Abortion Theater Continues: Medicaid

How long is this run? If you miss a showing, can you get a refund?

Here is the latest show that I found on Crooks and Liars: Thanks To Federal Budget Deal, D.C. Abortion Fund Scrambles To Raise Money For Scheduled Abortions

This is where my stance deviates from my Pro-Choice sisters and brothers.

I don’t believe that abortion should be covered by state funds, except in the cases of rape and incest, if the mother’s life is in danger, or if it is found that the baby won’t survive after it’s born.

The Hyde Amendment outlawed federal funding for abortion. There are states whose Medicaid programs do cover them for whatever reason. Others only will do so in the cases of rape and incest and when the woman’s life is in danger.

Because it is an elective procedure, I believe the patient should have to pay for it. I’ve heard the argument that because it’s a legal medical procedure, it should be covered by the state. I don’t believe so because of that “elective” part. However, in the cases above, you shouldn’t have to be subjected to carrying the spawn of your rapist, die, or carry a baby to term if it’s going to die. That’s just cruel. These are exceptions where I think Medicaid should pay for it.

I’ve also heard the argument that because the woman is on Medicaid, it’s a given that she’s poor and can’t afford it. Still, since she got pregnant, she and/or the guy who got her pregnant should be the ones to pay. Plus, there are organizations out there that will help low-income women get abortions. Like these:

National Network of Abortion Funds

Third Wave Foundation

I stumbled on an argument for Medicaid funded abortion that shocked me. There are some who support it, but only if the woman gets her tubes tied. Um, you have an unplanned pregnancy, but in order to get an abortion, you can never get pregnant again? Sounds a little too much like Der Führer’s compulsory sterilization program.

In the story above, after D.C. stopped Medicaid-funded abortions this week, there were 28 abortions already scheduled. The organization, D.C. Abortion Fund sent out an emergency plea for donations. They were able to raise the money to cover them. The article didn’t state if they were successful or not.


23 responses to “Abortion Theater Continues: Medicaid

  • astrawally

    Apart for the exceptions given, rape, incest, etc… I do think people should have to pay for there own abortions. We live in an educated world, surely people know by now that having unprotected sex will lead to pregnancy so if you don’t want to pay for an abortion pay for condoms.
    Much Love
    Astra Wally

  • Terrance H.

    Completely agree, Spinny.

    Thanks for the wonderful post.

  • lbwoodgate

    Spinny,

    I am not finding any specifics that says D.C. funded abortions were paid for by the state. My understanding of this is that privately funded abortions will now be banned in D.C. It was compromise move by Obama to appease anti-abortion zealots to back off of their demands to defund Planned Parenthood. The Hyde amendment affects D.C. just like it does everywhere else in the U.S.

    I’ve checked all the material you’ve linked to this post and I can’t find anything that suggest D.C. abortions were or are state funded. Have you got something I am missing? This call is for volunteer funding from private citizens as best as I can tell.

    • Spinny Liberal

      DC Abortion Fund released a press statement: Press Statement: DC Abortion Fund Decries Passage of Budget Deal with Harmful Policy Rider The District of Columbia allows its own Medicaid funds to cover abortion:

      On Thursday, Congress approved a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that includes a policy rider forbidding the District of Columbia from using its own locally-raised revenues to fund abortion services.

      • lbwoodgate

        This is government officials using tax payer money?? Or is it just “locally raised revenue” through volunteer efforts. I don’t see the word “tax-funded” in there where it mentions locally raised funds.

      • Spinny Liberal

        I think so because the words medicaid, state, and tax are used?

        This week alone, demand for assistance from the DC Abortion Fund has skyrocketed after District of Columbia Medicaid dollars were abruptly cut off at midnight on Wednesday…Congress does not restrict how any other state can utilize its own, locally-raised tax dollars, but they have bargained away D.C.’s right to do exactly that.

      • lbwoodgate

        Okay Spinny, so what I’m seeing is local Medicaid funds, not Federal, being used for abortions. And if these are funds that citizens appear to be willing to allow for abortions and other “pregnancy assistance”, then I see the federal government in this case over reaching into the decisions of the local electorate and anyone outside DC should not draw the conclusion that the Hyde amendment is being violated.

        So, unless I have missed something where the plurality of D.C. citizens are opposed to this use of their taxes, I don’t see anything here other than anti-abortion zealots stripping one more piece of individual choice concerning abortions. Does that appear to be the case to you?

        On a side note : Terry. I’m talking to an adult now so please refrain from interrupting.

      • Spinny Liberal

        Yes, I believe this was an over reach by the federal government because federal funds aren’t being used. It’s coming from D.C.’s coffers. This should have been a D.C. issue.

        I just wanted to share my belief that state or local tax payers should have to pay for them. It’s a belief that differs from many in the pro-choice movement. That said, Medicaid provides a host of other services for low-income people. I wouldn’t want that to stop.

    • Terrance H.

      You’re wrong, but what else is new? And I so love how you refer to those who oppose abortion as “zealots.”

      You’re the zealot. And quite brainwashed to boot.

    • Terrance H.

      Why don’t you get an education, woodgate, and quit being such a pretentious fool?

      The U.S. Constitution allows for the creation of a special district to serve as the permanent national capital. The District is therefore not a part of any U.S. state and is instead directly overseen by the federal government.

      The Federal Government oversees Washington D.C., as mandated by the Constitution, so they are NOT overstepping their bounds – at all.

      Read Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

      • Spinny Liberal

        I didn’t know that. I thought they were their own entity/state/district.

      • Terrance H.

        That’s why I was baffled by the responses. Washington D.C. is run, in effect, by the federal government. It’s part of the federal government. Read this to learn more.

        From it:

        Under the Home Rule government, however, Congress reviews all legislation passed by the Council before it can become law and retains authority over the District’s budget.

        So, abortion or no abortion, it’s the right of the feds to decide. Period.

      • Spinny Liberal

        Cool. You learn something new everyday.

      • lbwoodgate

        Yes Terry we know this but the citizens of D.C. are still allowing the taxes they pay to fund abortions in D.C. So how have they been able to violate the Hyde amendment all this time? ANSWER: They haven’t. It’s only banned when Republicans have majorities to make it so. Law or no, outsiders who have residences in D.C. when Congress is in session have imposed their will on the permanent residents.

        Funny how the law is applicable when you want it to be but is wrong when it pertains to something you don’t like, i.e. Roe v. Wade

      • Terrance H.

        Nobody – but nobody – is claiming D.C. abortions violate the Hyde Amendment. Furthermore, nobody is claiming D.C. abortions are now prohibited because of the Hyde Amendment. Or, at least I’m not!

        My point is simple: D.C. abortions are now prohibited because the federal government has the power, per the U.S. Constitution, to decide what goes on in D.C. They did not overstep their bounds. Period! End of story! Book closed! Publishing company executive fired!

        When have I ever suggested Roe v. Wade be ignored? Even once? No. Instead, I advocate it be overturned, because I think it was a bad ruling resembling ideology rather than law and American principles. The Supreme Court is not infallible. I can think of a few examples pertaining to race relations that was insanely wrong! And surely the white Malcolm X from Texas can think of them, too.

        You were wrong, woodgate. Simple as that. Now quit trying to worm your way out of it by pointing the finger at me. I am here to educate you lost souls. Don’t like it? Too bad. Such is life!

        And, please, pull up your pants, Vanilla.

  • RunawayLawyer

    “I’ve also heard the argument that because the woman is on Medicaid, it’s a given that she’s poor and can’t afford it. Still, since she got pregnant, she and/or the guy who got her pregnant should be the ones to pay.”

    This is a fair statement, but abortions are vastly less expensive than funding a low income pregnancy, a low income birth, and a low income child, so one might argue that abortions for low-income women are fiscally responsible.

    • Spinny Liberal

      That’s true, looking at things in the long run.

    • Terrance H.

      If I ever heard a liberal make that argument, I’m quite certain I’d faint.

      You also have to consider the type of person who would advocate death as a means to save money. Nothing could be more disgusting.

      • Spinny Liberal

        Carry smelling salts with you. 🙂

      • Terrance H.

        It’s a horrible argument. It lacks even a trace of human decency. Not only that, but it’s ridiculous because there are too many variables. What if the child who going to be aborted grew up to become a rich man who paid an absurd amount of money in taxes. Still cheaper in the long run, do you think?

        Too many variables and no human decency makes for a pretty ridiculous argument. So that “one,” whoever he or she may be, should not allow themselves to be overcome with cretinous claptrap, if you don’t mind my saying so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: