Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Does the Government Have the Right to Legislate a Woman’s Choice to Abort?

Two weeks ago, a story broke about a West Philadelphia abortion doctor who was charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies that were born alive and then killed with scissors.

The late-term abortions, as they were called, were performed on these women illegally. However, that didn’t stop this quack from doing this and similar illegal procedures for nearly 30 years. Nor did it discourage the numerous and often nameless women, mostly from poor, brown and indigent communities, from risking their lives and subjecting themselves to those kinds of conditions—all because they really needed and/or wanted an abortion.
At some point we have to recognize that with or without government intervention, women who desire that choice will be willing to go to great lengths to terminate a pregnancy – even if it means doing it in a back alley or at the hands of doctor whose scruples are not all there. The question then becomes do we provide safe and cost-effective ways to conduct the procedure, or do we continue to jeopardize the lives of both women and children by exposing them to barbaric conditions?

It appears that House Republicans, along with some Democratics, are gunning for the latter with the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which seeks to further erode the foundation of abortion. Currently, the federal government denies taxpayer monies to be used to pay for abortions, except in cases when pregnancies result from rape or incest, or when the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life. However, this proposed bill seeks to disallow parents of minors from paying for pregnancy termination with tax-exempt health savings accounts, as well as prohibiting private health insurance plans from deducting tan abortion expense for tax purposes.

The bill would also modify the definition of rape to only include rapes by “forcible” nature. In other words, rape would not be rape unless violence is involved. Yeah sure, because being drugged and then sexually assaulted isn’t really all that bad like how being murdered in the 2nd degree isn’t as dead as murder in the 1st degree (sarcasm).
Rightfully so, women’s groups are up in arms about the proposed legislation. The same folks who are working hard to strip seniors of their social security benefits, spouting off about abolishing the Department of Education and fighting tooth and nail to repeal the healthcare reform act, now want to force women, even if they are raped, to have babies that they might not be able to financial afford or emotionally take care of.

But these issues are political of course, dredge up every two or three years to deflect away from more relevant issues that Congress is neglecting to work on (i.e. jobs). Certainly, it should be noted that the rate of abortions in the U.S. has fallen to its lowest level since 1976. But national unemployment remains steady above 9 %. I wonder how these bill sponsors plan on feeding all these new babies when their mothers and fathers are out of work?

What makes this bill indeed troublesome is because if passed, then it would make it next to impossible for people to use their own money to pay for the procedure, even if it was medically necessary. That means that more and more pregnant women in desperate situations will be pinching every penny, sometime into their 8th or 9th month of pregnancy, to go to clinics for late-term abortions like the one in West Philadelphia.
So much for the Republican mantra of the government being too big and intrusive into our lives.


**I just read this. What do you all think?**

 
4xsthetrouble

Asked by 4xsthetrouble at 6:13 PM on Feb. 1, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 21 (11,387 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (20)
  • No. The govt should stay out the private choices of citizens. What this guy did was illegal and he should fully prosecuted the fullest extent of the law.
    Mom2Just1

    Answer by Mom2Just1 at 6:28 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • Do you think a man who beats his pregnant wife to the point that she miscarries should not be charged with anything worse than assault?
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 6:41 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • I wonder how these bill sponsors plan on feeding all these new babies when their mothers and fathers are out of work? ~ article

    Well, they could retroactively abort all of the murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc. sitting in prisons ... that would free up some cash to feed babies.

    To answer your question, I believe there are many things that need to be fixed to eliminate abortion as a 'choice' and as usual the gov't. (and citizens) avoid them. Make schools mom friendly. Force employers to give women their same job back after maternity leave. Make childcare safe/affordable. Etc. It should never be a 'choice' to kill a child. Abortion should only be a medical procedure if a woman's life is in danger because no matter what you call it, you are ending the life of a child. If there is no child, no abortion is necessary. Unborn or not, abortion kills a human.
    Farmlady09

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 6:47 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • They government isn't saying it should have a say in the CHOICE.... Just in who PAYS....
    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 7:24 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • i'm not for it, but i don't think they should it's a womans choice on what they want to do with their body and i don't think anyone should have a say on it...
    Lynnsae

    Answer by Lynnsae at 6:14 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • Deflecting attention from quietly major concerns like jobs (or lack thereof) is obviously a great way to cover up that Congress and the government in general do nothing except collect big paychecks.

    Women have a right to make choices concerning their reproductive rights. That's the only thing I know for sure.
    binkadink

    Answer by binkadink at 6:29 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • That doctor murdered babies that were delivered and ALIVE on the table, he is a disgusting POS...


    But NO,,,he government should have NO SAY in the medical decisions of anyone

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 6:53 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • First, they already do. Second, I don't want my tax dollars to pay for anyones abortion but I see no reason to make a change to the definition of rape. Third, I think abortion is wrong at any time but I think it should be considered just as if it were a murder of a live person if a child is aborted after such point as it could have survived outside a womb. That goes for the dr and the mother.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 6:55 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • A woman does NOT have a complete right to her body when she is carrying a baby. Even the law as it now stands recognizes the unborn as a life taken and worthy of a count of murder when a pregnant woman is murdered. The idea that a woman should have an absolute right to do as she pleases with her pregnant body is reflective of our permissive society. Partial birth abortion is infanticide unless the life of the mother is at risk and it never is because of the standard of medicine in this country. The idea that a woman, two days from her due date, can elect to abort because she suddenly does not want her child, which is what pro-abortion women champion, is obscene and should be cause for prosecution for murder.
    annabarred

    Answer by annabarred at 7:33 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

  • NO, the government doesn't have a right to tell anyone what to do with their body.
    tyfry7496

    Answer by tyfry7496 at 6:37 PM on Feb. 1, 2011

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN