Health Care Reform 09 and Abortion

The fight is on over the Affordable Health Care For America Act and the loudest noise is about abortion.

Abortion, by medical definition is the premature exit of the products of conception from the uterus. That is it, end of story.

It is sad to say that even the Webster dictionary calls abortion a "death". There can be no "life" where there is no possibility of life without a host, there is only biological function.

In 1976 there were attempts to make abortion impossible in response to Roe vs. Wade. The Hyde Amendment was formulated to prevent Federal funds from being used to pay for any abortion with no exceptions, whatsoever. This particular amendment set off a fire storm with everyone from the National Abortion Federation to the Civil Liberties Union. R - Henry Hyde of Illinois figured that all abortions had to be paid for "out of pocket". Lower income women were at an immediate disadvantage because they were without funding but all women were to pay a heavy price because if the Hyde Amendment had been accepted, rape, incest and even the threat of death for the mother were not good enough reason for an abortion. In 1977 language was added that made the amendment tolerable (health, rape and incest exceptions).

This time around, the Stupak-Pitts amendment of 2009 has the exceptions that the Hyde amendment added (health, rape and incest) but states that funds can not be used from any provided that participates in a public option or exchange for heath care. That would mean than anyone who's provider joins a health care exchange would lose coverage, assuming that the provider had the coverage before joining. Another possibility would be that this would give insurance companies a religious or other reason to drop coverage for abortion, similar to the way a pharmacist could be allowed to refuse a woman their prescription for birth control. There are all sorts of loopholes that can be made from this in order to deny a woman what amounts to a basic need for health care.

The U.S. Senate voted down an amendment on 12/08/09 created by Sen. Nelson -D and Hatch-R that would have restricted abortion even more according to CNN. Opponents to the amendment feared that the tougher language in the bill would prevent a woman from being able to pay for the procedure "out of pocket" as well as being denied funding.

I have to wonder how many abortion opponents in the Congress and Senate actively seek "pork spending" for their districts, which we all pay for, yet when it comes to women's health issues they do not want it paid for. Let's see...

Orrin Hatch sponsored or cosponsored earmarks totaling $120,529,650 in fiscal year 2009 ranking 61st out of 100 senators, just for example. The only person who has not spent Federal funds for pet projects is John McCain.

Pet projects are more valuable than women's health, I get it.

Women of America are having their health care issues sent back to the "Dark Ages". Federal funds will always be available for erectile dysfunction and even now for male enhancement, or so claims the makers of a certain kind of "pump" that I have seen advertised on television. Women can suffer or go broke to try and help themselves, according to our government.

The procedure should be a private matter between a woman, her doctor and the man involved at the most. The self righteous citizens of the United States somehow believe they have the right to interfere with such a personal event and that has confused many of us for decades.

Abortion opponents deem it absolutely necessary to do their utmost to prevent a woman from being able to access abortions, stigmatize those who do, cause great divides throughout our country and some even go to the extremes of murdering those who perform abortions or those who seek one, as was the case of Dr. George Tiller who was gunned down in Wichita, KS this year, inside of a church, no less. Terminating a pregnancy is wrong but murdering a doctor is acceptable? I do not believe his family or ANY God would agree..

Opponents of abortion have no particular reason other than religion and/or religious background as an excuse to cause such discontent and it seems to me that that, in itself, violates the Constitutional Rights of all American citizens by imposing someone else's religious beliefs on all of us, let alone, live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Pew Religious Landscape Poll gives the impression the American religion is like a salad bar; you take what you want from one and something else from another. I first caught wind of this on the ABC World News with Charles Gibson tonight (12/11/09). This only adds to the belief that religious views should not dictate the law in our country. If I want laws based on religion, I would migrate to Iran or give the Taliban a call.

Constitutional Rights aside, I have never heard of abortion opponents that would voluntarily help pay for the children they forced into existence. Foster care is always an option, I suppose, even with the Human Services in the U.S. stretched so far now that they can not effectively care for the children in the system now. Foster kids disappear, many are abused...too many of them are murdered while in the custody of HS. Is it better for us that we allow babies to be forced into this world just to throw them away? That is what abortion opponents have done. That is inhumane and despicable, to say the least.

Options taken by some women have been back alley "quacks", hurting themselves to cause abortion, selling of babies and other acts of desperation. It is easy to find the information and, sadly, it is so common that shows like "CSI", and other crimes shows meant for entertainment, portray this kind of subject. If it happens in real life, it eventually finds it's way to either a law enforcement or medical program on television.

Many of the self righteous would find it necessary to try and beat me down for my views but I would have to ask each of them...

"Have you ever been a Ward in the custody of ANY State or County run foster care program?".

I have.

"Do you have any idea what it feels like to be there?"

I do.

Can you imagine what it is like to feel that you have no worth or that it is a waste of time to try and make a life for yourself because foster children are stigmatized just for being in foster care?"

This country already gave me a dose of that and attacked my children for it two decades later.

Where were all the self righteous when I needed a real home or the other kid who was set on fire by other foster kids needed to be protected?

I am one of those people who's mother wanted an abortion and couldn't get one. Even so...I am one of the extreme few who got lucky. I made my own choices and those choices were to help other people. Most of those who went through similar situations never get too far due to drugs, crime, or psychological/emotional issues. Stigmatized, unwanted and extremely low self esteem is the best some can hope for. My youth was more than 80% horrid. I could not force a child into that possibility.

It is a sad commentary that the self righteous would force those odds on any child.