Comments on: What You Need to Know About the Stupak Amendment

By: Marie

Marie — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:58:16 +0000

I was just wondering, since the topic of cost to raise a child rather than abort was brought up, if anyone took into account the cost of treating the women who end up with emotional and mental issues after their procedure? Specific case: at one point, I was pregnant. The “father” and I were in an on again off again relationship. We both had jobs, both had health insurance. He, however, stated that not only was he not ready to be a parent, but that if I aborted the baby, he and I would get back together. So I had the procedure. And two days later he disappeared and I haven’t heard from him since. That was in 2007. I was so disconsolate, my family had to surround me. I was basically on suicide watch, with tri weekly check ups with not only my doctor that did the procedure, but a psychiatrist who wanted me committed for at least 72 hours. Then I was on anti depressants for the next 6 months, maintaining bi weekly appointments with said psychiatrists. Even now, every couple of months and on the anniversary of my surgery, I have to check in. How much do you suppose that has cost my insurance company? I know I’ve already paid a few thousand in co-pays. And lets say I had been committed on your dime? And guess what, I’m not a rare case. Many women are taken advantage of in this way or even if they make the choice on their own, they soon come to regret it. How much exactly will that cost you? And folks, lets be real here! You cannot compare the government taking over health care (they’ve run themselves for quite some time) to issues of local and national security! Once upon a time, police and fire were private run, but that endangered more people than it helped and there was a communication breakdown that cost lives. The health industry does need reform, but in a broad way. Not just knock down the door of a private industry and have the government take over. Last time I heard of that happening was in Russia and Germany! Do we really want to go down that road? Will the people we are supposedly trying to benefit, really benefit from that kind of system? I doubt it. <—– Former dem who is trying to save the country she loves! God Bless our troops!

By: Bettyboo

Bettyboo — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:18:33 +0000

I seriously doubt that, given the opportunity to access any other form of contraception, anyone would use abortion as form of birth control. In the UK we have free contraception for anyone as long as you get it prescribed by a doctor or a from a family planning clinic which is something I’ve taken for granted through my adult life. The essential lack of free healthcare in the US looks, to an outsider, really deeply shocking, especially given you must be one of the richest nations on planet. I can’t conceive of having to make decisions about drugs I or my family need for illness or even something like my birthcontrol based on whether I could afford them or whether I had the right insurance.

By: Madamoiselle L

Madamoiselle L — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:24:03 +0000

Elizabeth I have never heard of an insurance company paying for cosmetic surgery in any form. Also, it has been proven that “young girls” use “abortion” as a form of birth control.

By: Russell

Russell — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:31:49 +0000

Abortion takes a life, no matter the circumstances. In this country it is a felony to destroy an Eagle egg, but it is not only legal, but potentially subsidized, to take a human life in it’s most vulnerable state. I think we need to seriously re-examine our priorities.

By: bama_baby_007

bama_baby_007 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:24:18 +0000

Okay, look. I have to be honest, I don’t particularly like the idea of my tax dollars going to pay for some 17 year old to go out and sleep with whomever she wants and use abortion as her form of “birth control”. I personally am pro-life, but that’s also just extremely irresponsible behavior. (Condoms aren’t that expensive.) However, I do understand that there are instances (such as rape, incest, increased risk to the life/health of the mother)that are totally out of the woman’s control. I believe that those situations should be covered by the woman’s insurance, whether it be private, public or government-funded.

By: geeky male

geeky male — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:41:02 +0000

during the elections, for all i cared, mccain, obama, and biden could have taken a bullet for all the shit i give – i voted mccain for sarah palin alone!

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:29:12 +0000

Why exactly does the government get to regulate what PRIVATE insurance companies choose to cover? I mean, it’s one thing if they are choosing not to cover someone’s cancer treatments or something – hell yeah, step in there, but to say that they CAN’T cover something? Ridiculous! They CAN cover elective plastic surgery, but they can’t pay for a woman to abort a fetus that will seriously endanger her health. What kind of society do we live in again? I thought we gave up the whole dictator thing back in 1776.

By: geeky male

geeky male — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:51:25 +0000

<<<==== VERY FAR RIGHT REPUBLICAN

By: Spes

Spes — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:02:45 +0000

Doug, you are totally dead on. Not only is it cruel to the child to bring it into a world where it’s unwanted, but it’s also cruel to the mother to force her to carry something she doesn’t want. The woman may have been able to become a productive member of society, but because birth control and condoms aren’t 100%, her options have become severely limited and now even more so for the sake of religious morals that she may not even believe in. What the hell happened to separation of church and state?

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:24:53 +0000

Here here Spes! I can assure you at least one other person feels this way. When you get down to brass tacks, it’s simply better for society to not have to support unwanted children financially. Also, and this is not meant to be a knock on parents, but wouldn’t you rather have been raised in a home where the parents have the financial and emotional faculties to provide for you rather than rely on the state?

It’s a known fact that in the poorest parts of town (those parts most benefiting from being able to choose, at least financially) are also the highest number of single, disadvantaged, youngest parents. These parts also turn out the highest eprcentage of criminals with the highest rates of recidivism. Not only to do unwanted children become a problem for the state to support until they’re 18, also they become a drain on it afterward. I would rather the mother not be forced to carry and raise a child she is not prepared for.