobody thinks a growing underclass is a good thing, but do you really think the moral way to deal with it is to kill them before they’re even born, using Federal taxpayer dollars if necessary?

    Are lower class babies really better off dead?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Um… Norine? You do know that abortion is legal in this country, don’t you? That’s right, “No more motherhood by force.” Not since 1973, anyway.

    The Hyde Amendment is immoral? On what grounds? By what standard?

    Nobody thinks a growing underclass is a good thing, but do you really think the moral way to deal with it is to kill them before they’re even born, using Federal taxpayer dollars if necessary?

    Are lower class babies really better off dead?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X