I agree, I've always found it funny, that it's only a hot button issue if you don't agree with it. While I used to be pro choice, as I've gotten older I've found the issue that a pregnancy is not life, to be almost amusing. As a woman there is no doubt it's life, human life at that, the question really is, is whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

We are going to deny the uninsured, which would included the infirmed, pregnant mothers, sick children, and vulnerable infants, proper, and literally life saving health care in the name of "every potential life is sacred?" I am having a little difficulty understanding the selective "princip[les and morals" at play here.

Living and teaching Earth friendly sustainable agricultural practices.

I said nothing about the people that work in the VA health program they are great people. But when it takes my uncle 6 months to get in for a CT scan and when he shows up and they scheduled him for a pap smear instead. Guess what he went back on a 3 month waiting list. So nothing against the the people that work there I was talking about the system.

Randy Ellis
randyellis@gmail.com

I'll go one further and say that... I don't agree with abortion at ALL. The only procedure that I could justify and the only one our taxes should pay for is to remove a baby whose heartbeat has stopped naturally, and not stopped by a surgeon with a scapel! To me, a beating heart means LIFE is present!

But the larger political issue -

Should abortion be a standard clause in every bill? It seems that is the way that the GOP wants it. Basically any bill that they talk about comes down to this.

Lincoln's original stance of reducing abortion by 95% in 10 years had a lot of merit as it provided the needed assistance to mothers so they would have the positive choice of having a kid. So many GOP bills don't even take that into account as they seem to like using it election after election as a political tool to win elections, instead of it being about the life issue as they say. The GOP had years to do something about it, but instead they went off to fight international wars.

Another way to think about it - Could the current broken health care system be forcing some women into abortions?

Is Lincoln's plan to support health care by instilling some of his ideas from the 95-10 plan to support the mothers?

The experts agree that the health care system is broken. We need to figure out what to do about it. To some degree the bad economy is because of the broken health care system as bankruptcy is often caused by honest hard working families health crisis. The GOP answer is free market which isn't really a free market. Obama's plan helps to equalize the market so it will be competitive instead of favoring the insurance companies and their contrived market over people's health, their family's economic health or the nations economic health.

Each of us has a view on this. In most cases it is a chosen religious view, but not always. (The Bible speaks of abortion in cases of adultery as a remedy, btw)The question is whether one particular view should be imposed on everyone by force of law when we are so divided on this.

I am not trying to get you to accept my view as the correct one above all others...Far from it. What I object to is using the government to impose one view on everyone. This is an intensely personal thing that must be a personal decision...an agonizing one in most cases. The Supreme Court decision that struck down laws banning abortion did so on the grounds that the government has no right to invade a person's privaacy in this very personal decision.

Sine you don't agree with abortion, Randy, I suggest you not have one. At the same time, I support your right to make your case that others shouldn't have on either. I myself have decided that men should stay out of this discussion and leave it to women of child bearing age on the advice of their medical practicioners.

Back to the original post, my questions are:

Does any part of any proposed health care reform bill currently allow coverage for abortions? If so, is it coverage for only cases such as when the life of the mother is at stake, or any abortion in general?

Does anyone here know enough about the proposed health care reform bill to know the answers?

I would think if coverage for abortions in general is not included in any proposal, then it would be pointless to add a clause prohibiting them.

I personally support coverage for abortions if the life of the mother is at stake.

A somewhat related issue is embryonic stem cell research. When Obama lifted the ban, I asked one of my science-savvy Repuplican friends what she thought about the lift. She responded she was "okay" with it, but was too concerned about her tax dollars paying women to have abortions just for providing embryonic stem cells. I asked her if paying for abortions was part of Obama's lift on the ban, and could she provide me the documentation. Apparently there is none, other than what she had heard on Fox News.

I'm really wondering what these pro-life dems know about health care reform that we don't know. Is there really going to be coverage for abortions in general, or are they just blowing a moral grand stand up my butt?

'Cause I've got morals, too. There's just too many other serious priorities for me to take the time to publicize my morals when they aren't threatened in the first place.

As for Jesus not being tolerant, I don't know the same Jesus I guess. Anyone remember something about Jesus and a prostitute? I don't believe Jesus would make a law specifically prohibiting a woman from having an abortion. The Jesus I know would forgive her for doing so, then help her so she would understand the difference.

It seems you dislike the health insurance industry. In your linked story the insurance industry didn't let them down, they let themselves down by not having insurance. You don't seem to have a problem with the concept of pooled risk because you propose a public system where we all pay. The reality of it is though you want a system where those that today pay for themselves would tomorrow pay for everyone. You would also lay in a bureaucracy to replace the management of that pooled risk. A management that is now concerned with profit with a bureaucracy that is not. How will that contain cost? If you think competition for business to provide a service for lower premium wont work how will a system with no incentive? How can you add non-paying participants to a system without reducing service? You mandate lower compensation for providers?
You limit service to those you feel need it?

You people hate the profit motive in the health care industry and so feel it should be regulated. How convenient that it's not immoral to draw a huge salary form a non-profit organization like ACORN or make a profit selling canoes. I guess "everyone else is wrong but its ok when we do it" works for progressives.

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Sorry to learn of your situation but I strongly question your comments.

The arguments against the public healthcare option have little except anecdotal backing exactly like your post.

As Obama said, if you like the private policy that you have, then great. There is no need to change.

your sense of frustration and outrage at the "government," I wonder if you might have supported national politicians that then deliberately set out to destroy the government structure. The fiasco that Katrina left in its' wake was brought about by a President who didn't believe government should help people in distress.
Whatever you think about President Obama, I think one would be hard pressed to see a hidden agenda in his apparently genuine desire to help the plight of people who have been knocked down hard in life.

Living and teaching Earth friendly sustainable agricultural practices.

That says a lot.

87 percent increase in premiums with profits at 428% from 2000 to 2007.

Who's insurance hasn't increased?

Who hasn't wondered it their insurance wouldn't cover them when something serious happends?

Who hasn't looked at the medical bill is astonishment?

Does this establish that views on abortion are essentially religious in nature? And does it then follow that you are proposing that we use the law to enforce a religious concept, while holding universal health care hostage in the process?

I see it all now.

of all is that ordinary human beings are capable of governing themselves without the guidance of other ordinary human beings who pretend to speak on behalf of God." (Michael Lind)

Former Harriman city council candidate Randy Ellis made the point precisely when he stated earlier in this thread, "I too could not support or vote for a bill that went against my principles and morals. No matter the greater good." He was referring to his opposition to (funding for abortion) contained in the universal health care bill. His refusal to serve the greater good appears based upon his religious belief when he further stated, "I do not think Jesus was or is very tolerant at all of someone taking a innocent life for what ever reason the mother may think she has to end its life."

A theocracy is not an enlightened way to govern. I for one do not want to return to the dark ages where religious zealots criminalized free thinking. Some of the people of Iran are demonstrating against that form of mind control as we speak.

Living and teaching Earth friendly sustainable agricultural practices.

There's so much bs in that post I don't know where to start. It's almost not worth going over the regurgitation of talking points, but I'm going to take on a couple and get busy on other things.

1. Progressives want our government to do what it was formed to do, among which is "Provide for the General Welfare." We don't want the force of Law used to force a particular religious view on everyone. We must be allowed to disagree and live differently. This is an enriching thing.

2. If you keep saying unjustifiable things over and over, they still won't be justifiable. Universal Heathcare is not socialized medicine but even so, neither is intrisically bad. What has proven to be bad beyond a shadow of doubt is "Corporatized" medicine.

3. The world is not black and white. There is a place for entrepreneurship and a place for programs where we all come together outside of the marketplace and join forces to accomplish certain things. We deliver mail, fight enemies, disease, make food safer, try to prevent corporations from killing too many citizens in the quest for profit, support artistic endeavors, treat water for drinking, create enforcement and justice systems, inspect restaurants, and supposedly try to keep a level playing field in the world of business. This is not perfect but it is a coming together for the common good. Now, it is time, after suffering the travesty that is corporate controlled medical services, it is time for us to come together and create a better system of healthcare.

4. There's tons more but I don't have time right now. I'm not going to argue Progressive v Conservative philosophy because I don't have to, given the abject failure of Neo-Conservatism over the last 8 years.

If you agree or disagree that our health care system is broken, and if so, how would you fix it? Quite often I see that the people who so vehemently disagree with the concept of socialized medicine or universal health care( whatever you want to call it) are those with great healthcare policies, largely paid for by their employers. Reality is that many, many people are denied quality health care by the companies paid to insure them. Sure, people at the poverty level add burden to the system, and by the way, we are all paying for their care anyway, so the "keeping the the money you worked for" statement is the real fantasy.

You and others may well be right that the government should not be in the health care business.....perhaps they should stop protecting our food, drugs, and environment as well and implement a survival of the fittest policy. I really tire of blanket statements that the government can't do anything right.

The insurance companies have been allowed to manipulate the quality and cost of healthcare with little or no government involvement and look where that's gotten us.

The abortion issue is a red herring that ultra conservatives keep tossing in the mix to confound productive discussion.

I guess it all comes back to power politics. With the Dems just reaching the magic 60 in the Senate....maybe this can move forward.

She claimed "the cigarette smoking scare" was a hoax, then died of lung cancer. While she may be widely read by college students, her philosophy has pretty much run aground in the rocky reality of the current economic depression.

What is life if not ironic?

Living and teaching Earth friendly sustainable agricultural practices.

JCE, you are so wrong it's not funny. In fact, I wonder of you're in the insurance business? You know as well as I do that there are purposful gray areas in insurance contracts that allow all manner of discrimination in claims payment.

I have friends who work for insurance companies in a job called "Utilization" which exists for the sole purpose of taking people's money and denying their claims. I've seen the example of a woman who had her insurance cancelled when whe made a claim for treating her ovarian cancer and they found that she had not notified them of a doctor visit for a completely unrelated reason in which no insurance claim was even made. Corporate insurance is not our friend and deserves no special protection. Let the free market include citizen's participation in forming an insurance co-operative through our government. Or are you against the free market, now?

And, JCE, you need to pick a better example than a crooked auto dealer. That supports my point rather than yours.

This doesn't fit your world view so you'll delete this or ban me like you have others. Fairness doctrine?

So you can take that one back. The rules are spelled out for all to see.

So let's try this a different way...You're saying The health insurance situation is just fine in America and the only problem are the regulations?

...And a universal coverage option managed at a federal level would be bad for small businesses?

...And the people who don't have health insurance don't deserve health care?

...And I just can't let this one go by...

Example; Kentucky is an expensive state because every policy has to cover black lung, even for those not in the mining industry.

...And Kentucky is an expensive state because we shifted heath damaged by coal mining companies over to the public sector? (It should cost nothing to insure people who weren't coal miners against a disease that only coal miners get, btw

Deregulation - hasn't worked in other areas (i.e. Enron)

High deductible plans - I see your point as ideally insurance is for unforeseen problems, but I would want to see how this fits into a broader plan. It's mostly the massive unforseen bills that push people into major financial problems.

Greater reliance on generic drugs - Someone still has to buy the name brand to fund the research on new drugs or we will have to figure out a new way to fund drug research. With your plan, the tax payers would maybe have to do it instead of the private sector.

Take a look at this article from the Monthly Review Link....

Do you have ANY idea at all how frequently doctors and hospitals refuse or limit treatment to those who cannot pay? When the cost of treating a major illness like heart disease or cancer often exceeds $200,000 -$400,000 not many people are capable of dealing with or offered your "payment plan". Also are you aware that most insured medical services are billed at reduced rates set by how much the insurer is willing to pay, while those provided to uninsured individuals are billed at full list price.

You say that no one is undeserving of health care but no one should get it free. I guess in your worldview those who can't pay should be left to die. I wonder how one reconciles that with any sort of anti abortion stand.

Doctors and hospitals can't limit of refuse care on an emergency basis. Rates are negotiated not set by insurances companies. Services are often discounted to the uninsured.

Any Dr.in private practice or for profit hospital can refuse treatment, though most will provide EMERGENCY treatment out of ethical and liability considerations. If any given Dr. wishes to participate in an insurance company's plan,that Dr. does NOT negotiate his rates...he is told what the insurer will pay and has the option to participate or not.

As to levels of treatment, I believe that a system of public healthcare combined with supplemental care policies would be a viable option.

Finally a good question.

I never stated a religious affiliation or that my sense of morality is founded in a religious frame work. I consider myself a christian however I think denominational Christianity is founded in the traditions of man. These traditions of man can be blamed for many if not all of the contradictions between the world defined by science and the world defined by preachers. I can imagine a rational mind like Ayn's being driven from a church by a rigid religious structure holding to these contradictions by faith without the possibility of question. That is not to say that she had no morality it's just that in her morality actions are warranted by their own merit. She felt, and I agree, that when morality or a moral act is mandated by a third party, government, it robs the virtue of that act from the giver and places it one the third party. The gratitude of the receiver, if it then exists, is granted to the third party not the giver.

If I ever stated that people don't deserve help I did that in error. People used to help each other all the time. Communities came together all the time to help those in need. But in this person to person help the giver can make a judgment of to whom, how much and when to help. The receiver has to continue to be needy in the eyes of their neighbor to continue to receive help. That's hard to do without showing gratitude. And people get tired of helping those who aren't trying to help themselves. In a third party system the receivers resent the givers for not giving more, the middle man drives power from this and fosters their need and resentment. The middle man, government, tells them that they deserve this gift and need not feel gratitude to the giver or feel bad for taking. The virtue of charity is stolen.

Ayn Rand on Charity

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

to understand that she was just another intellectual with radical views.

There are most certainly those who milk the system and take advantage of givers. There are far more that never ask and many who take only as a last resort.....yet you seem to paint them all with the same brush.

I wasn't painting all liberals with the brush just those 2, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Which violence did he denounce?

You said "Violence is overwhelmingly condemned by Liberals." I listed 2 that at a point in their life condoned it.