galiel

(excerpt from Associated Press report)

"The Bush administration said Friday it will consider fetuses "unborn children" under a government-funded health program, brushing aside complaints that the move is an effort to undercut abortion rights.

The administration said it is making the change to enable more low-income pregnant women to obtain prenatal care. Under the new rule, states could extend health insurance to fetuses -- or even embryos -- from the moment of conception by enrolling them in the State Children's Health Insurance Program."

Believe it or not, the rule would cover fetuses of legal residents, but not the mothers themselves, unless they have been in the country for more than five years.

I guess they are just convenient "ovens" for baking new Amerikans.

So much for HHS secretary Tommy 'Roe v. Wade is settled law' Thompson's false nomination testimony.

fromtheright

What is absolutely mind-boggling is that there is medical technology to save the lives of unborn children with medical problems but that some are apparently so doctrinaire in their zeal to allow some mothers to snuff out those lives. It seems the only some some "pro-choicers" favor is the choice to kill. Any wonder why anti-abortionists call pro-choicers "pro-abortion"?

Personally, I am against the proposal on constitutional grounds (the federal government has no business funding health care), but I understand it is a view out of the mainstream (yes, the mainstream has a right to be wrong).

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

galiel

Interesting that you make this to be an issue about abortion. Your government vehemently denies that the decision has any connection. There are only two possibilities: either you are out of step with your leaders, or they are lying.

The primary issue I raised, and the reason this is in the CSS forum, is not abortion. It is the administration's use of these kind of tactics to circumvent what their appointed officials said, under oath, was settled law. The issue I raise is the extremism that leads our elected and appointed leaders to violate the spirit of the laws they vowed to uphold.

Today it happens to be "unborn children"; tomorrow, it could very well be some freedom you hold dear.

By interpreting every issue in narrow partisan terms, you play into the hands of the extremists whose ultimate goal is not outlawying abortion--that is just a stepping-stone that will win votes with their constituency. The ultimate goal is no less than to undermine the Constitutiontal foundations of our society, chief among them CSS.

Toto

This is just bizarre. You are opposed to the federal government funding pre-natal health care which would allow the pre-born to be born healthy, but you think you are pro-life? Do you wonder why people think pro-life is not the correct terminology?

The position of the pro-choice lobbies has never been to oppose pre-natal care. Their only objection is to defining fetuses and embryos as persons. The Bush administration did not need to pull this linguistic stunt just to fund medical care for pregnant women (or pregnant persons, as Rehnquist calls them.)

fromtheright

Yeah, imagaine that, huh? It has to do with, as I said, beliefs about the central government's proper constitutional roles. Just because I think it important doesn't mean the national govenment has to fund it, now does it? I see no problem with state govenment doing so, so does that make me "half pro-life". I'm embarrassed for you, Toto, you are usually much more logical than that.

Corey Hammer

Health care falls under the "general welfare of the people." Check out Article under which the legislative branch is organized.

The compelling argument is that so many people are without insurance that it constitutes a problem for which Congress could consider and create law. Of course, whether the Executive Branch can is another argument and I'd have to check the Constitution about its power for that. If this was already law, then okay, but as this may suborn Roe V. Wade, I have deep concerns.

brighid

And these same unborn “children” who will be covered by health care while in utero will be the same children who won’t qualify for care once they are “out.”

Furthermore why must a fetus or embryo be defined as anything in order to extend a MOTHER better health care? They could simply increase the # of Planned Parenthood centers available throughout the country who already provide free and reduced fee prenatal, postnatal, well child care, gynecological care, etc. to women (83% of which do not provide abortion services) OR increase funding to local, government run health facilities that already provide THESE services OR they could have extended benefits to unemployed (you know the millions who lost their jobs due to the trumped up recession and irresponsible tax cuts) OR reform welfare so medical benefits aren’t lost when a women accepts a job, but is offered no benefits through her employer … GEE there are PLENTY of ways to rectify this issue that don’t require redefining a living organism as a PERSON when it’s not actually a person!


Brighid

RufusAtticus

Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding

Give that lady a prize.

The reason why conservatives don't like abortion and birth control is that it limits the number of people they get to put in the electric chair.

Shadowy Man

Ouch! Cynicism to the highest degree.

Toto

?

I point out how illogical you are when you distort the pro-choice argument, and you think I am not logical?

There is nothing illogical in my stance. I am questioning the logic of people who claim to be "pro-life" but oppose providing social services that promote life. I'm not saying that you have to be in favor of a particular taxing scheme, but if you value limited federal government over infant health, life is just not your highest priority, is it?