Senate blocks tough abortion limits in health bill

except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

Why is incest in there, but not cases of statutory rape where the mother does not want the child? If an adult female has consentual relations with her uncle, why does she have the option of aborting? But if a junior high school student has consensual relations with her boyfriend of the same age, she does not get the option? I know that the odds of birth defects goes up in incest cases, but its no absolute. The baby could be perfectly healthy. In fact, odds are it is. So what gives here?

It's no absolute thing that women who are pregnant from an incestial act have to get an abortion. It's an allowable action within the law.

If the mother who was raped goes to a doctor and attest by councelling that having this child will cause her permanent psychological damage, she'll be allowed to get her abortion.

The school girl who has consensual sex and gets pregnant can keep her child. She has rights also. < :-)

I believe in abortion, and have paid for it several times. Should be any ones rights. Age 55 for medicaid? So, that means if you have Japanese National Insurance, but are an American, you can go to the states and claim you have no insurance and get medicaid to cover it, and then take copies of medical treatment with receipts and turn it in for reimbursement at the local ward office here? wow. Cool

Women should be allowed to get abortions for whatever reason, whenever they want. It's their own bodies, so it's their decisions.

No, they shouldn't.

If you don't like abortions, then you're welcome to not get one for yourself. But nobody has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own uterus.

Sorry, MrUSA, but I don't live in the United States of Anything Goes.

Is that what your moniker stands for.

By the by... I'm not goin' to go back and wade through every post that's been made on that whale bidness, but you could offer up some references from The Lancet or Journal of the American Medical Association once in a while to back up your statements. Me? Mix a little soy with that wasabi please.

There is absolutely no comparison between illegal drugs and abortion. Abortion only affects the woman who decides to get one. Drugs affect the entire community and also cause actual physical harm to the drug user.

"Abortion only affects the woman who decides to get one..."

MrUSA, no, it doesn't. It also often involves the life of a human child that could exist independently outside of the womb.

It affects society by cheapenin' the meanin' of innocent life'.

Curious... With your initial argument, why do you even bring up that drugs harm the user? Accordin' to you, that's their right to do just as they please with their own bodies.

It also often involves the life of a human child that could exist independently outside of the womb.

A fertilized egg could not exist outside the womb. We're not talking about abortions 8 months into the pregnancy.

MrUSA, now you're sayin' a woman doesn't have the absolute right to do whatever she wants with her body regardin' abortion.

It took you a while, but you're comin' around.

Nobody is advocating aborting babies that are ready to be born. There should be a limit on when an abortion can take place, but there should be no restrictions on the reasons for an abortion.

MrUSA, are you unfamiliar with the phrase 'late term abortion'? Of course there are those who're advocatin' 'aborting babies that are ready to be born'. It's been goin' on. Why do think someone whacked that last abortionist? The abortionist bragged about it, for one.

And now you're on to your third tack... 'reasons'.

USARonin: It also often involves the life of a human child that could exist independently outside of the womb.

Usually that is not the case. And a fetus is not a human child. Its a fetus. Frogs have more going on upstairs and you don't cry when you run one over.

Instead of pointing fingers and "talking" all high and mighty, why not ask to put fliers up at abortion clinics that promises pregnant women some money to survive on and a home for the baby should they choose to have it? If you only care enough to point fingers, I would say you don't care enough and should just sit down and be silent.

adaydream: It's no absolute thing that women who are pregnant from an incestial act have to get an abortion. It's an allowable action within the law.

I know that. But if a woman has a healthy fetus from incest, why does she get the option to abort but a woman with a fetus that has Down syndrome doesn't? That is whacky.

numbskull, many consider a fetus a human child with all the potential that may entail. You consider it no more than a frog. That says a lot about you.

There are already many American church groups and social organizations that offer adoption and pre-natal care options, etc.

Then there are taxes already bein' collected to provide for social services. Welfare for housing... free (to them) milk and baby foods...

In Hawaii, the Great Aloha Run in February will collect money for helpin' folks such as these mothers and kids.

I hope I've brought you up to speed.

I'm curious... I'm thinkin' killin' the innocent shouldn't be the first option, and you're sayin', "No problemo... slice and dice and vacuum away".

Strange that.

USARonin:That says a lot about you.

Yes it does. It says I am rational. It says I see what is there, not what I want to see. Of course, I don't know how you live with a wet dream, what with all those little lives lost, millions of 'em!

I hope I've brought you up to speed.

Nope, now you get to explain to me why we still have full orphanages, why women don't jump on those options, and why YOU haven't adopted yet.

I'm curious... I'm thinkin' killin' the innocent shouldn't be the first option, and you're sayin', "No problemo... slice and dice and vacuum away".

I am curious...I have only one post here and it contains ideas on how to prevent abortions. How did you read that and get the idea that I thought abortion should be the first option??? I got it! You are argumentative and self-righteous! Yes, now I think I know what you REALLY care about and its not fetuses. Its yourself.

Strange indeed.

I have only one post here

direct at you I meant to say

are you unfamiliar with the phrase 'late term abortion'?

If the fetus is old enough to survive on its own, then I don't think it should be aborted.

Numbskull, you've got more than one post here. This topic alone counts three.

Orphanages? Homes all over America have unwanted and foster children. Oftentimes liberals, progressive and black groups successfully block the adoptions of black children by white couples. Many white couples are willin' to adopt black children.

And women do jump on all of these options. Of course they do.

Heck, numbskull, you value frogs as much as human beans. I ain't 'self-righteous' about bringin' that to your attention... what you said.

Your response when you can't come up with anything useful is that other people (me, in this case) are required to pull funds out of their back pockets to cover the poor decision makin' of others. Is that how you get by? At the expense of others to make up for your poor plannin'?

In my country, we try our best to take care of our own innocent. Outside of the largesse of the American taxpayer, the Catholic church is our nation's largest charity due to the hearts of the congregants and friends and neighbors.

You can find them on the web, numbskull.

In my country, we try our best to take care of our own innocent.

If that is true, why do you support legal limits on abortion? Because its other people's fetus's you are worried about, not your own. Obviously, OUR country is not of one mind.

Heck, numbskull, you value frogs as much as human beans. I ain't 'self-righteous' about bringin' that to your attention... what you said.

Your constant rearranging of my words is most certainly not what I said. I value human beings more than frogs. Fetuses are not human beings...yet.

Your response when you can't come up with anything useful is that other people (me, in this case) are required to pull funds out of their back pockets to cover the poor decision makin' of others.

No. My response to your complaints about how others handle their own poor decision making is for you to put your money where your mouth is. If no money, then please, no more mouth.

All the people giving are wonderful and all, and I hope their actions limit abortions. Their kind could limit even more if they supported realistic sex ed classes. But none of that changes the fact that women should have the right to decide to become mothers or not. Its a massive decision you are lucky you will never make. And never mind their poor planning now. Once they are pregnant, the die is cast. If you have a problem with poor planning, then get to educating! Crying over spilt milk doesn't help.

People that say the baby is the mother are incorrect. -The DNA are different, they are two individuals -not clones.

The USA and many other countries have a history of eugenics. -So for these people abortion at any age makes sense.

numbskull, abortion has always been legal in my country. Always.

Many of us just don't like what it's morphed into. And many of us don't want to pay for it. -Abortion as birth control for example.

Again, your solution to the problem is for me to give more money. If I don't give money, then you say I must be censured.

Let me guess... You're left of center. No surprise.

You may've heard folks right of center give more to charity than those left of center. The latter believe it's the government's job, i.e. the taxpayer, to they're not so fast to reach for their own billfolds?

How much have you given to unwed mothers this-past year?

Nevermind. I don't want to play who's got a bigger schlong in cyberspace, numbskull.

USARonin: Again, your solution to the problem is for me to give more money.

That was not a solution, it was a choice! Buy yourself a leg to stand on by adopting a child or paying enough for one to live to adulthood, or get off your soapbox.

Anyway, it will be cheaper for the government to pay for abortions than it will be to pay for the health care of unwanted children or poor women.

How much have you given to unwed mothers this-past year?

Have I ever said one word in judgement of unwed mothers? No. See where we differ?

How do you know whether I've adopted or not? You don't, numbskull.

Why do you assume I have enough income to support another human being and pay for one to 'live to adulthood'? Do you have access to Echelon, numbskull?

You believe 'the government' should pay for abortions. Spoken like a true progressive who believes that when some abbrogate their responsibilities, these same responsibilitie should be forced upon others. Newsflash: I don't know about your government, but my government doesn't own any money. It does hold what I and others contribute to it.

Now you believe killin' kids is good for the budget, too. That's nice.

A study has come out that've me with much controversey because they indicated decades of abortions have lessened crime and all the costs that go with that. Of course, the same study showed that most of the kids bein' aborted were 'minority', i.e. 'black'. It seems you're OK with that because it saves 'money'.

Why are you so obsessed with money, numbskull? -And particularly other people's money?

Nevermind my 'soapbox' and my 'self-righteous' bidness that you keep harpin' about. Where's your humanity, numbskull?

The only person that should get stuck with the bill for paying for an abortion is the guy that got her pregnant......No one else should ever be involved with the bill and it should come straight out of his income as garnishment of his wages or if unemployed his benefits reduced to cover the cost. The last person that should have to pay for this procedure is the U.S taxpayer.

I am reluctantly 'pro-choice' only because I don't feel as a male of the species that I have the ultimate say over what a woman can or cannot do as with her pregnancy. I can say though that the loudest 'pro-choice' males in my experience actually are that way because they want that option to avoid child support payments and the financial burden it will impose on themselves not the woman, and only feign an real interest in supporting a right to choose as something sort of noble as opposed to their real selfish interests.

Make the sperm donor pay not the taxpayer who thinks such as myself that abortion is not something I really would want to sanctify in anyway as just a normal medical procedure.

The last person that should have to pay for this procedure is the U.S taxpayer.

Well, the U.S. taxpayer pays heavy when the products of these unwanted pregnancies fill our prison cells.

Suckers.

Think I will jump in here. Although it may not seem fair to spend tax-payers money on abortions, especially to those who strongly oppose abortion...their argument is really simply this: We don't want our money to go towards women who want to terminate their pregnancy. But if these women who can't afford abortion are forced to have the baby then actually the anti-abortionists' money would probably end up going towards these children anyway through welfare and other health care.

Plus, if women with low income have to have their babies, it really just perpetuates the cycle of poverty and does no one any good. We can't deny that this really is a matter of money and not just what is morally right or wrong. Besides, people are so concerned about the rights of the fetus but what about the rights of women.

Well, the U.S. taxpayer pays heavy when the products of these unwanted pregnancies fill our prison cells.

Suckers.

I would say the one calling us suckers is the guy that got the girl pregnant and footed the bill on the yabits the taxpayer myself.

What about the rights of the father?

Is there such a thing?

My nation's courts apparantly don't think so when it comes to fiscal responsiblity.

What about the rights of the father?

It is difficult to pinpoint the father in some cases.

Besides, people are so concerned about the rights of the fetus but what about the rights of women.

A fetus has no constitutionally protected rights that supercede those of the woman to which it is attached.

What's the cost of housing one inmate for one day, compared to the cost of an abortion? sailwind would rather pay that cost, and those who prefer it that way are true suckers.

What about the rights of the father?

In cases of rape and incest, we shouldn't even consider the rights of the father. In other situations, it's the woman who has to go through 9 months of pain, and she should therefore make the decision.

Regarding fiscal responsibility of the health bill, we should go back to 2003 and the Republicans' legislation on the prescription drug bill.

The White House and congressional leadership at the time told the American people that the cost would be $400 billion. What's more, they never made any provision to pay for it -- either by tax increases or by reductions in other programs. As to the actual cost, it goes well beyond a trillion dollars, according to the then-CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

yabits, since you're the Constitutional lawyer here, I gotta ask:

How come in many juridictions, if a pregnant woman is murdered the District Attorney files two separate murder charges.

Either you or all these other lawyers have a major brain fart.

Also, I'm not sure your 'killin' to balance the budget' is a good idea. Somethin' just seems off about it. -Maybe even wrong.

MrUSA, so if the mother is solely responsible for the decision to carry the baby to full term, then you believe the 'father' who didn't want this child doesn't have to bear any fiscal burden?

You logic would be consistent that this guy can walk away from it.

Sure, fathers have rights too but ultimately the woman always has the final decision. I think it's pretty rare that the father wants to have the baby and the woman doesn't. Usually it's the case where the woman is very young, single or struggling financially and the father is not in the picture anyway.

In my country, dolphingirl, abortion is mainly used as a form of birth control.

Almost always, the girl or woman who says she doesn't know the name of the child's father, does. If the mother indicates the name of the child's father my state has ways to collect support. If the child's father doesn't want to pay, then he must work off the books for the rest of his life. Let's see how far his Social Security takes him then.

Oh, I almost forgot... some numbskull will want me to assume responsibility for that, too.

so if the mother is solely responsible for the decision to carry the baby to full term, then you believe the 'father' who didn't want this child doesn't have to bear any fiscal burden?

I was actually thinking of asking you the same thing. If I understand you correctly, I think you were suggesting that if the father wants the child, he should be able to stop her from aborting the fetus (because it is his child too). This is a situation where one parent wants the child and the other doesn't. Regardless of gender, do you think a parent should be able to walk away from the fiscal burden if they didn't want to have the child? I would say that both parents should be equally responsible for their actions. Unless it's a situation of rape, incest, etc, or failure of reasonable protection (condom broke or woman didn't take birth control but said she did).

MrUSA, so if I understand you correctly, you believe the father is 'equally responsible' and should therefore have an equal voice in whether or not the child should be carried to full term.

Is that your position?

In the event of a tie, the courts could always come into it, yes?

USARonin: Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control. I think before abortion is covered by universal health insurance, young teens need to be taught about sex and contraception so that the number of unplanned pregnancies is reduced.

dolphingirl, but it is used mostly as a form of birth control. That's why many - includin' women - object to legalizing it for every reason.

As for education, I think most all of the young women/women who go to abortion clinics know how babies are made.

You're quite convincing Ronin. I guess with equal responsibility comes equal rights. I'm not sure how to deal with this one right now, but I don't make the laws so that's ok. I'd like to say the final decision should be the woman's, as she has to physically carry the child. Obviously, this would end up with the woman having more rights than the man (for biological reasons).

My question for you is, if the father has the right to stop an abortion if he wants the child, does he also have the right to force an abortion (or be free of fiscal responsibility) if he doesn't want the child?

MrUSA, all things bein' equal - and the question of human life or not is removed - I'd say, yes, the man could force an abortion. -All things bein' equal. By 'force', I assume we both mean through the courts.

Maybe it is used as a form of birth control for some women but this should not be acceptable at all. Certainly most young women know how babies are made but sex education in schools has to teach more than just the mechanics. They have to teach young people how to have sex responsibly. The attitude towards using condoms should be the same as using a seat-belt. Free condoms need to be available to teenagers and women with low incomes so that abortions aren't a form of birth control but as a last resort in cases of accidents and health risks to the mother.

dolphingirl1: Why can't you teach your kids about sex than having some nutty teacher teaching it to them? No one ever taught me how to put on a condom, if someone does have a problem putting that on, perhaps you need to get away from said person. If we follow your gov must help ways, you'll start seeing people getting fined for not wearing one while having sex!

We don't want our money to go towards women who want to terminate their pregnancy. But if these women who can't afford abortion are forced to have the baby then actually the anti-abortionists' money would probably end up going towards these children anyway through welfare and other health care.

I try to stay away from this discussion as much as humanly possible but for God's sake at least they had a the opportunity to screw up. You can argue all you want about when the kid can survive on its own or when it actually becomes a person but at the end of the day, in one form or another, you're killing a child.

The practice is legal in the states so I won't go out and tell the lady she can't, only that she shouldn't.

yabits, since you're the Constitutional lawyer here, I gotta ask: How come in many juridictions, if a pregnant woman is murdered the District Attorney files two separate murder charges. Either you or all these other lawyers have a major brain fart.

Your language suggests a fixation with a part of the body from which you pull your "facts" out. And so, I "gotta" ask: Cite one case example in the past 40 years in which a defendant was actually convicted of murder of a fetus in the first trimester.

People understand that there are constituencies in some jurisdictions that are trying to eventually outlaw abortions by making the fetus-as-person case via the "fetal homicide" route. Your attempt to use that here is invalid. When the U.S. Supreme Court rules that convictions for murder under "fetal homicide" (in the first trimester of preganacy) has merit as law, then you might have something.

Of course, the same study showed that most of the kids bein' aborted were 'minority', i.e. 'black'. It seems you're OK with that because it saves 'money'.

That wasn't quite the conclusion the study came up with. The study concluded that children, in particular from single mothers, who born in poverty had a much higher statistical chance of becoming a criminal. The fact that most kids aborted were of a minority race is only incidental because minorities are more likely to live in a state proverty.

A child brought up in an abusive hell of life because s/he was unwanted vs. abortion. Sadly either one is not the best of choices.

Catholic church is our nation's largest charity due to the hearts of the congregants and friends and neighbors.

For someone who asked other's to provide facts to back their statements, you throw out this, the Catholic church according to Forbes is the ninth biggest charity in the US, the biggest charity is the United Way.

but for God's sake at least they had a the opportunity to screw up.

Yes, "screw up" by killing lots of other people -- like that psycho up in Cleveland or the one in Seattle who killed those police. Bringing up a child properly is a big responsibility, and a society which blithely assumes that a significant percentage of unwanted and uncared for children will not turn into monsters is playing with fire.

More importantly: The legislation of anti-abortion laws and regulations is not about protecting human life. It is about controlling, via the power of government, the actions of adult and young adult people based on the strictures of a religious point of view. This is a power play by the religious pure and simple.

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx

19 states have fetal homicide from inception/gestation.

19 states have fetal homicide from inception/gestation

If the fetus is a person -- note that -- IF the fetus is a person, why the need for a special designation of "fetal homicide?"

The laws might as well be called "unlawful termination of pregnancy."

Homicide it ain't.

Yes, "screw up" by killing lots of other people -- like that psycho up in Cleveland or the one in Seattle who killed those police. Bringing up a child properly is a big responsibility, and a society which blithely assumes that a significant percentage of unwanted and uncared for children will not turn into monsters is playing with fire.

So we have any person who may not be a good parent to kill the kid? Most of my friends growing up were unwanted and they're parents let them know it, they delt with it and became productive members of society, hell most of them have families that look a damn sight better than most. They made their choices in life, nobody made the choice for them.

All people are born with the ability to make their own way in the world reguardless of position, race, religion, economic situation, or other factors that may play in their lives. You seem to think that all aborted children were destined to be serial killers and felons, if you honestly don't think that a single one of them had any sort of chance to raise above what they were born into you are a very sad individual indeed.

You seem to think that all aborted children were destined to be serial killers and felons, if you honestly don't think that a single one of them had any sort of chance to raise above what they were born into you are a very sad individual indeed.

That would not be statistically possible. Raising oneself above one's circumstances depends upon character -- which is a product of nature and nurture. When a woman decides that she will not nurture and properly care for a child, because she doesn't want to, it would be better if she didn't become pregnant at all. And if she did, it would be preferable if she had the choice to terminate the pregnancy at the earliest possible moment, to bringing an unwanted child into the world.

If you look at things from the aspect of biology, fewer than 30% of all fertilized ova make it to the point where they attach to the uterine wall. And a significant percentage of those that do attach, will do so improperly and will be flushed from the body. The "author" of that process didn't want those conceived eggs to have a "choice" and it seems to me the meager things that humans do to add a few percent more to that process seems hardly worth squawking about.

yabits:The "author" of that process didn't want those conceived eggs to have a "choice" and it seems to me the meager things that humans do to add a few percent more to that process seems hardly worth squawking about.

Then I guess you don't power trip much or like to get all self-righteous. We may not know what we are missing yabits!

USARonin:How do you know whether I've adopted or not? You don't, numbskull.

I have an educated guess that you don't.

Why do you assume I have enough income to support another human being and pay for one to 'live to adulthood'?

AHEM. I didn't. I offered you a choice. If we can't cash checks your mouth writes, then please stop writing them. When you get enough money, and put it where your mouth is, lets talk.

You believe 'the government' should pay for abortions.

Speaking of assumptions...no, I believe sex education should drop the fear mongering and instead should teach how to have safe sex and instill that hard in young people's heads. Then we will have firm ground to stand on when we tell people its their mess. And I believe that people should pay to clean up their own messes. However, if paying to clean up someone else's mess will save money by preventing larger messes in the long run, I call that a bargain. If it presents social strife in the process, I call that a boon.

Then I guess you don't power trip much or like to get all self-righteous.

There's hardly any point to it. As you might agree, the real "power trip" comes from taking the position that it's OK to lock up women and doctors in prison for the act of terminating a pregnancy.

you've already stated you believe killin' the innocent is wise financial budgetin' for the future, numbskull.

As previously stated, the biological process ensures that between 70 to 80% of these "innocent" are flushed out of a woman's body. Compared to abortion, that "killing" is on a far more massive scale.

As for the economic factors involved in making sure that unwanted pregancies never come to term, there can be little doubt that the cost to society is far less in the long run than the damage caused by those who endure neglect and abuse after birth.

As previously stated, the biological process ensures that between 70 to 80% of these "innocent" are flushed out of a woman's body. Compared to abortion, that "killing" is on a far more massive scale.

What are you talkin' about?

Usin' your reasonin', yabits, any society you live in would benefit financially the moment you blinked out of existence. How far are you willin' to go to contribute to the society you live in?

Speaking of assumptions...no, I believe sex education should drop the fear mongering and instead should teach how to have safe sex and instill that hard in young people's heads.

I believe that should be the PARENTS job not the states but what the hey..numbskull.

What are you talkin' about?

The ignorance you admit to is quite common: If human life is "sacred" from conception, then how does one explain the fact that 70-80% of active, fertilized ova are flushed out of a woman's body (after sex) without ever attaching to develop further? Aren't all those billions upon billions of fertilized, conceived eggs "innocent" too?

Usin' your reasonin', yabits, any society you live in would benefit financially the moment you blinked out of existence.

No, that is actually using your reasoning. (Although it bears an interesting likeness to downsizing.)

Welcome USA to the 21st century a century of pro-choice. Well done!!!