Rahm, Liberal Women's Groups, Have 'Frank Exchange' on Anti-Abortion Amendment

The average cost of an abortion without any subsidies is $468. Pregnant women who want an abortion can cough that money up, especially since actually having the child would be substantially more expensive.

I don't agree with the ammendment...I think it's yet another way that the ultra-right wing is trying to force everyone to abide by their own religious beliefs while at the same time professing the virtues of religious and other freedoms. I don't understand how they don't see how their arguements are so tremendously flawed.

Back to the point...I don't like it and I definately don't agree with it, but let's face facts: there are FAR more women dying today from insurance rejections for cancer treatments and from the inability to find affordable coverage...dying from totally preventable causes. The arguement that no health reform is better than health reform with this ammendment included makes about as much sense as the arguement that stem cell research should not be done because it promotes abortion...even though it would save the lives of countless people. Think about it.

What is it about "back alley abortions"? Stop throwing those words around. Planned Parenthod isn't going anywhere. They are afraid of losing part of their federal funding, even though they make a huge profit every year. They will continue to offer abortions. Let's see how much they are for women's reproductive rights when they have to perform abortions on their own dime. Are they for women or for profit? Will they go out of business, sacrifice their profit, because they believe in women's rights? No way!

People pay for other people's elective procedures all the time! You're old and fat, so everyone subsidizes you're care which you yourself likely brought on. You're a young drug user so everyone pays for your treatment and/or incarceration. The whole argument is mindless and a distraction from the main point. When "life" begins is unknown. You have your opinion and others have theirs. Don't get an abortion or cause an unwanted pregnancy if it violates your ethics. But don't impose your definitions and ethics on others. A woman's right to choose is absolute with regard to her health and ability to raise a child.

Don´t make other people pay for YOUR elective procedure. That is what it is. A procedure that an individual woman CHOOSES. You want an abortion YOU pay for it, not me with my taxes. I don´t mind paying for prenatal care, birth ect. Abortion is choosing to kill the beginning life of a human being. I´ll help you support it not kill it.

There is the morning after pill if you are irresponsible enough not to use birth control.
Posted by: wow

unless of course a 'good christian' pharmacist decides he can't sell it to you because of religious reasons..
btw... how long did it take to be able to use that in america?

What century are we living in? There is the morning after pill if you are irresponsible enough not to use birth control.
Please shoot yourself in the foot over this one people...this "health reform" bill is a giant nightmare anyway, I'll be very happy if it goes away.

I commend Terry for sticking up for women's rights...apparently NOW and these other organizations have to, since our own elected leaders won't. Why is it that almost every single time we make progress for this nation, women are left out of the progress? It isn't progress for the nation if 52% of the population is having their rights left behind in the process. This Stupak Amendment would see to it that only the very wealthy would have access. That's not choice for the majority of women in this country - that's choice for those who have the abundance of money for it. Sounds familiar...oh yeah, kinda like before Roe v Wade.

Back alley abortions is spot on. With only the wealthy able to have access to abortions again, the same will happen to the less privileged in this country as happened before Roe v Wade. Thanks for not caring if women die, Dems. I think the majority of women, being pro-choice, will see to it that you don't get re-elected.

Terry is right on here and I'm glad that someone is coming out strong on this issue! The dems have been pushing women into back alleys for a while now- since the 2006 midterms when we saw more anti-choice dems elected to Congress than ever. This is in the party platform- what part of that does Congress not understand? Women DEMAND access to full reproductive health services, and leaving abortion out of health care reform forces women into back alleys. NEVER again.

I agree with NOW President Terry O'Neill. I had a friend who, in trying to help her friend abort, watched her friend die. They were young, they had no money, and abortion was not available. That's a back alley abortion. It's rude and extremely insensitive to deny our experience. I will the men would get over it -- Hyde is enough.

NeemaCat wrote:

"2 points about this ammendment:
1) It is unconstitutional
2) It puts a government beaurocracy between a moman and her doctor."

You mean the whole health care bill, right?

This back alley jargon is laughable
Posted by: Mia

not really, there are many folks still around who could relate personal stories about it...

