Jul 20 2009
Who Should Pay for Abortions?
One of the most controversial issue of our times is coming up for debate again. In President Obama’s rush to pass this so-call “health care reform” bill, the subject of Abortion could be a huge setback. This is the sort of things that comes to light when a bill of such importance is given time to be read.
The Director, White House Office of Management & Budget, Peter Orszag, appeared on Fox News Sunday (yes, the same Fox News President Obama is afraid of) to talk about the health care reform bill. Immediately, Chris Wallace asked about the cost of such a plan and how it is in contradiction to the numbers released by the Congressional Budget Office. Peter Orszag knows the CBO very well since he was over this group prior to joining the Obama administration.
Besides being grilled about the cost of the plan, Peter Orszag was asked an important question. Basically, Chris Wallace asked Mr. Orszag if “he was prepared to say that no taxpayer money would go to pay for abortions?” Mr. Orszag answered ““I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/19/health-insurance-debate-looms-budget-director-refuses-rule-federally-funded/
This is going to be the big debate with this health care reform bill. Also, blue dog Democrats, who tend to be Pro-Life, are also upset and they want Congress to prohibit inclusion of abortion in any benefits package that may be included in the health care reform bill.
In 1976, Congress restricted the use of federal money to pay for abortions. Also, the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of the Medicaid program from spending federal money on abortions. Opponents of abortion claim that federal subsidies that will be provided for the coverage of the uninsured would not be subjected to these restrictions.
Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s Health and Human Service Secretary, was asked about this same subject during her confirmation hearing. Sebelius replied “Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances, but do cover family planning, And Congress has limited the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan to covering abortion services only in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.”
If it has already been passed into law that federal money can not be used to pay for abortions, why couldn’t Peter Orszag give the American public a straight answer?
My opinion is that I do not want to pay for someone’s abortion procedure. It is not mine or the American Taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for a procedure such as abortion. The same can be said about paying for those that are “uninsured.”
So, who should pay for abortions? The American Taxpayer by force or the person who was irresponsible? If you are responsible enough to have sex, you are responsible for the consequences.
Just my honest opinion!
Scotty-I appreciate and respect your stand on government subsidized abortions. I happen to be Pro-Choice as long as it concerns 1st trimester abortions. Some may perceive this to be hypocritical but I subscribe to the medical definition of when life actually begins. That being said; the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab for the poor children who are forced to live in an environment that is paid for by welfare.
I find it interesting that Sebelius is even mentioned in this debate given her relationship with the late Dr. Tiller whose practice of late term abortions was well documented. Personally; I found his practices to be abhorring and Sebelius’ friendship with him to be disturbing.
www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/sebelius_has_ti.html
www.dr-tiller.com/tillers-governor.htm
I agree with your contention that anyone who is responsible enough to have sex should be responsible enough to deal with the consequences. The key word there, my friend, is “should.” Unfortunately; that is not the case in many scenarios. Great article Scotty and very thought provoking. I feel ashamed that I am even alluding to putting a price tag on the life of a child but what is the difference between paying for the care of a child or paying for an abortion? It comes out of our wallets one way or the other.