Abortion & national healthcare

A lot of the rw-ers oppose the idea of 'their' tax $$ paying for abortions. If we could pass healthcare reform by excluding all non-medically necesary abortions, how would you all feel about that?

i wouldn't expect them to cover most boob jobs, nose jobs, facelifts, hairplugs, invitro pregnancy, etc...

those are the kind of things that private insurance generally covers in many countries with universal health care.

A procedure that a patient and doctor plan in advance for a condition that is not life-threatening.

Under the new system, who knows? Since one can't wait in a queue six months or longer for the procedure, it may fall into a special category.

so even if you had the money to go to a private doctor, you'd still pay less.

There is no real reason to exclude abortion except to appease the woman-hating right wing.

Should we let other's beliefs stand in the way of sound policy and public health matters?

"A lot of the rw-ers oppose the idea of 'their' tax $$ paying for abortions. If we could pass healthcare reform by excluding all non-medically necesary abortions, how would you all feel about that?"

Yes, let's give in to the right wing. :eyes:

It could make the difference between getting NHC and not.

Oh, welcome to DU I guess.

Pushing an agenda?

we will probably need to make some concessions to the minority. Remember '94? Want a repeat of that fiasco?

They practically destroyed the country.

Are you with me Raspberry?? or are you with the minority?

makes it so that no elective abortions done using federal funding.-
Meaning, Medicaid, Medicare, and military health care do NOT currently pay for abortions.

It's also pretty much agreed that overturning the Hyde A. isn't likely.

I don't think Raspberry is pushing an agenda, but rather asking a difficult question.

Don't shoot the questioner. :shrug:

http://www.hyde30years.nnaf.org/

Why isn't it likely that it will be overturned?

Yes, to start a question like that is pushing an agenda of leaving women's rights further behind.

Go to the link and read the petition.

But then like real health care reform...it's all a dream. We need a bigger majority. :sarcasm:

Yes, I'm cross. Why have a majority if you don't use it.

Fool me once....

but the reality is, getting HC to pass at all, is going to be enough of a battle- I think that absolutely sucks- but it is where we are right now.

Abortions for low income women are available, and will continue to be available- and we can help insure that they are by supporting Planned Parenthood, and other Feminist Healthcare facilities.

You aren't alone in your anger Madfloridian- most of us who are passionate about our present situations ARE angry, frustrated, and have no place to put that- but jumping down each others throats isn't going to get us anywhere we really want to be...is it?

We have to live together as a nation regardless of what happens politically- If we can't live that way with people who share our political/social values, how in the HELL are we going to with those who are our polar opposites, yet who live next door, or teach our children, or sit beside us on a bus?

:grouphug:


peace~

It almost like anyone who stands up for anything is getting lectured to calm down and not be difficult.

I have always been a realist. I am way too old to even think of having an abortion. It is people like the woman in FL I post for....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6244907

You know, the one caught in the middle of right wing religious freaks and the state of FL with only the ACLU coming to her defense.

Since 2003 hubby and I have worked hard and donated very much to win a majority. We will be fooled no more.

Talk about apathy if we act like Republicans? Come 2010 and 2012 bad case of it coming on.

There are reasons to stand for Democratic values. It is time.

trying to "lecture" you- i'm sorry it came across like that.

I've learned in my journey through life (50+ here too), that i need to pick my battles- and trying to overturn the Hyde Amendment as well as pass any kind of meaningful HC reform is just not going to happen. It isn't "apathy" at all. It's just being realistic.

I COMPLETELY agree with you about what was done to that woman in Fla.- and cannot believe that there won't be people held accountable for what they did to her- (I know what it is like to have a baby die inside you)... the hospital caused her so much added suffering and risk... why?... it wasn't like there was any real hope- and her children (who don't matter to anti-abortion radicals outside the womb) were left to fend without her, which is a pretty sick, but accurate illustration of how little many people in the pro-life movement actually CARE about the innocent- the vulnerable-

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but i strongly believe insisting that overturning Hyde as part of HC reform would mean there is NO hope that we will succeed- (that's my opinion, based on what i know of the issue- which is a fair amount)

I wish you peace-

There are a lot of VALID questions that need to be raised and answered, if we are ever going to get any form of NHC.

I am a moderate. I am a recovering Southern Baptist who sees the harm done by religious groups who want holy wars and control over women.

So I ask...valid to whom.

www.freerepublic.com

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

all those procedures women have just for kicks because they're bored on a Tuesday afternoon. Sheeeyuttt, they keep yammering about having a bureaucrat between 'you and your doctor', but when it comes to abortion there's a whole roomful of republicans between a woman and her doctor. They effed up with Terri Schiavo. They continue to eff up with abortion. They ignore it when they control the White House and Congress, but put the Democrats in control and they reach for their favorite swizzle stick to stir up their intellectually limited base.

So, hell no. Abortion is a medical procedure. Just like a vasectomy is a medical procedure. Where were the wingers during THOSE discussions?

That's because I am a law-abiding, patriotic citizen who knows that a true republic is not possible if I try to just "take my ball and go home" every time this country does something I don't agree with.

Too bad the righties only *say* they're law-abiding loyal Americans. When things go against them, then we see their TRUE colors!

....:applause: :patriot:

it's an elective procedure. Including it could be a deal breaker for a lot of folks. Is it worth losing the whole thing?

every single abortion becomes medically necessary. It is part of a woman's reproductive health. WTF is so hard to understand about that?

Nope. Giving birth is a natural function of the human female body. Some pregnancies become complicated, but so do some abortions. Do you want to have to advertise the fact that "every abortion puts a woman's life/health at risk??"

even so-called low risk pregnancies. No getting around the fact. What you are advocating is forced pregnancy and birth.

that way the woman won't have to be concerned about risking death in the future.

if a woman makes a decision that pregnancy is too dangerous for her to go through, then it's the best way to make sure that she'll never have that worry.

if someone wanted an elective abortion without a tubal ligation- they'd certainly be able to procure one legally and without any problems- it just wouldn't be covered under national healthcare.

many countries that have national healthcare still have private insurance industries to cover elective procedures. i don't know how any of them handle abortion under their individual systems, but i would imagine that most of them probably cover it without a problem. BUT- they aren't us, unfortunately.

personally- i think that EVERYTHING should be covered, except for things that are purely cosmetic - nosejobs, facelifts, etc. UNLESS it's done to correct disfigurement or birth defect(burn/accident victims, mastectomy patients, etc...). BUT- we live in a religiously and certifiably insane country, and i would much rather have a plan that excluded elective abortion, than no plan at all.

That's eugenics. Disgusting that you are even proposing such a thing.

What is an "elective abortion"?

and complex than a laparoscopic tubal ligation surgery. And for some of us, a tubal would be far riskier than an abortion due to previous existing conditions (for me, uterine adhesions from a complicated C-section). While I could try for the new Essure tubal method, I'm actually terrified at the idea of undergoing another abdominal procedure. I finally regained some sensation in my lower left abdominal quadrant a few years ago (nerve damage from C-sect.) and another surgery feels just too daunting to risk again.

My husband had a vasectomy years ago so I wouldn't have to undergo another risky and painful abdominal surgery. But even surgical sterilization surgeries have statistically significant failure rates. Should H's vas fail, I would need to have an abortion of some sort (medicinal or surgical) because another pregnancy would be too risky to attempt. Luckily, my H's employer provides a really good and comprehensive women's care insurance program that pays for abortions, fertility treatments, etc. But not everyone is as lucky as we have been to have such good employment provided coverage.

So yeah, while you may think your suggestion here is a valid solution to cut down the numbers of abortions performed every year, unfortunately it is not the ideal solution for all women at all times...

Do you think congress should decide what is medically necessary. I don't get why you keep on about this?

Women and gays are already under the bus this time around. So why worry?

Define "non-medically necesary(sic)" and let us know who gets to decide which are which.

We give up voting rights? :eyes:

Seriously, I'd hate to see this happen, but if it made the difference on enacting a true public option, might be willing to make the trade-off. Only if it were put in terms of "the insurance doesn't have to cover non-medically necessary abortions" rather than that it can't.

It's healthcare not a wish list for everything and anything you ever wanted in your life.

but don't hold your breath.

But what government panel do you want in charge of making decisions about which abortions are medically necessary and which are elective? Personally I think that would be between a doctor and a patient.

So abortions will not be funded until and unless that is overturned. And that will be a separate fight.

I don't agree with the Hyde Amendment but for now, let's use the above argument to get Health Care passed, then deal with the abortion amendment. This does not make me happy but I think it is our best strategy.

But early term abortions and medically necessary abortions need to be part of the program. "Tough" is what i say to the rw hc thugs. I don't like my tax money being used for war and torture.

until abortion is rightfully included as healthcare and available to ALL women.

By non-medically necessary, you mean elective, and so there you are. But I'm male, so my opinion carries less weight.

On edit: I wouldn't cover Viagra either.

But I would not oppose this, so long as Viagra is not funded.

Early ones, in a nearby facility, used to run around $250 20 yrs ago. Guttmacher says (google is a wonderful thing, try it!):
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

Having to travel to find someone who can provide one adds money, and different places around the country are more expensive than others.

Second trimester cost more and it is more difficult to find a provider. Third trimester, you will be referred by your obstetrician to an ob/gyn surgeon and need to be hospitalized since it is a more involved surgery and you are usually having serious health issues. They can cost a whole lot, tens of thousands of dollars.

How do you define that? Who gets to define it?

P.S. I can't imagine that the "rw-ers" would object to the Hyde Amendment being applied to health care reform, since its chief sponsor was a Republican.

have much say in that. Last time I checked, abortion is legal. If they don't like the law, then they should go through channels to change it.

it is medically necessary that she does so in a safe, legal, and healthy manner. That means that in order for abortion to be medically safe, all abortions need to be accessible for all women and performed by physicians who are well-trained in proper surgical technique. By covering abortion services, we would be ensuring that these criteria are met and followed through for all women.

Thank you for your post.

it is politically unfeasible in this current climate. I think that it's going to have to be sacrificed to get the whole thing passed. And that makes me pissed.

The far Right fundies who oppose that right to choose are arguing against established law.

Abortions are covered for health and/or life of the mother, rape, incest.

IMO, that covers all medically necessary instances, and should be covered.

It covers all abortions for any reason, be that by choice or medical indication. But then my insurance also covers infertility treatments and some other women's care issues that many other insurance providers do not...

That is the first attack on women's rights to adequate and complete health care....fuck that shit.

That is all. :hi:

and will no longer be responding to them.

...seems to be an RW wolf in DU sheeps clothing...so to speak.

:hi:

That's why the fundies hate it so much.

Under a single-payor system, women are likely to go to a doctor much, much earlier when drugs such as RU-486 are effective. The decision becomes much more private and fundie nazis hate the right to privacy.

:think: