California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,059
- 0
- Banned
- #81
It's not about 'allowing' someone to have an abortion. It's about not using taxpayers money to pay for it. I'm pro life, but I'll also defend the right of another woman to be pro-choice. What I won't do, is pay for her abortion.
I really feel like this taxpayer money issue is severely misrepresented. It's not like there's a tax credit on the 1040A that allows you to get back the money you spent on an abortion. We're talking about people who are on programs like medicare or state medical assistance programs that are funded with federal money. Part of their medical coverage is an allowance for abortion procedures under certain circumstances (those circumstances already having been explained in this thread). Abortion is a medical procedure, and if there is a significant medical issue to warrant an abortion, then government aide medical coverage is appropriate to cover such procedures. Federal law prohibits federal funding for elective abortions, so the only time when it would happen is when there is a significant medical issue warranting the procedure.
The real complaint that people need to focus on, then, is government provided medical coverage. There's no reason to break apart government funded medical coverage into pieces. Either you're okay with it, or you're not. If you're okay with it, then accept the fact that you're not a given person's doctor, and you have no place dictating whether said person should or should not have an abortion. That's like saying it's okay for the government to fund flu shots, but not okay for it to fund treatment for chickenpox.
I actually have no issue with the Hyde Amendment. I will not judge anyone who is in any of the exclusions outlined in Hyde and I'll accept funding for those. Other than those exceptions, forget it.
FYI.... comparing a child to a flu shots is moronic.