You know what? I don't care who does and doesn't want their tax dollars going to abortion. There are about a thousand things our taxes go to that you could morally object to. But. We. Don't. Get. To. Line. Item. Our. Taxes.
For good reasons. If we let people decide what taxes they felt like paying we'd probably have no public schools or transportation, roads that worked, or a postal system. And I shudder to think what would happen to the arts. But we might all have roof mounted oozies, a wall up between Mexico, and some kind of required bible teaching.
Sorry, I am just really not feeling charitable about this today.
We get it. Some people think abortion is murder. We also don't care. Because they have every right to think that and then NOT HAVE AN ABORTION.
But trying to make sure no other woman can make that decision for herself is just wrong. And you can't hide that with "I don't want my taxes going to anything I don't like." Sometimes things you don't like are necessary. I don't like war, but having no military is just plain stupid.
I just do not get how we got to a place where this seems reasonable to anyone. By that logic, I should be able to inflict my moral beliefs on other people so long as I can cobble together some kind of majority. So if we get to a point where we decide people shouldn't have more than one kid by law (like in China) then we can force them to abort or give them up for adoption. Because that sounds totally reasonable and awesome. Right? Right?
This just ends up nowhere good. If you want the reproductive freedom to have kids, you need to support the reproductive freedom not to. They. Are. Not. Separate.
Why is Megan McArdle employed as a columnist? She is a terrible writer who couldn't write a clear sentence if an editor pointed a gun at her head, and she brings nothing to political discourse that couldn't be found with a quick canvass of the local college libertarians.
"And once again, the majority of the country doesn't want a lot of shit. People didn't want to desegregate, or have their tax dollars fund schools and public services in minority areas. I don't want to pay for wars with my tax dollars. But the government doesn't work that way - did I miss the line-item veto form on my taxes?"
EXACTLY.
When did people forget that one of the things the government is supposed to do is protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? False populism, FTW?
I practice ob-gyn in new york, and estimate that about 80% of the abortions we do at my hospital are covered by Medicaid - probably similiar stats in the other 16 states where medicaid will cover it. With stupak, that coverage might disappear, if medicaid gets pulled into the "exchange". Most of my patients will not have the money for an abortion. They will go to the pharmacy and buy medication to induce an abortion under the counter (widely available in our latino neighborhood). They will come to the hospital with bleeding, probably denying that they took anything, but stuck somewhere in the process of the abortion, what we call "incomplete". Most will be perfectly stable. But even those who are fine will require follow up ultrasounds, clinic visits and possibly a d&c to complete the process, as well as many expensive lab draws if the fetus is passed by the time they come to the hospital, because then we have to make sure it isn't an ectopic pregnancy which requires weeks of follow up.
So, your not wanting to have your dollars go to pay for a $500 abortion has now turned into you paying $1500-$2000 in medicaid hospital bills for management of an 'incomplete miscarriage' or 'rule out ectopic'. You have saved yourself exactly NO tax dollars. Congratulations.
How do I know this exact sequence? Because we already do this exact thing between 3-5 times a week for women who already do this, because they don't know abortion is legal, they don't know medicaid will pay here, they have a friend who did it that way. If they take away the medicaid option, I'll just be running my ass down to the ER to see these ladies about 200 times more often, and all you abortion-hating taxpayers will still be footing the bill.
@lostinalunchbox: Well expressed. It is nice to hear a medical professional's opinion/observations on the matter. THIS is the type of information that might be useful for the public to know about the realities of policies that, in effect, restrict abortion. Hyde sucks, Stupak-Pitts is even worse. Really, this whole thing just illustrates how the most vulnerable will have their terrible circumstances exacerbated by this ass backwards legislation... oh yeah, not to mention the obvious kick in the teeth to women's rights and equality.
@wynniepiglet: And when all else fails, if these idjuts really want to pretend it's about the Benjamins, appeal to their greed. They will end up paying more for their 'moral' stance, if not through medicaid hospital bills, then quite possibly through taxes going to welfare, food stamps, foster care and the criminal justice system.