- freedom for slaves used to be 'laughable'...
- voting rights for women used to be 'laughable'
- equal rights used to be 'laughable'
- equal pay for women for equal work used to be 'laughable'
- 18 year olds voting used to be 'laughable'
- preemptive wars used to be 'laughable'

- and on and on......

Posted by: YO | Nov 12, 2009 12:01:03 AM

__

Nice post. It's important to remind people what it was like in the 1700's and 1800's they cling to...

___

We always manage to get unfocused while the rest of the world laughs at us. This is embarrissing we are the only country that does not have universal healthcare.

Posted by: charity | Nov 12, 2009 12:17:27 AM

________

Exactly.

This is a really tough issue. I absolutley don't want to see health care reform derailed over it, and at the same time "stopalready" at Nov 11, 2009 9:25:00 PM does a great job cutting to the point.

I'm glad the Admin listens to all sides.

Now onward to reform. David Leonhardt had a great article about the House bill, though I tend to agree more with Ezra Klein in that Leonhardt "is much more down on the House bill than I am. But I agree with all of his proposed improvements. I'd like to see a final bill that looks more like the House bill on the coverage and affordability side, and more like the Senate bill on the revenue and delivery-system reforms side."

We have to stay focused and do our utmost to push the Senate to get this done, preferably this year.

abortion should not be coved in health care. As some of you say the goverment dosn't have aright to tell you what to do with your body; so they dont have responsability to pay for it. Use pertection are dont have sex.Adoption is a good avenue for some bout there are other options.

Once the health care reform bill is passed we'll have a brand new beaurocracy that will make all these decisions for us. What's funded, what's not funded (by our tax dollars of course), all based on their idea of social and economic justice. Won't that be wonderful?

-Woody
_________________________________
Much better when the decisions are made based on profit for the few, over the welfare of the many.

Posted by: tierra | Nov 11, 2009 8:55:59 PM
----------------------

I see. Thanks for being so forthright. Might I suggest you check your Constitution. It's rife with nasty language about the rights of the individual. Liberty. Freedom from tyranny. These are not abstract ideas. They are the law. The idea of the squelching individual rights for the "needs of the many" can be found in the works of Karl Marx, Lenin and other fellow travelers.

This whole abortion amendment is just one small example of why we need to limit government involvement in our lives, not expand it. What will tomorrow's debate be? Diabetes? Regulating junk food? Alcohol? Tobacco? All lifestyle choices? There is no end. This is a soft tyranny, exactly the kind our framers feared.

Isn't the Abotrion amendment, in effect, a political poison pill for the house health care bill?

2 points about this ammendment:
1) It is unconstitutional
2) It puts a government beaurocracy between a moman and her doctor.

Heartbroken wrote:

"Many many adoptions are life long tragedies for everyone concerned. Adoption exploits women giving birth, and makes commodities of their children. The shame women feel over having given away their babies is intense, and the loss felt by even tiny infants cripples them for life."

So killing them is the answer?

'We don't want kids wondering why they were adopted, so let's kill them'?

You can't be serious.

'Women are ashamed that they've given up their baby'?

You don't think women who kill their child suffer guilt?

You need to talk to some.

The souls of the dinosaurs are calling out to you. The souls of the tsunami victims are calling out to you.

"so, why do the vast majority of republicans [and some dems] vociferously disagree with you?"
For me, left and right baby boomers are the same greedy bunch, that followed the greatest generation. On the left its all about me, me, me, I will abort who I want as long as I get to have sex when and with whom I want (or get parts to regenerate my fast decrepitating body). On the right is all about protect life at all cost, as long as its before birth, after that, I don’t care if you die, as long as I get to spend my money on my sprinkler system. Opposite cousins from the same insufferable “family” that dominates and wrecks the world at this moment.

"deep science alert"
I like how you cut the sentence to try to make your point. Read it in its entirety, makes you feel a little less confortable?

deep science alert

Medical science has long shown that a child in the womb is both alive (versus an inert object)
Posted by: tka

so cells are alive and not inert objects?
dewde.... that's pretty damn deep