Stupak Was Right
Comments (6)
Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding all the hoopla over the generally reviled Stupak amendment.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a healthcare bill Saturday by a paltry five votes. To help push the bill through in the face of conservative resistance, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi) introduced an amendment that blocks the public option from covering abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother's life.
The amendment also prevents private insurance plans purchased with government subsidies from paying for abortions not deemed medically necessary.
Publications from the Los Angeles Daily News to the Detroit Free Press to Neon Tommy have run editorials bemoaning the amendment as a setback to women's rights. Blogger Shannyn Moore of the Huffington Post even makes the argument that if insurance covers treatment for erectile dysfunction, elective abortion should also be covered.
Huh?
So, let me get this straight, not only does abortion have to remain legal, but tax payers have a moral obligation to fund it, too?
In the three and a half decades since Roe vs. Wade, pro-choice advocates have gone from "if you don't like abortion, don't have one, but shut up about it and keep the procedure safe and legal for me," to "pay for my abortion, regardless of how you feel about it."
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Now, I'm a die-hard feminist who believes women should have unlimited access to higher education and earn equal pay for equal work. I view the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment as an affront to womenkind, not just in America, but across the globe. However, I don't believe in the so-called "right" to abortion.
Women have a right to autonomy over their own bodies, but they don't have the right to decide whether someone else lives or dies. Both women and men need to understand that, along with the pleasure of sex comes real risks and responsibilities.
Even the most conscientious or least promiscuous among us can become pregnant.
Should that situation arise, women must be prepared to deal with it in a sound moral and ethical fashion, which means either keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption.
In short, I find abortion morally repugnant, and don't want even a single penny of my tax dollars to fund one.
Contrary to what some pundits are saying, the Stupak amendment won't lead to a public health crisis or a rush of poor women getting back-alley abortions.
Poor women have plenty of access to abortions, even with the Hyde Amendment, an addendum to the bill that created Medicaid that bars public funds from being used to pay for abortions.
In fact, poor women are over-represented when it comes to abortions. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the rate of abortion among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times that of women living 300 percent above the poverty level.
So let's make a deal. I'll keep my hands off your uterus if you quit trying to reach into my pockets to pay for your abortion.
Comments
Ms. Ragus, you make a valid point. I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go toward paying for circumcisions either. What people forget is that this bill is about something far more important than Rove v. Wade--it's about universal health care. I consider myself a social progressive, which would make me pro-choice, but a compromise is a compromise. And I applaud Stupak for making that choice.
I try to get an abortion at least once a year just to get everything cleared out. Plus, who doesn't love that nice tingly sensation?
First off, doesn't the fact that poor women are over represented in abortions mean that we should be supporting them that much more? Do we really need more people in this country living below the poverty line that even more of your tax dollars will end up paying for? Since it seems to be that money is the only issue for you here.
I can't believe you call yourself a feminist. I just can't. I believe every woman should have her choice and that she shouldn't be afraid to be shot outside of a clinic. Or that if she feels the need to have one that her insurance won't cover, she won't end up dying in a back alley.
P.S.
"giving it up for adoption"
Are you volunteering? Do you have any idea of the realities of adoption in this country, especially for babies born of women below the poverty line?
The amount of money that comes out of your pockets to subsidize abortions is minuscule; there's nothing looking even vaguely like sound ethics in that libertarian argument.
"I don't believe in the so-called "right" to abortion"
Bully for you, but nothing hinges on what you believe in. By the law of the land, it's a legal procedure. You can accept the use of tax dollars to subsidize medical care or (be a right wing jerk and) not accept it, but you cannot pick and choose which legal procedures are covered. By singling out and eliminating one that affects women, you are being anti-feminist.
"Even the most conscientious or least promiscuous among us can become pregnant.
Should that situation arise, women must be prepared to deal with it in a sound moral and ethical fashion, which means either keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption"
First, it's not a "baby"; such abuse of the language is clearly intellectually dishonest.
Second, many people with far more sound ethics than yours disagree that those are the only ethical choices.
Just curious, if you are arguing a moral take on abortion, is it also morally correct to say that if a man’s penis doesn’t function anymore, he shouldn’t try to get it fixed?
Is that God’s way of saying “stop having sex�
Maybe the Gov’t should ALSO keep their hands of my tax dollars to help men get their penis’ to work. I find THAT morally repugnant.