Home > Health > On Women > Abortion Coverage Severely Restricted in House Health Reform Bill

Abortion Coverage Severely Restricted in House Health Reform Bill

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I am not against a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body but certainly do not want to contribute to their choice! This means not supporting with govenment or state funds a woman's choice to abort a child. This takes a lot of nerve to commit such an act and cannot understand why one would take an easy way out. I feel the Abortion Bill puts forward a good and concrete way of saying if you want it pay for it.

Betty of CA 4:37AM November 17, 2009

stop killing babies!!!

peter banuelos of CA 4:05AM November 13, 2009

I don't want to pay for someone's war if I'm against it. I also don't want to pay for someone's corporate welfare, police state, war on drugs, etc.
It's not really about whether you want to pay for someone's abortion or not. The Hyde amendment already prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions so this BS is totally unnecessary.

JB of MI 2:37PM November 11, 2009

I do not want to PAY for someone's abortion if I am against it

Dianna of VA 10:03AM November 11, 2009

SEE THESE INTERNET SITES ABOUT:
Swiss skincare cream uses aborted fetal tissue - Switzerland, World AND
YES, THEY ARE ALL MINE.
and
Skin Cream Contains Aborted Fetus TissueOct 30, 2009 ... Confirmed: Skin cream contains fetal proteins ... a company with offices in San Francisco which has developed a line of ...
web site writes:
"It is anti-life, anti-woman and counter-productive."
google has many more sites on this subject:
RESULTS OF SEARCH:
of about 2,020,000 SITES for SAN FRANCISCO CREAM OUT OF FETUS.
Since some groups run abortion clinics they enjoy making a profit selling fetus material and on top of that being paid by insurance companies at the expense of teenagers and perhaps other mislead women who suffer the consquences for the rest of their lives. Do these groups that support abortion also support those who suffer severe depressions and other mental problems and guilt because of their abortions?
If abortion is so great why don't the abortion groups offer free abortions and make their profit some other way?
frank of california

framk of CA 10:11PM November 10, 2009

Women should have the choice, which they may or may not choose to exercise. From all the commentary I've heard, the Democrats in the House will not vote for a final bill without some provision for abortion. Eric Scott has it right. Congress should get out of medicine, period.

Jill of CA 6:55PM November 10, 2009

All the arguments seem to be the self-centered ethical basis of the primacy of a woman's choice versus the unprovable opinion that humanness (read soul) starts at conception.
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christianized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.

Prof Bob of CA 6:17PM November 10, 2009

Never had children. Would like to have had children.

Peggy of MD 5:50PM November 10, 2009

Thank goodness there's still some control over the baby-killers in our society. Planned Parenthood would love nothing more than to have free reign to operate their revenue-generating abortion mills.

Mike Mills of NC 3:39PM November 10, 2009

I resent the thought that anyone could expect society to pay for a procedure which, in many cases, is the consequence of irresponsible behavior. Add to this public health payments to smokers and over eaters. When can we have government which has the courage to require irresponsible people to pay for their own poor choices? Although a fiscal conservative, I consider myself socially liberal, and would favor public-funded counseling and even public adoption assistance. But come on USA - do we really want a "nanny state" where we are all treated like children and protected from our choices with outlet covers and lace locks?

DB of GA 2:48PM November 10, 2009