There is a National Day of Action (that's this Wednesday, November 2) where coalitions from different Reproductive Rights Organizations will lobby their congresspeople as well as rally.
Gah. Stupak would also prevent abortions unless the life of the mother is threatened, so incidents where the fetus is non-viable aren't covered, nor are cases where selective abortion are called for, such as this: [www.rhrealitycheck.org]
Not all abortions are because women are stupid sluts who forgot to use their birth control, anti-choicers. Learn to see the grey areas and acknowledge the unintended consequences that this sort of ban would have.
"...a completely irrelevant discussion of the disparate effects of the Stupak amendment on poor women, arguing that women's reproductive health care is too real health care, and similarly unrelated side points."
Am I missing something? That right there is the entire crux of the debate. Hardly irrelevant or unrelated.
I hate that we may sully our historic health care reform with exceptions that disproportionately affect one portion of the population - poor women. And to do so with a provision that helps to perpetuate the cycle of poverty is counterproductive, at best.
"This allows them to spend 1,000 words or so having a completely irrelevant discussion of the disparate effects of the Stupak amendment on poor women, arguing that women's reproductive health care is too real health care, and similarly unrelated side points."
OK, so now we're uppity for not wanting to give up our full access to healthcare? What. the. fuck.
"Memo to authors: you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that women's health care is important, that this has a hugely disparate impact on women, that it will result in more women carrying unplanned pregnancies to term, etc . . . and that still wouldn't make a majority of the country want to pay for other peoples' abortions out of their tax dollars."
Because you see us as nothing more than breeding cows, and will continue to. Regardless of how thorough, compelling and rational the argument is that you should stop that. Got it. Who said the Handmaid's Tale was fiction, again?
"The women who genuinely can't afford $500 bucks for an abortion are the women closest to the poverty line."
And DUH, the GOP doesn't care about poor people!
"But the number of people who are going to lose access that they currently have, and therefore be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, is not likely to be all that large. We're mostly talking about a modest number of women who will have to hand over several hundred dollars that they would really rather spend elsewhere."
Or money that they don't have and have no access to, being that they're "closest to the poverty line," will be dependent on government medical care, the kind you are trying to make it impossible to get an abortion under. And since they're poorer than poor, they can certainly afford another mouth to feed, right? No, wait...
These people raise ignorance to the level of an art form. I want to Hulk Smash them to stop the stupid, the disingenuous and the dead wrong that flows out of their mouths like so much water.
"The women who genuinely can't afford $500 bucks for an abortion are the women closest to the poverty line. Those women will be covered by Medicare, and they won't get abortion coverage anyway in most states. "
ARGGGHHH. That's a sweeping assumption, and an empirical question that you cant assume away. I don't know how many people are in question but i will bet it is way more than she thinks.
@pantsless economist...access RESTORED: Putting the fact that she meant Medicaid aside, Medicaid in most states is almost impossible to get if you are a childless adult. Although the eligibility is easier for pregnant women, so an uninsured woman who can't afford an abortion may be able to get Medicaid to cover her pregnancy she is going through with because she can't afford to terminate.
'We're mostly talking about a modest number of women who will have to hand over several hundred dollars that they would really rather spend elsewhere' ...like at the mall! Amiright, ladies? What's another $500?
The choice story was interesting. How many people only have children because they had an accident? How many people with an unwanted pregnancy (or a partner with one) won't consider abortion but would consider a miscarriage a blessing? People are superstitious and would rather be passive than make active decisions. If you concede that women can decide not to bring a human being into the world, then you've got to admit that those who do decide to reproduce are probably some of the most powerful beings on Earth. In many ways, they hold the fate of the world (and mens's genes, legacies, names) in their hands. That's pretty freaky for second-class citizens.
I am a young, college-educated 20-something with a good job and decent pay. I don't make a lot, but I make enough to support me and my dog. If my health insurance didn't cover abortion, I don't know if I'd be able to scrape up $500 to pay for an abortion. My boyf would be able to pitch in, but that's assuming he'd be willing (he would, but for sake of arguing...)
While this is a race issue, this is also a PEOPLE issue. If I can't afford $500 for an abortion, I certainly can't afford my $3,000 deductible for hospital bills, or the cost of raising a child. I just don't get it. Do people think there's a magic money tree that showers down on people who have children they decided not to abort because they didn't really have a choice?
News flash - Jesus may have died for your sins but he's not an ATM. No amount of praying is going to get you enough money to send all the children you can't afford to the doctor.
@Le Kangourou de Kataroo: Yes, I just paid about $500 for an ER visit. Obviously, with insurance. With my job insecure I am pretty much planning on dying before another trip to the hospital, with or without insurance. It's really too bad that so many of the people this legislation would help the most are ignorantly opposed to it. $500 is a LOT of money. It's the difference between paying or not paying rent, groceries or no groceries. For me, a person with a job. And totally ineligible for any kind of government assistance.
@Le Kangourou de Kataroo: When I read the medicare (medicaid) statement, something similar to your comment sprang into my mind pretty much word for word. Just because we are not on welfare does not mean money is abundant or readily available for a surprise $500 payment.
@Le Kangourou de Kataroo: And keep in mind $500 is often the starting cost of abortion. Didn't realize you were pregnant in time? Hoped to carry to term but need an abortion for medical reasons? In the thousands.
This whole thing just depresses the shit out of me. It just seems so insurmountable and hopeless. I feel the pro-choice side losing ground every day and it seems like the whole movement is just getting lost to apathy. Not to mention the constant misinformation that is circulated by the anti-choice side which is relentless.
@bluebears: That really is the problem. Somewhere along the line the Pro-Choice voice of reason let the discussion be framed by the Anti-Choice brigade. So that it's about everything but what actually matters...that each woman gets to decide this for herself.
I don't care if you think abortion is murder. You go right ahead and think that and then don't have one. I, and every other woman, however, gets to decide that for herself since what we do with our uteri is not up for public debate.
The whole thing makes me sick. Precisely because I -do- value life and I hate seeing that perverted into trying to force women to breed.
@bluebears: In my more cynical moments I'm like...."Just you wait, little twentysomethings who take abortion for granted or who buy into that crap about teh baybeez....let's see how you like it when abortion's illegal and you and your friends need them because you've cut your teeth on absintence only. "
11/30/09
For good reasons. If we let people decide what taxes they felt like paying we'd probably have no public schools or transportation, roads that worked, or a postal system. And I shudder to think what would happen to the arts. But we might all have roof mounted oozies, a wall up between Mexico, and some kind of required bible teaching.
Sorry, I am just really not feeling charitable about this today.
We get it. Some people think abortion is murder. We also don't care. Because they have every right to think that and then NOT HAVE AN ABORTION.
But trying to make sure no other woman can make that decision for herself is just wrong. And you can't hide that with "I don't want my taxes going to anything I don't like." Sometimes things you don't like are necessary. I don't like war, but having no military is just plain stupid.
I just do not get how we got to a place where this seems reasonable to anyone. By that logic, I should be able to inflict my moral beliefs on other people so long as I can cobble together some kind of majority. So if we get to a point where we decide people shouldn't have more than one kid by law (like in China) then we can force them to abort or give them up for adoption. Because that sounds totally reasonable and awesome. Right? Right?
This just ends up nowhere good. If you want the reproductive freedom to have kids, you need to support the reproductive freedom not to. They. Are. Not. Separate.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
EXACTLY.
When did people forget that one of the things the government is supposed to do is protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? False populism, FTW?
11/30/09
So, your not wanting to have your dollars go to pay for a $500 abortion has now turned into you paying $1500-$2000 in medicaid hospital bills for management of an 'incomplete miscarriage' or 'rule out ectopic'. You have saved yourself exactly NO tax dollars. Congratulations.
How do I know this exact sequence? Because we already do this exact thing between 3-5 times a week for women who already do this, because they don't know abortion is legal, they don't know medicaid will pay here, they have a friend who did it that way. If they take away the medicaid option, I'll just be running my ass down to the ER to see these ladies about 200 times more often, and all you abortion-hating taxpayers will still be footing the bill.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
They don't use logic - it's about religion and ultimately about keeping (other) women in "their place."
11/30/09
Erm, should that read Wednesday, DECEMBER 2?
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Not all abortions are because women are stupid sluts who forgot to use their birth control, anti-choicers. Learn to see the grey areas and acknowledge the unintended consequences that this sort of ban would have.
11/30/09
Am I missing something? That right there is the entire crux of the debate. Hardly irrelevant or unrelated.
I hate that we may sully our historic health care reform with exceptions that disproportionately affect one portion of the population - poor women. And to do so with a provision that helps to perpetuate the cycle of poverty is counterproductive, at best.
This just makes me so ragey.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
OK, so now we're uppity for not wanting to give up our full access to healthcare? What. the. fuck.
"Memo to authors: you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that women's health care is important, that this has a hugely disparate impact on women, that it will result in more women carrying unplanned pregnancies to term, etc . . . and that still wouldn't make a majority of the country want to pay for other peoples' abortions out of their tax dollars."
Because you see us as nothing more than breeding cows, and will continue to. Regardless of how thorough, compelling and rational the argument is that you should stop that. Got it. Who said the Handmaid's Tale was fiction, again?
"The women who genuinely can't afford $500 bucks for an abortion are the women closest to the poverty line."
And DUH, the GOP doesn't care about poor people!
"But the number of people who are going to lose access that they currently have, and therefore be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, is not likely to be all that large. We're mostly talking about a modest number of women who will have to hand over several hundred dollars that they would really rather spend elsewhere."
Or money that they don't have and have no access to, being that they're "closest to the poverty line," will be dependent on government medical care, the kind you are trying to make it impossible to get an abortion under. And since they're poorer than poor, they can certainly afford another mouth to feed, right? No, wait...
These people raise ignorance to the level of an art form. I want to Hulk Smash them to stop the stupid, the disingenuous and the dead wrong that flows out of their mouths like so much water.
11/30/09
ARGGGHHH. That's a sweeping assumption, and an empirical question that you cant assume away. I don't know how many people are in question but i will bet it is way more than she thinks.
11/30/09
11/30/09
If you don't know the basic difference between Medicare and Medicaid, then you shouldn't be writing anything about health policy.
11/30/09
11/30/09
Blithely? Did glibly sound too awkward?
'We're mostly talking about a modest number of women who will have to hand over several hundred dollars that they would really rather spend elsewhere' ...like at the mall! Amiright, ladies? What's another $500?
The choice story was interesting. How many people only have children because they had an accident? How many people with an unwanted pregnancy (or a partner with one) won't consider abortion but would consider a miscarriage a blessing? People are superstitious and would rather be passive than make active decisions. If you concede that women can decide not to bring a human being into the world, then you've got to admit that those who do decide to reproduce are probably some of the most powerful beings on Earth. In many ways, they hold the fate of the world (and mens's genes, legacies, names) in their hands. That's pretty freaky for second-class citizens.
11/30/09
While this is a race issue, this is also a PEOPLE issue. If I can't afford $500 for an abortion, I certainly can't afford my $3,000 deductible for hospital bills, or the cost of raising a child. I just don't get it. Do people think there's a magic money tree that showers down on people who have children they decided not to abort because they didn't really have a choice?
11/30/09
News flash - Jesus may have died for your sins but he's not an ATM. No amount of praying is going to get you enough money to send all the children you can't afford to the doctor.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
I don't care if you think abortion is murder. You go right ahead and think that and then don't have one. I, and every other woman, however, gets to decide that for herself since what we do with our uteri is not up for public debate.
The whole thing makes me sick. Precisely because I -do- value life and I hate seeing that perverted into trying to force women to breed.
04:07 AM
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09