McDonnell meddles with Obamacare
Don’t ban abortion coverage from private insurance sold through a health care exchange.
When the General Assembly passed its midpoint a week ago, it looked like last year’s Republican assault on women’s rights had mostly remained in check.
The national jeers this year would be reserved for the Senate’s misguided redistricting maneuver.
Apparently it’s never too late to rekindle the war on women and embarrass the commonwealth. The Virginian-Pilot reported Tuesday that Gov. Bob McDonnell’s staff is working on a legislative amendment to prohibit insurance companies from offering abortion coverage with policies they sell through a federal health care exchange.
February 14, 2013 - 8:26 AM
The Virginia Taliban is alive and well!
I love the way liberals preach tolerance and civility while calling people they disagree with “Taliban.”
A feature of the Taliban is their religiously motivated suppression of women. This seems to be something the Taliban and Christian conservatives like McDonnell have in common.
I’m sure other similarities (and differences) can be found. But if there are enough similarities, perhaps it’s not out of place to refer to them as the Taliban.
If it makes alan feel better, let’s just refer to them as the TaliBaptists.
Perhaps alan would care to list the differences in ideology between the two as it relates to this editorial?
@2 Alan…
I suppose one can then infer that conservatives don’t preach tolerance and civility since you are calling out liberals who do and that’s supposed to make a difference somehow to the discussion at hand?
Really??
I truly do not know how anyone can seriously think that anyone “preaches tolerance” of the intolerant.
I love the way right wingers preach family values and decry helping a single mom with welfare. I love the way right wingers preach “rights” and “freedom” and “personal liberty” while denying equality to homosexuals or reproductive choice to women. I love the way right wingers preach Christianity and support war, torture, and racial profiling. See how easy and insulting that really is Alan?
For the record, again, being tolerant of the intolerant is not tolerance and it is not preached by the left. It is not about disagreeing with someone, it is about having a literal, visceral reaction to their intolerance.
Sandi…You put it so eloquently “eproductive choice to women”. Some of us call it abortion. And its the real War on Women if you consider 1/2 of the 55 million abortions in the US since Roe vs Wade were a baby girls.
How is equality denied to gays? Marriage? That is not worth arguing about.
Gays household have higher income, work in every job function, live anywhere. If hospital visitations are the issue…go to a lawyer and get it corrected.
Speaking of tolerance, if anyone disagrees with Obama policies, the Left decries “Racist”.
Al wrote, “How is equality denied to gays? Marriage? That is not worth arguing about.” When it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person (that is, prior to 1967 in Virginia) … was that not worth arguing about either?
Well Al, if all women chose it, you could just call it abortion, but quite obviously, not all, or even a majority of women do. They make a choice Al. They choose an abortion, or they choose to carry the pregnancy. Then they choose to keep the baby, or give it up for adoption. Those are all choices Al. There is not just abortion.
Rant nmuch?
Does this mean when us conservatives become inconvenient we will be allowed to be killed off too Sandi??? Its never been about a womans choice. Its about the life of the baby. Its either a life or its not. If you believe its a life then you have to believe that there is no choice. No one has the right to take an innocent life.
Darren, you are entitled to believe as you like and worry about us coming for you as you like as well. I trust the Constitution but that does not mean you have to.
I am aware that a fetus is a potential life, no one who gets an abortion nor anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose believes anything less. Were I to fight for “the right to life”, I would have to include those frozen embryos left in the trash or those children and potential babies killed by our bombs, as well as those potential babies “killed” by their mother before birth. That slippery slope was oiled long ago and I leave it alone.
As to whether the potential life in the womb should, by law, be valued above the private choice of the mother is I believe, one of those personal, private rights that the Constitution referred to in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. I cannot think what choice/right could be more private or more none of anyone else’s business.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
So which trumps, the right to choose, or the right to life? Doesn’t the recognition of a non-enumerated right to choose deny the right to life?
(and I agree with you that the right to life should include the frozen embryos and the babies killed by our bombs).
So your saying we all have the right to make the personal choice to murder someone??? That is what you are saying. Comparing causaulties of war (which is tragic & should be avoided at all costs & yes, we have not done a good job of avoiding that either) to aborting an innocent baby is comparing apples to oranges. And yes, as a conservative I will admit we should not have gone to Iraq!! See, you can think for yourself & break from the line you are being fed. Both sides use an element of truth to push for there side. Both sides are full of crap!!
We already have law that represents a good compromise — abortion is allowed prior to viability. If you believe a fetus is a life, then abortion and the use of abortifacients are murder. If you believe a fetus is property, then termination of pregnancy is allowable until live birth. Inasmuch as current medical technology can only save prematurely born babies back to about 24 weeks (a couple of weeks earlier in very rare instances), limiting abortion to the first trimester (12 weeks) strikes a balance.
13 – murder is a specific legal distinction, and it would be inaccurate to portray a legal abortion as a murder, as abhorrent as the practice is.
Can I take it from your post, then, NW, that you oppose abortion after 24 weeks, and that you support a partial-birth abortion ban?
89Hoo, not being Solomon, I cannot say which should “trump”. I can only say that I believe that a woman should both have the choice and have the choice left alone, even if not respected. If we had a better world, then the choice would be a lot easier for those who think they must choose abortion. Unless we are all working for that world, we are part of the problem we decry IMO.
Darren, I do not think that it is apples and oranges at all. IMO “right to life” cannot only mean in the situation of abortion. That cheapens both the commitment to life and the meaning of it. I do not think you or anyone else not involved in the specific procreation in question has any right at all to decide what is and is not available to the woman. Regardless of how you feel, it is not your womb and I believe that is a natural right due to the biology of reproduction, and one of the very rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. What is more private and more personal?
I don’t “like” a whole lot of the legal activity that goes on in this world, but that does not give me the right to intervene/interfere with the privacy and choices of another human being that have nothing to do with me or even society as a whole. Loving John Donne, I fully believe:
“No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.”
~John Donne
BUT, I also know that in some tiny way, each man is and has to be “an island” or we are nothing.
Yes, off-hand I would say that I oppose abortion after 24 weeks unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Before answering definitively I would want to learn more about the range of defects that can be detected prior to the 24th week. During the first trimester the means of abortion should be left to the woman and her medical provider.
Darren, your use of the term “inconvenient” when discussing abortion is troubling. It would seem this is what you actually think women who choose that difficult, painful procedure think of their pregnancy as: “inconvenient.” Do you honestly believe that women go to a doctor and casually, easily, flippantly opt for an abortion because the pregnancy is “inconvenient”? If so, then I pity your world view and your view of humanity. There are few decisions an individual can make that are as weighted with wdjfn
Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? Have you ever been faced with a pregnancy that was the result of rape, incest, or failed birth control devices, or a pregnancy that threatened your health or your life?
16 – thank you, NW.
I say abortion on demand in all cases.
Most will think I’m just being controversial but that’s not so.
Early in a pregnancy but fetus doesn’t have enough of mind to perceive pain as we understand it. And if a pregnancy goes on past the 2nd trimester, it means the mother wants the baby. And if she wants the baby, she won’t have an abortion except with good reason such as medical conditions.
So even advocating abortion on demand reduces to reasonable behavior.
It’s not society’s place to tell women when they have to start a family.
17 – ew, 74% of women in a 2004 study listed “having a baby would dramatically change my life” as their reason for the abortion, with interference with job and/or education as the primary sub-reason (38% each). Those are not matters of life, health or safety, those are matters of convenience. Another 48% named “Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems” (sub reasons: Not sure about relationship (19%), don’t want to get married (12%), not in a relationship (11%), relationship or marriage may break up(11%)). Thirty-two per cent (32%) said they weren’t ready for another child, twenty-five per cent (25%) said they didn’t want people to know they got pregnant. Those are not matters of life, health or safety, those are matters of convenience.
With regards to health, 13% cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus and 12% cited concerns about their own health.
In the survey, the respondents were allowed more than one response, and 73% listed their inability to afford the baby (lack of job, spouse/partner no job, etc) as the reason. So there is obvious overlap, meaning there are, as we would expect, a lot of factors at play.
The point is that it is foolish to write off reasons of convenience as a factor. It may not be as high as the study says, but it is high enough to be significant.
I agree with you that a woman who chooses an abortion should agonize over it and its repercussions, and I will even accept the premise that most do. But that raises another question: a lot of pro-life folks cite the long-lasting emotional damage and psychological trauma women who have had abortions as a matter of concern; a lot of pro-choice folks say that damage is either overblown or fabricated by the pro-life crowd. So the question: how can a decision that so agonizes the mother NOT have long-term emotional damage?
#20, I’m not in favor of forcing anyone to look at certain pictures or videos before they have a medical procedure. I hope that’s not what you meant by “a woman who chooses an abortion should agonize over it.” Those requirements are belittling.
21 – well, I don’t think pictures are necessary. Maybe it should be rephrased to say, “a woman SHOULD take it seriously and not look at it merely as a matter of convenience”.
I do not think these statistics mean that women are killing their babies as easily as some insist.
“Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks’ gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks’ gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks’ gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html#ixzz2L01SUYeF
For those women who choose an early abortion (the vast majority), that needs to remain a safe, legal procedure of choice and none of our business. I am sorry that anyone’s opinion of women is so low as to think that any one of us would have an abortion after 24 weeks without sound medical reasons.
I have never had an abortion, but carrying two pregnancies, I can assure you that no matter the face any woman puts on, having an abortion is the single most gut-wrenching, soul-twisting, pain for decades inducing act she can undergo. I am sickened when I see people insist it is just for “convenience” because a woman does not bear her soul to a survey on the reasons for her decision. I cannot speak for others, but I have never said or implied that “damage is either overblown or fabricated“.
23 – I believe you, Sandi, and I’d not accuse you.
But there are those in the pro-choice community that do NOT see much of a problem with emotional distress, etc. for women who have had abortions.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html
also
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2011/01/31/Advisory-Abortion-Mental-Health.pdf
…the APA came to a very similar conclusion when it found that
legal abortion “does not pose a psychological hazard for most women.”
Now, I’m not qualified to judge one set of findings over another in an unbiased manner, so I will not attempt to. But I do feel comfortable in saying that the pro-choice source of these studies (Guttmacher) sees no long-term psychological damage.
That is at variance with what you feel…and I think you are probably more typical than not (I mean that as a compliment).
Arguments about whether women’s reasons for having abortions are “legitimate” or how they feel about it afterward do not seem like a very productive avenue of discussion. It’s a bit like asking someone why their marriage failed. There’s always more to it than money or infidelity or sexual incompatibility. These things are as complicated as life itself.
25 – I agree NW. Which is why I think giving short shrift to the emotional trauma women who have had abortions does more harm than good.
Kinda like the gun advocates who give short shrift to the emotional trauma of mass shootings on our society? Not because they do not believe it exists but because acknowledging the very real issue is a hazard for their cause. I think the exact same thing applies here. If the women in their surveys tell the truth, if the pro-choice advocates admit they see any psychological damage, they know that will be used against them just like the pictures of an aborted fetus or the videos showing the stage they “killed” their baby are.
Sandi…the shear number of abortions is troubling. I believe you to be pro choice and anti -gun, especially since Newtown.
I equate killing babies in the womb to killing babies (school children) in the class room.
Al, like Darren, you are entitled to feel and believe anything you like.
“Results—In 2008, an estimated 6,578,000 pregnancies resulted in 4,248,000 live births, 1,212,000 induced abortions, and 1,118,000 fetal losses.”
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_07.pdf
Not that it is a pretty statistic, but there are almost as many pregnancies lost to nature as choice. The vast majority of pregnancies are carried as a choice. The vast majority of abortions are done before it becomes a viable baby.
I do not see “the shear number of abortions is troubling” unless you think those children would have a better life if born than in Heaven (if, of course you believe in Heaven). If a woman does not feel she is fit to be a mother, she should know. Is 20% too high? Well if your stance is you “equate killing babies in the womb to killing babies (school children) in the class room”, then there is no percentage you will find acceptable so how is that not a straw argument?
27 – Sandi if you have a report from the gun lobby that claims there is no psychological trauma to survivors of mass shootings- equivalent to the pro-choice lobby (Guttmacher) claiming there is no psychological trauma to women who have had abortions – please do share. Otherwise, not kinda like the same thing at all.