Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
A little something picked up with the requisite 2 seconds on Google.
|
I'd be curious when this was written and if it is actually based on a specific section of the proposed bill or some anti-abortion activist that's pissed any type of abortion will be allowed under the new plan.
My understanding (and I could be wrong because that section of the bill isn't important to me) was that there is no blank check for abortions under the current proposal, just as there isn't under any private company.
Abortion is a part of health care, and I believe all the major insurance companies cover the cost of at least 1 per year. We'll leave the disgusting fact that someone would need more than one/year aside.
But my point is that in the abortion aspect, neither the House or Senate proposals have clauses that go above and beyond what a standard HC company pays for now.
And as Spence mentioned, abortions are legal - and confirmed on more than one occasion by the Supreme Court.
Threaded Mode