One of you will end up here next!
But we're not talking about breast implants or other elective surgeries such as plastic surgery. We're talking about abortions. Stick to the topic.
BTW, I know at one point certain cosmetic procedures such as those for children born with clifted lips was to be covered under health care reform legistlation. Are you saying you wouldn't be in favor of plastic surgery for children born with this birth defect even though such surgery has proven beneficial for the child's overall health?
My point: If we're going to discuss "elective surgical procedures" let's atleast discuss those that are relevent.
New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions92% of Women Cite "Social" or "Other" Reasons
New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions
By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.
Why do women have abortions? For over 15 years, those asking that question have had to rely on a 1987 study that some were concerned might have become outdated in light of the declining number of abortions and shifting abortion demographics.
Now a new study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood's special research affiliate, brings our understanding of women's abortion decisions up to date. While showing that women's basic reasons have largely remained the same, the study presents some compelling new data that those reaching out to abortion-prone women will want to consider.
A couple of conclusions are very apparent from this data. First, those who wish to use the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, life of the mother, and genetic disability to argue for the necessity of abortion on demand will continue to find it difficult to make that case based on the reasons women offer for their abortions. Ninety-two percent cited what might be termed "social" or "other" reasons, rather than medical reasons or sexual assault, as the primary basis for their abortions.
And those who cited medical reasons often appear to have been stating their own opinions (fear that drug or alcohol use may have harmed the baby, inability to handle morning sickness, etc.) rather than reporting any formal diagnosis by a doctor. Less than a percent each of women even mentioned rape or incest as a factor in their abortions at all.
There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.
Originally Posted by PogueMoran
I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.
If you guys want to discuss the merits of why women have abortions, I suggest you take the discussion over to the "Abortions" forum. Otherwise, stick with the discussion topic, towit, the law(s) on the books that authorize same on either the state of federal level.
Then you take it up w/the PA legistlature, not the federal government. The law per HR 3590 is clear! The State determines who receives health insurance coverage within their high-risk pool, and no State will receive federal funding or is allowed to use federal funding for abortions except as specifically authorized by law other than through H.R. 3590.
I know...doesn't seem to make much sense except when you think about it in broader terms.
Federal law prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for or sponsor abortions except in certain circumstances and those situations are very strict, i.e., imminent health risk to the expecting mother. I would assume in such situations the doctor or medical facility would have to have doctor's records or make an "on-the-spot" decision of that health risk that makes it clear that an abortion is abosolutely necessary. However, that being said, the federal government can't stop any State from funding or authorizing abortions for its own residents as long as they adhere to federal law that outlines under what circumstances abortions WILL be authorized. Therefore, unless there is some form of urgent or emergent health risk to the expecting mother, no abortions will be authorized using federal funds in whole or in part.
Again, read the health care reform law towhich I've provided a link. It's all right there for your reading pleasure and full comprehension.
Roger that! (I was being sarcastic, however.)
Back to the thread...
I did find something interesting while reviewing Title XIX of the Social Security Act:
Now, without doing a whole lot of research on this portion of the law, I'd assume a woman could get an abortion under this portion of the act if her OB/GYN deemed her situation as needing "medical assistance". It's a helluva stretch, but here again it's the State's responsibility to determine what health benefits and/or procedures will come under the health insurance plans they establish under health care reform legistlation and in accordance with the Social Security Act.Sec. 1905. [42 U.S.C. 1396d] For purposes of this title—
(a) The term “medical assistance” means payment of part or all of the cost of the following care and services or the care and services themselves, or both (if provided in or after the third month before the month in which the recipient makes application for assistance or, in the case of medicare cost-sharing with respect to a qualified medicare beneficiary described in subsection (p)(1), if provided after the month in which the individual becomes such a beneficiary) for individuals, and, with respect to physicians' or dentists' services, at the option of the State, to individuals (other than individuals with respect to whom there is being paid, or who are eligible, or would be eligible if they were not in a medical institution, to have paid with respect to them a State supplementary payment and are eligible for medical assistance equal in amount, duration, and scope to the medical assistance made available to individuals described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)) not receiving aid or assistance under any plan of the State approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI, or part A of title IV, and with respect to whom supplemental security income benefits are not being paid under title XVI, who are—
(i) under the age of 21, or, at the option of the State, under the age of 20, 19, or 18 as the State may choose,
(ii) relatives specified in section 406(b)(1) with whom a child is living if such child is (or would, if needy, be) a dependent child under part A of title IV,
(iii) 65 years of age or older,
(iv) blind, with respect to States eligible to participate in the State plan program established under title XVI, or
(v) 18 years of age or older and permanently and totally disabled, with respect to States eligible to participate in the State plan program established under title XVI,
(vi) persons essential (as described in the second sentence of this subsection) to individuals receiving aid or assistance under State plans approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI,
(vii) blind or disabled as defined in section 1614, with respect to States not eligible to participate in the State plan program established under title XVI,
(viii) pregnant women,...
State's rights, ladies and gentlemen. If you're really opposed to abortions for any reason at any level of government, take it up with your State legistlation, not the Fed.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-16-10 at 04:09 PM.