Will Health Care Reform Include Taxpayer Funding for Abortion?
On Sunday, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag was asked if in the taxpayer dollars would not fund abortions in the government-funded, public health insurance plan President Obama is proposing.
"I think that that will wind up being part of the debate," Orszag said on Fox News Sunday. "I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate….I'm not prepared to rule it out.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, an abortion opponent, said later that "no matter what your views are on abortion, you shouldn't ask people to use their tax dollars if they think that abortion is taking a life — to use their tax dollars for those purpose — for that purpose….I would hate to see the health care debate go down over that issue. We do really need health care reform, and it has to be substantive, and it has to bend that out-year cost curve, and it has — and we've got to get a — and we have to have a system that covers everyone. So hopefully we won't get ourselves wrapped around the wheel of abortion in this debate."
It's an open question. As the New York Times points out, during her confirmation hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked about the issue.
“Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances, but do cover family planning,” Sebelius, a supporter of abortion rights, said. “And Congress has limited the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan to covering abortion services only in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.”
And then there's Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas, who was recently endorsed by Kansas for Life in his race for the GOP Senate nomination.
Speaking in opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion, Tiahrt said "if you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion. If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our president grew up in those similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it?"
Tiahrt also mentioned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as one whom might have been aborted in such a situation, depriving the world of his intellect.
- jpt
Email
Rick Santorum Encircled in Prayer
Boehner Slams Obama on Contraception Controversy
Of course it will. An eventually it will include acupuncture, chiropractic care, medical marijuana, spiritual healers, cosmetic surgery, aroma therapy, and you name it. The checkbook is open, c’mon in!
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
As I understand it, if legislation refers to reproductive services and does not specifically exclude abortions it includes them. HR 3200,the House plan, includes reproductive services. No mention of abortions being excluded.
Posted by: Ruth | July 20, 2009, 10:00 am 10:00 am
So now the insurance companies are getting their media and GOP surrogates to cry “abortion”, knowing that nothing in the reform forces anyone to change from what they have currently by way of insurance coverage including benefit coverage, and knowing that the public option will most likely follow the current government rule of no coverage unless needed for health of or to prevent the death of the mother. And ABC News lends their media to this disingenuous attack with near zero analysis about how much of a lie it is.
Posted by: papau | July 20, 2009, 10:01 am 10:01 am
After all, abortion can be seen as an important cost cutting measure. Imagine the savings over a life time.
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
Who the heck cares?
Just get the public health care option in place – the country needs it. And get the minority religious whack jobs out of the government and extricate them from such important legislation.
If you don’t want an abortion – don’t get one.
Separation of church and state – that is an American conservative principle – I know because the Almighty told me so.
Posted by: steve | July 20, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
Of course it would be included. Mr. Obama said during his campaign that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a child.” This is an insight into his thinking….” As as an empathetic sort of guy, he would want to avoid having anyone punished with a child.
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
We have the best medical care in the world. The people in the U.S. and Japan are living longer than any other country. Japan has there diet that helps add to there longer life. Us has better medical care that is lowering heart problems. The government should spend more time devoted to proper diets. That would lower medical cost and lead to longer life span. Longer life could extend working years and add more tax income for the president to spend.
Posted by: Martin Howard | July 20, 2009, 10:19 am 10:19 am
Obama 45% Romney 45%
______________________________________
How could anyone vote for Romney? he gets rich off this country by not paying corp taxes to our system. We have all of these deficit issues and conservatives would vote for someone who doesn’t pay his share?
He moves companies offshore, avoids paying taxes on them and then makes millions of your back. Someone explain the mentality that allows a person to vote for someone like Mitt The Tax (and draft) Dodger Romney……..
Posted by: dk | July 20, 2009, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Martin, you better check your facts because you’re wrong. You’re just repeating something you heard from some conservative “expert”………our health system ranks lower then Costa Rica……we’re 37th on that list. We live 2 years shorter than all the developed countries in Europe.
Posted by: skip | July 20, 2009, 10:23 am 10:23 am
Steve,
You said: “If you don’t want an abortion – don’t get one.”
—————–
As the central government continues to gain power and struggles with ever increasing budget problems, that may not always be an option. Witness China, where abortions are indeed mandatory.
Don’t overlook the cost saving to overburdened government programs that abortions would provide.
Initially it would be not compusory. You would simply be told that the health care program will not pay for more than 2, 3, 4, (pick a number of children) but you will be offered a “free abortion” to solve your problem.
Eventually the number will decrease. And when still not enough people subscribe, opting for home delivery, etc, the abortion program will become compulsory.
The financial logic would simply be irresistible. Those with power over other, from an increasingly powerful central government, would not resist.
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
Skip,
Life expectancy is not the only criteria for a good medical system. There may be other reasons for a shorter life expectancy not addressable with medical care.
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL!!!
Posted by: American Infidel | July 20, 2009, 10:34 am 10:34 am
dk…….the pre-requisite for a seat in the Obamanation Presidency is not paying taxes and being a class 1 thug to boot!
What say ye now?
Posted by: American Infidel | July 20, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
How is the choice to have an abortion related to healthcare?
Would this not be asking the taxpayer to subsidize bad decisions that many of us (if placed in same position) would not make?
Ahhh….makes perfect sense now….
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 10:43 am 10:43 am
If we are to be responsible citizens, we must expect that keeping unwanted children, or having mothers unprepared to provide proper care, is much worse than abortion.
Abortion itself, is mostly a religious issue by people who are always unreasonable, and unyielding.
Social ills, promoted by improper raising of children, is far worse. Then we have crime, violence, and children who become bad parents themselves, over time, which grows exponentially, as a continually expanding social problem. precisely why we have so much crime in our world, today. Irresponsible parents, improperly raising children, are one of our biggest social problems.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | July 20, 2009, 10:44 am 10:44 am
Skip,
Life expectancy is not the only criteria for a good medical system. There may be other reasons for a shorter life expectancy not addressable with medical care.
Posted by: Terry | Jul 20, 2009 10:31:16 AM———————-that was an assuption made by another poster. All I did was to provide a link (which is against the rules and since removed) to prove his facts were incorrect. Even Canada, who Conservatives love to use to prove how horrible a public funded medical system is, have a longer life expectancy. To assume the medical system has no effect in life expectancy is almost as ridiculous as assuming it has everything to do with it. But what I do see is that most of the countries in the world with longer life than here in the US have a public funded health system.
Posted by: skip | July 20, 2009, 10:45 am 10:45 am
If abortion isn’t funded, why should pre-natal care or childbirth be covered? Isn’t having a child a choice? Forced-birthers don’t like their tax dollars to pay for abortion — well, I don’t like my tax dollars funding other people’s reproduction. Fair’s fair — right?
Posted by: Alex | July 20, 2009, 10:47 am 10:47 am
Hi Rick
You said: “If we are to be responsible citizens, we must expect that keeping unwanted children, or having mothers unprepared to provide proper care, is much worse than abortion.”
——
Sounds like you would already approve of mandatory abortions…
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 10:50 am 10:50 am
I think that it is important for people to take time to listen to the debate on health care reform and understand the costs that will be involved. Healthcare is not free, and somebody has to pay for it. Raising taxes on the wealthy is legal piracy. Why do they have to pay for the nation’s health care just because they have money? How is that fair? For those who are all for it, it is my fondest wish that you make a lot of money someday so that you can experience what is like to take risk, sacrifice, and work hard only to have the government take 30% of your paycheck because you are a producer. If healthcare is to a universal privilege, then all should contribute to it equally. That would be fair.
I also want to point out that a federal health plan would destroy private health plans. If given a choice between paying a monthly premium or having free coverage, what do you think people will choose?
Posted by: J | July 20, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
dk…….the pre-requisite for a seat in the Obamanation Presidency is not paying taxes and being a class 1 thug to boot!
What say ye now?
Posted by: American Infidel | Jul 20, 2009 10:39:20 AM
______________________________________
so you despise it so much that you’ll go vote for Mitt Romney? Make sense to me.
For the record, I stated in these forums that those in the cabinet who had tax issues should have been removed!! Charlie Rangel should lose his job. I hold mine to the same standards as yours. When will conservatives do that?
Posted by: dk | July 20, 2009, 10:54 am 10:54 am
=== Fair’s fair — right? ===
Absolutely. Everyone provide their own healthcare and it won’t be anyone’s business.
Posted by: Axey | July 20, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am
why is it we can find money to fight wars and build bombs (trillions of dollars) but we can’t find money to provide a sesnsible healthcare system?
Posted by: dk | July 20, 2009, 10:59 am 10:59 am
Our founding fathers, when laying out the rights of man in their declaration of independence mentioned the right to life first. This is because all other rights, like gay-marriage, government paid health care, depend on the fundamental right; life.
At what point in a person’s life does is he vested in the “right to life”? Some would argue at conception. Others would argue at birth. Still others would deny that life is a fundamental right at all.
This is an important question to answer before we get our government, which has too much power over us all, more involved in health care than it already is.
There was a government health care program instituted some years ago. At first it was for catastrophic situations. It was called “A”. Later, it was expanded to offer a public single payer option. That was called “B”. Then came “C” and “D”. The whole program is called Medicare. How is it doing? I think is it a virtually bankrupt. So now we want to bring the government into all healthcare?
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am
i’m so tired of republicans dredging up this issue to kill worthy causes.
The majority of americans support abort for rape and incest victims and where the life of the mother is threatened. Fight about the remaining percentage elsewhere and devote the proper brain power to the important issue of health care.
I’m a cancer survivor and I’ll say the current process is ridiculous for those occasions that hopefully most of you out there won’t need – those of you who DO have health care. It’s torture in that you have to make sure you are educated on the process and that you babysit it step by step to ensure you can receive your care and your caretakers get reimbursed.
The administrative is more than 30% and its not automated, not electronic and it changes usually every year. I would gladly get behind a single payer option that the government organizes that gets made electronic.
Those that fight the public option are getting swayed by the big dollars getting spent by the immensely profitable health care industry. It will be a shame if this goes down based on their financial input into the political process.
Posted by: mcgreen | July 20, 2009, 11:14 am 11:14 am
“Those that fight the public option are getting swayed by the big dollars getting spent by the immensely profitable health care industry.”
Um, not exactly. We fight the public (i.e., government-controlled) option because we know from first-hand experience how inefficient (and at times, draconian) the government can be. Can you name any service (outside of defense and intelligence) that federal and state governments can provide more efficiently and effectively than privately run entities? Education? Nope. Public transportation? No. U.S. Postal Service? Perennial money loser. We do not trust the government.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 11:20 am 11:20 am
@Bob – please keep it brief, or provide a link! Except in the case of pregnancy due to rape, I feel it must be funded personally. That way, it’s the parents choice and responsibility, and no collective Karma hangs over us all. My tax dollars are already feeding sexual offenders, rapists, and murderers in the Fed/State prison systems. It’s funding drug rehab., sex education and condom distribution…all for the betterment of society.
Posted by: Jiva | July 20, 2009, 11:24 am 11:24 am
Hi Mcgreen,
Happy to hear your survived. Sounds like the health care you received was effective even if inefficient.
Only one question. If innocent little babies don’t have the right to survive the gestation process, why should you complain about a little paperwork and inconvenience in dealing with the current health care system?
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 11:24 am 11:24 am
We use taxpayers’ money to buy bombs and bullets for use in warfare because it is unlawful to wage war on a private basis. There is no sound reason to tax people in order to provide health insurance for others. There are many, many reasons not to permit the government–any government–to destroy the private health insurance industry.
The president and his spokesmen have resorted to willful falsehood in their effort to get this monstrosity enacted. People are catching on.
Posted by: Fructuoso Solano-Revuelta | July 20, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
I don’t think funds should be used for ‘elective’ abortions. If there is a clear medical rational, then perhaps so.
Posted by: LongT | July 20, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
===The administrative is more than 30% and its not automated, not electronic and it changes usually every year. I would gladly get behind a single payer option that the government organizes that gets made electronic.===
What makes you think anything the government runs will be organized? They don’t call it red tape for nothing.
Posted by: Axey | July 20, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am
Where do you draw the line? Are you really going to force twelve year old victims of rape to risk their lives carrying to term?
Is your solution that they should throw themselves down a flight of stairs or drink lye or some of the other solutions desperate people have taken to terminate a pregnancy they can’t afford physically, emotionally or financially?
There were two girls arrested for setting fire to live kittens – you wouldn’t want abortions and further free or inexpensive birth control for should one of these individuals if they don’t want a child, and think long and hard those of you who also don’t think children of poverty deserve support due to their parent’s poor choices.
it’s so easy to sit back and say I only want my taxes spent on things I agree with – well I really don’t like how much money of our taxes goes to support health care industries. Why should they receive a 14% premium above and beyond what Medicare could have provided a service for?
People don’t realize their money is going to these providers who continue to complain they need to receive more dollars in order to ‘compete’ with Medicare. Horse manure.
Posted by: mcgreen | July 20, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am
Thirty percent of the nation’s voters now strongly approve of Mr. Obama’s performance. Thirty-seven percent strongly disapprove.
When in the nation’s history has a president’s overall approval eroded so far this early in his tenure in office? I can’t recall it ever happening. The fact that he lies repeatedly is catching up with him steadily.
Posted by: Fructuoso Solano-Revuelta | July 20, 2009, 11:37 am 11:37 am
The reason for so many abortions in this country is a lack of education. I’m not talking about sex education, but about moral education.
The truth is simply this: When you engage in an activity that results in the conception of another person, that person is imbued with the same rights that you have, i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and others. You as the parent have the responsibility to protect those rights, as well as providing nurture.
As Mark Twain once opined, No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while congress is in session. At no time was that more true than now.
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 11:39 am 11:39 am
McGreen: I am also a cancer survivor, who happens to love my insurance and am glad that I did not have to rely on some generic, assembly line government run insurance to help me get better. Furthermore, YOU should be in charge of YOUR insurance and know the ins and outs of how YOUR insurance works. How downright lazy to expect otherwise! I would much rather be burdened a little by having to “babysit” my own healthcare, than have the government being the one to babysit me!
Posted by: Aaron | July 20, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am
I hope not. If so then abortion needs to be a state mandated issue, not a federal one. I need to move to a state where abortion does not happen legally so that my money will not facilitate evil.
Posted by: Huh | July 20, 2009, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm
Planned Parenthood already gets federal money and the United States under Obama is again funding abortions in other countries.We need to end this tragic use of public funds and get that man out of office. Why are we paying for overseas and domestic abortions? This is not only morally reprehensible, but it is obviously fiscally irresponsible.YUCK!
Posted by: Lisa Dorn | July 20, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
Hi Jacksmith,
After we nationalize health care, who will develop the drugs and treatments the rest of the world relies on?
Did you know that Mexico is moving back towards fee for service after as the disaster of their public system becomes more apparent?
Ever been involved with Mexican health care other than that which caters to foreigners on a fee for service basis?
Be thankful you live in the USA, with or without health care insurance.
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
1.2 million estimated in 2005. Good. Too damn many people already. And how many of these would have been a total drag on the system as unwed mothers depended on every kind of government handout. Funded? Hell, it ought to be a mandatory procedure until prospective parent can demonstrate independent or family means of support with no government check.
Posted by: sdr65 | July 20, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
“After we nationalize health care, who will develop the drugs and treatments the rest of the world relies on?”
2 things.
1) What do insurance companies have to do with research and development?
2) Why are you under the impression that the only drugs and treatments developed happen here?
Posted by: Ryan C | July 20, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm
“Um, not exactly. We fight the public (i.e., government-controlled) option because we know from first-hand experience how inefficient (and at times, draconian) the government can be. Can you name any service (outside of defense and intelligence) that federal and state governments can provide more efficiently and effectively than privately run entities?”
See right wingers prefer someone make a profit off someone else’s misery.
So they protect insurance companies rather than advocate for better pateint care.
Posted by: Ryan C | July 20, 2009, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
Can anyone explain to me why Clinton and most others who favor legal abortion say that they want it to be rare? Can anyone explain to me why most who favor legal abortion say it should be used only in the cases of incest, rape, and if the mother’s life is in danger? If these are the primary reasons why it is acceptable to have an abortion then why did our president defend the choice to have an abortion by saying that he did not want his young daughters to be punished with a baby if they made a mistake and got pregnant? Why does the most well known abortion provider go by the name of Planned Parenthood? Does that not indicate acceptance of using abortion as a primary means of birth control? Why should we as taxpayers, regardless of when we believe life begins, pay for birth control? Why are most abortion clinics in urban areas with high concentrations of minorities? Is it racist to fund minority focused organizations that provide abortions?
Posted by: Jason | July 20, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
Hi Ryan C
You should love profits, those are what get taxed (twice in coporations) to pay for all the social spending. Also the difference between you take home and what you spend to live is ….. profit!
Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
“Why should we as taxpayers, regardless of when we believe life begins, pay for birth control?”—————you’d rather pay to house unwanted children, provide healthcare for low income, unwed, teenage mothers? You’d prefer to pay for these kids born to a parent(s) who can’t afford them? And don’t even get me started on your assumption that white girls don’t get abortions…….
Posted by: dk | July 20, 2009, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
how come the conservatives in this country talk so highly of upholding the law……until of course someone wants to attain a LEGAL abortion? One would think the laws you champion so wholeheartedly are only the ones YOU agree with…..quite hypocritical isn’t it? Nevermind…we’ve become accustomed to this with from Republicans.
Posted by: dk | July 20, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
Healthcare should not be a ForProfit business.
I’d rather someone not making a profit stand between my doctor and I than an Insurance Company concerned more about their profits than my family’s health.
Posted by: dk | July 20, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
“Did you know that Mexico is moving back towards fee for service after as the disaster of their public system becomes more apparent? ”
Mexico? You seriously want to compare our country to Mexico? That’s just laughable at worst and pathetic at best.
I want to know is why my American friend now living in Japan can go to an emergency room, receive what he considers really excellent care and walk away with a bill of 20$ and I had to pay 100$ to get sent home with a fractured wrist because…..they couldn’t help me, I had to go see a sspecialist……are you kidding me?
Posted by: dk | July 20, 2009, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Taxpayer dollars for abortions? Condoms are cheaper. I’ll gladly pay for sterilizations though.
Posted by: TrimesterTed | July 20, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
Re: “I want to know is why my American friend now living in Japan…”
Things like public health care (socialism) work better in homogenous countries because you can’t pit one group against another. In my opinion, government health care won’t work here because you will have the corporate media creating stories about how one group gets more coverage than another. They will say this whether or not it’s true. Then the lemmings think it’s unfair and they turn against it, and nobody gets anything.
I think that’s why education and other things we used to have are being eliminated without much of an outcry. People would rather lose it all and turn America into a mediocre country than think that somebody else might be getting more than they are.
Posted by: Bubbles | July 20, 2009, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
–Mexico? You seriously want to compare our country to Mexico?–
Why not? So much of Mexico is here. Si?
Posted by: Pendejo | July 20, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
If it includes abortion, will it include fertility treatments as well?
Posted by: je | July 20, 2009, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
Why is Jake Tapper pictured still wearing a Wool Overcoat and Scarf in the middle of July? Is he afraid of getting sick and actuually having to use the Democrats poorly designed and extremely costly offering to Health care Insurance?
Posted by: Curious _poster | July 20, 2009, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
Why not have a public plan that allows everyone to see a doctor of their choice as often as they like, get their pills and meds free of charge whenever any one likes, get as many MRI’s CT scans when one likes, etc….i cannot help but think of the Obama heckler a few months ago screaming she wanted no restrictions on her medical care.
Should we cover ED drugs, fertility treatments so we can have octomoms everywhere, abortions, unlimited morning after pills, STD drugs handed out like candy, bariatric and lapband procedures, botox for “migranes”, and the lists goes on and on….ARe we going to pay for at home birth in mobile tub clinics?
Who is going to determine what the public plans pays for and what it does not. The public plan WILL RATION health care and if anyone thinks it will not, its wishful thinking on their part.
lets pay medical providers on a per patient per year to treat you, regardless of the direct out of pocket costs the provider incurs…how many caregivers will you have and how long your wait? Just look at the UK’s NHS and the repeated patient outrage over the past 5 years.
I am not so sure we want the Public Plan. Congress certainly does not.
Posted by: scott jeffries | July 20, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
I pledge that if the healthcare bill includes funding for abortion, I will cease to pay any federal taxes. If this means I go to prison, so be it. But if I do, The president and all those people responsible for this inclusion will know about it.
Posted by: Bill Hammersley | July 20, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Federally funded abortions may not be a bad thing after all.
Posted by: skm | July 20, 2009, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
Jake,
You bring up this item, the fired IG suing, Obama delaying release of the mid session Budget review on you blog, and yet you never cover them on TV. WHY?? You cover how many more people are going to the emergency rooms on TV because they don’t have insurance. How many of those are illegal aliens? Try giving ALL the facts instead of just Obama’s side.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | July 20, 2009, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
DO NOT LET THE MEDIA LIE TO YOU!!! LISTEN TO THIS HEADLINE….YOU THINK MAYBE JAKE TAPPER MAKES MORE THAN A COUPLE MILLION A YEAR? THE REALITY IS THAT JAKE TAPPER AND HIS ILK WILL NEVER TELL THE TRUTH..THIS IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE POOR, OR ILLEGALS, THIS IS ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS BECAUSE IT IS THE MIDDLE CLASS THAT IS ALWAYS AT RISK FOR HAVING NO HEALTH CARE OR BEING WIPED OUT FINANCIALLY…JAKE TAPPER AND HIS BOSS DIERDRE MICHALOPOULOS ALL HAVE HEALTH CARE AND THEY DONT WANT TO PAY THE TAXES ASSOCIATED WITH A JUST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
Posted by: TruthSaves | July 20, 2009, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
“Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, an abortion opponent, said later that “no matter what your views are on abortion, you shouldn’t ask people to use their tax dollars if they think that abortion is taking a life — to use their tax dollars for those purpose — for that purpose’
Well – I don’t want my tax dollars used for multiple generations of welfare recipients. I don’t want my tax dollars used for services for illegal aliens, unless it is to ship them back to where they came from. I don’t want my tax dollars used for pet projects. I don’t want my tax dollars used for a lot of things, but Congress doesn’t care about that.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | July 20, 2009, 7:02 pm 7:02 pm
This “brand new” issue was happening BEFORE this media fueled frenzy. Under the Bush administration this was also happening. There is funding set aside for family planning no matter what. I believe this is just to stir up negative feedback on the Obama healthcare reform. I don’t agree with everything that is included in the reform, yet believe that some kind of reform is necessary. Taxpayers have paid for abortions for years, just NOW it’s come into the light b/c of Obama being a Democrat and his pro-choice stance.
Posted by: Erika W | July 20, 2009, 7:51 pm 7:51 pm
Why is it that people seem to think they are entitled to anything? Health care for everyone? Then everyone pay for it. Why should I have to pay many times over for other people to have health care and at the same time get lesser care myself? I have great health care right now, and my husband and I work hard for that privilage. I guess we are being punished for our success? Perhaps if frivolous law suits were banned then doctors wouldn’t be spending most of their salary on insurance and the costs could be lowered.
Also, to say abortions should be funded in order to avoid more welfare taxes is missing the point-there should be no welfare taxes in the first place. Churches and other not-for-profit organizations should be in charge ofcaring for the poor. If people need money they should be required to go to their neighbors and ask for it. I would gladly help out, but only if asked. This Robinhood thuggary is dishonest at best. At worst it is state sanctioned theft.
Posted by: Jen K | July 20, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
Bill Hammersley,
Are you willing to pay taxes to support inmates? This is where unwanted children, or those born into families who are ill prepared to parent them often end up. If you are, how about you also pay my share of their incarceration.
Posted by: Lori | July 20, 2009, 9:15 pm 9:15 pm
Jen K : “I have great health care right now, and my husband and I work hard for that privilage…”
Private insurance won’t cover everybody. Sometimes they reject people because they have preexisting conditions, or they terminate their coverage if a patient get a costly disease. That could even happen to you.
Posted by: bubbles | July 20, 2009, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
The for profit health care system is run by the insurance companies and the drug companies. There are all natural cures for many diseases which this country does not want to admit too, because of the profit motive. After reading some of the comments, here, I am not sure whether a government health care program would work here because of the complainers. Our health care system is already rationed due to its high cost, and the insurance companies unwillingness to pay legitimate claims or drop coverage because of them. This country ranks between 35-40th in the world in health care and we pay 50% more for it than any other nation. I have also read where 1.6 million jobs may be lost under the gov’t plan. How many will be lost if nothing is done and healthcare costs continue to skyrocket?
Posted by: Gregory Johnson | July 20, 2009, 11:31 pm 11:31 pm
If it is such a good plan. the President, Senate and Congress should go under the health plan with all of America. I have had no health care sence March 2008. White male age 50. no work. And I don’t think will be good for my two children. The ones that will be paying for it.
Posted by: Dennis Thompson | July 20, 2009, 11:42 pm 11:42 pm
Good health care is a human right. That’s the view in most of the developed world, except for the US. But smokers, drinkers, and those who don’t take care of themselves should be penalized. So should people who incur injuries playing hobby sports. Why should my rates be higher because some idiot who thinks he’s a jock breaks his leg skiing? Sounds like a self-inflicted injury to me. The real crooks are the drug companies and insurance companies. Why should those companies’ stockholders reap billions in profits/dividend payouts at the expense of those who are sick and have their claims disallowed? The system is screwed up now, and I’d rather see the govt make a profit than greedy stockholders.
Posted by: mj | July 21, 2009, 1:05 am 1:05 am
“Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, an abortion opponent, said later that ‘no matter what your views are on abortion, you shouldn’t ask people to use their tax dollars if they think that abortion is taking a life — to use their tax dollars for those purpose — for that purpose…’”
But it’s OK to use my tax dollars to fund a trillion dollar “war of choice?” A bit hypocritical, doncha think?
“Tiahrt also mentioned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as one whom might have been aborted in such a situation, depriving the world of his intellect.”
Snort!
Posted by: Devon McLauglin | July 21, 2009, 1:11 am 1:11 am
This is appalling and sickening to think the American government can say my taxes will pay for someone to have an abortion…I will not be surprised if D.C. was swallowed up by the earth this moment!! At the rate of their mental capacity my taxes will go for someones sex change next!!
This government is going down a path they will surely regret, mark my words.
Posted by: ponyxp | July 21, 2009, 2:24 am 2:24 am
Unwanted children that are allowed to be born often turn the parents life around and they realize how important life is and the horrible mistake they almost made….if anyone ever contemplates abortion know now, once you were in your moms womb and God has a plan for every person and unborn person right now!
Posted by: ponyxp | July 21, 2009, 2:32 am 2:32 am
If this passes the Obama admin. will surely regret it.
Posted by: ponyxp | July 21, 2009, 2:35 am 2:35 am
What an unfortunate president we have.
Posted by: inhisimage | July 21, 2009, 2:36 am 2:36 am
I was once also in darkness as this world is now but now I see, therefore until one is changed we cannot expect anything better out the lost except say forgive them for they know not what they do.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.
For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.
For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a “REPROBATE MIND”, to do the things not right, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.
Romans 1:16-32
Posted by: Kenny | July 21, 2009, 2:47 am 2:47 am
mj – you want people to take care of themselves, but you don’t want them to do physical activity to make that happen – you can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | July 21, 2009, 6:32 am 6:32 am
I stood next to a teenage girl in the grocery store line the other day. She was there with her baby and her mother, shopping cart piled high. All three were wearing a lot of jewelry (yes, baby too) and the teen and her mother appeared well-dressed and healthy enough to work and earn a living. When it came to pay, out came the welfare card. Another teen mother who thinks living on the dole is her “right.”
I think abortion should be not only legal and freely available, but mandatory for anyone who is on public assistance. We now have second and third generation free-loaders who think the tax-payers owe them a check every month, and our government encourages the continuation of this lifestyle by providing checks to every teenager who gets pregnant and then finds abortion unacceptable. I for one am sick of these beggars stealing our money, while raising the next generation of criminals and societal dependents.
Posted by: abortion rights are necessary | July 21, 2009, 7:58 am 7:58 am
In response to “abortion rights are necessary”…
While I do not support the use of taxpayer money to fund unnecessary abortions, I also do not support mandatory abortions or sterilizations of low income women.
Most people receiving assistance work at least part time. I once knew a family where the husband was a police officer and the wife worked as a secretary. Their income was still low enough that they qualified for WIC.
It is also possible to “look” healthy without actually being healthy.
It is also possible to get rather nice looking clothes and “fake” jewelry at thrift shops and Goodwill. Where do you think all the rich people dump their unwanted clothes so they can get a deduction on their taxes?
Teens shouldn’t get pregnant – but neither should they be treated like trash and forced to have an abortion. No matter how poor a US citizen or legal resident is, they have the same exact rights every other citizen or legal resident has. Those rights should not be taken away simply because they are poor.
You should keep in mind that it often can cost less for welfare to provide food and shelter assistance to teen moms than it does for them to pay for full-time child care so the teen can work a minimum wage job. Even better – state assistance for the teen and her mom usually means the baby can be cared for by grandma while the teen finishes her education. In the long run, having an education may mean the difference between this teen and her child living their entire lives in poverty – or being able to get a decent job and raising her child with little or no assistance.
My point is that while there are people who abuse the system, the vast majority do not. Assuming everyone who pulls out a food stamp card or cashes a welfare check is a worthless deadbeat is inaccurate at best – and horridly insulting at worst.
Posted by: Michelle Lampson | July 21, 2009, 8:28 am 8:28 am
So, according to the democrats, we can kill our children. But we can’t waterboard a terrorist?
Posted by: DWatson | July 21, 2009, 8:28 am 8:28 am
The attitude that “this will encourage single mothers… to get a free abortion” is demeaning to all women. This belief perpetuates the faulty assumption that single mothers living below the poverty line are “free-loaders”. That women are just crazy sex maniacs, turning tricks left and right because “they know” the tax dollars will pay for their abortions. No one loves abortion, don’t be stupid. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can get a free abortion. No one is clipping “free abortion” coupons in the Sunday paper. I am always surprised by married or childless women who can turn their backs on single mothers, claiming that it would never happen to them. Many married women with children would need public assistance if they got divorced. In this country, we must focus on the collective well being of society. In helping others you will in turn be helping yourself.
It is evolutionarily disadvantageous for people to focus solely on individual reproductive fitness; promoting social welfare within the group benefits all members of society. What is criminal about trying to raise a child?
Abortion is a right that every woman has in this country. We pay taxes for many services, some of which “you” may never use. You pay for children to get an education even if you don’t have children. You pay for the upkeep of public parks even if you never visit them. This is how society prospers. If a mother does not have the desire or financial means or WHATEVER reason she has for not wanting a child, she knows best. If tax dollars pay for women to have children, why not for abortions? And if you think abortion=murder, than try to justify paying taxes for the wars overseas.
Something to keep in mind:
A single person can work full time for $8.00 an hour and still barely break a salary of $16,000 a year (Seccombe, 2007, p.85). The poverty line for a family of four is around $20,000 a year. A mother working full time making minimum wage and trying to support 2 children is next to impossible. And the anecdotal evidence you spout off about girls with jewelry is not enough to change this truth. Public assistance is not only necessary, but should be embraced. Get over it. Go live in a remote mountain range somewhere if you cannot relate to other people.
Posted by: Kate | July 21, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am
How about we offer goverment-sponsored healthcare to every legal resident who is either under 18 years of age or works 30+ hours a week (but their employer doesn’t provide coverage). This would eliminate illegals and deadbeats from taking advantage of the system and would also protect children. Everyone who is physically or mentally unable to work is already protected by Welfare.
Posted by: TheCoz | July 21, 2009, 9:28 am 9:28 am
“Welfare” is not the name of any program. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare and Medicaid are likely what you are referring to and, like general health care, they need reform. No one is fully covered by these programs.
Posted by: Kate | July 21, 2009, 9:31 am 9:31 am
Geez, sorry for offending anyone with the use of the word “Welfare”. My point is that there are already government programs in place for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I hate the idea that someone as healthy and able as me has the option to stay and home and be a deadbeat while I have to get off my ass every morning to support him or her through mandated taxes.
Posted by: TheCoz | July 21, 2009, 9:38 am 9:38 am
I do not want my tax dollars going toward the murder of the pre-born. Hyde’s legacy should continue.
Posted by: Jane | July 21, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am
“Jen K : “I have great health care right now, and my husband and I work hard for that privilage…”
Private insurance won’t cover everybody. Sometimes they reject people because they have preexisting conditions, or they terminate their coverage if a patient get a costly disease. That could even happen to you.”
And if it does we will work it out without assuming other taxpayers will foot our bill.
Posted by: Jen K | July 21, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
It does not matter if a person goes to Macy’s or Salvation Army, if jewelry is purchased while on any sort of public assistance it is theft. I am not paying taxes to the poor for them to beautify themselves. Basic food, basic clothing, basic shelter, basic health care. That is ALL public assistance should cover if we are forced to have it at all. Cigarettes, jewelry or purfume, alcohol, junk food, electronics, cable, internet, cell phones, etc, are all privilages, not rights, and should not be purchased using our taxes. When we were kids, poor people did not drive SUVs and have cell phones-most made do and tightened their belts and tried to get off welfare as quickly as possible.
Personally I would support manditory implanted birth control for all women on any sort of public assistance. I would support it for men if it were available.
Women have the only say in whether they get pregnant (except rape, which accounts for a very small percentage of pregnancies) and what they do with the child. They have the most reliable birth control and the most choices, they have the only say in abortion, adoption and abandonment and have the most say in custody issues, especially single mothers. Thus simgle mothers are the ones who must bear the responsibility for their actions when it comes to having children on welfare. Legally the buck stops with women (a privilage women fought for), so responsibility also must rest there. If women don’t want to be blamed for this, then they should start granting equal rights to men. THAT will not happen. As men have known for centuries, with rights come responsibilities. Eventually we women will figure that out.
Posted by: Jen K | July 21, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
It’s amazing that the only thing republicans focus on is abortion. Most insurance companies don’t pay for abortion anyway. If people will pay into public option, that’s their choice as to what to add to their plans. Republicans need to go to undisclosed location until election year.
Insurance companies are vigirously lobbying the senators to block any health care reform because they are enjoying the messed up system that take money from their members and Medicare and provide very little service. They spend more money on staff to review cases so they can deny them instead or paying for what the members pay for.
Don’t think insurance companies will go under. Look at how they fight to get Medicare recipients to roll over their coverage to the private insurance so they can deny the care and turn around and bill Medicare for the services they denied.
Posted by: Mavie | July 21, 2009, 11:45 am 11:45 am
Why are you worried about taxing health care? It’s either a tax on your health or a tax on your ipod or iphone. People want government to pay for their health care coverage but they don’t want the debt to grow. My question is, how is that going to happen?
If it’s not the republicans blocking everything for nothing, the public demand for something that they don’t want to pay for.
Republicans think President Obama and some Democrats who care about try to rush health care bill through. I guess it’s been so what’s another 30 years. It’s a good topic for Congressional and Presidential campaigns. That’s what it’s all about. Something is better than the health care system we have.
I would rather have a public option, pay tax, and customized my plan that meets my family’s needs than paying for the plan that we don’t even use most of the services we pay for. We’re one of the families that believe in preventive care but we don’t have a choice now on what plan we want. Insurance companies offer either a basic or a comprehensive plans. The only differenc is the co-pay.
Posted by: Mavie | July 21, 2009, 11:52 am 11:52 am
I think everyone should be mandated to pay for their insurance coverage. It is a necessary, not an option. Paying for an ipod, iphone,text messaging are the options. If people don’t want to pay for health care insurance, they should be responsible for their own hospital bills.
I’m yet to see republicans plan. Rep Boehner showed their summary and the plan was supposed to follow. Where is the plan? Your whining about not having time to read through proposed bills and not time to do anything is getting old. The time the republicans spend attacking Obama’s plan could be spent reading the proposed bills or writing their own plan. It’s been one excuse after another.
What have the republicans been doing the last eight years and still don’t have a plan for anything?
Posted by: Mavie | July 21, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
I think we all have to realize that employer-sponsored health insurance is going the way of the dodo. Bush started the ball rolling by pushing individual accounts and HSAs, and the corporations have run with it. Many companies are laying off employees, then hiring them back as “freelance,” minus benefits. Trying to get an individual health care policy is a nightmare; if you have any pre-existing condition, you’re either turned down or offered lousy coverage for beaucoup bucks. Plus, you’re forced to fill out a form listing ten years of medical history, so if some very expensive health problem happens to you, the insurance company can comb through your records with a fine-tooth, hoping to discover anything you omitted in your application so they can cancel your policy and not have to pay. I think everyone should be offered “group” insurance, employed or not, so that all are covered without having to state medical histories. The number of Americans that would sign up for the group insurance certainly would be enough to dilute risk and lower costs.
Posted by: devon mclaughlin | July 21, 2009, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm
First, such a coverage is not a finnancial incentive. such instinces would only be covered in whichj gains could be made over abortions, ratther than merely having access to a service more than one normally would. second their are many items tax payers would not like to see their tax dollars go to but they do not hav the ability to pick and chose. the government has an obligation to develop the best plans of action possible not cater to the moral choices of individuals.
Posted by: matt jones | July 22, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
HYDE AMENDMENT
Elective abortions are not the responsibility of the tax payer! Actually no abortion is the responsibility of the tax payer.
Your mistake, Your responsibility.
This is getting beyond absurd!
Posted by: amy | December 24, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
Will healthcare reform cover fertility treatments? How about viagra? I don’t want to see my tax dollars going to programs that produce more octo-moms and burdening an already overpopulated world. I would like to see free sterilazations, however. Have an abortion and get your tubes tied on the spot.
Posted by: Jan | January 7, 2010, 11:17 am 11:17 am
No person should ever be forced to pay for an abortion. That goes against our constitutional rights. I believe that abortions are murder, which is a sin. For us to be forced to go against our religion is messed up, and totally unconstitutional.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
-Declaration of Independance-
Posted by: Jenny | January 25, 2010, 8:04 pm 8:04 pm
No Way, No Way, I do NOT want to pay for Abortions; and if we do not Stand up and make sure we do not; we may be held accountable for it!!!!!! By the creator himself he gave us dominion we are the people!!! Stand up And SAY NO!!!!!
Posted by: C Mccollum | February 27, 2010, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
NOOOIO! we should not have to pay FOR others ABORTIONS taking the life of a child is wrong and for us to sit here and know that were funding abortions! THAT MAKES ME SICK!!!
Posted by: Kim | March 31, 2010, 8:55 am 8:55 am