addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Does & Should Public Funding Encourage Abortion?

Intros & Ideas 6:30. Topic 7pm SHARP - 8:30 on the dot. 

- - - 

Publicly funded family planning prevents nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions in the United States each year, saving billions of dollars, according to new research intended to counter conservative objections to expanding the program.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-24-family-planning_N.htm

Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services.

https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion

ObamaCare requires every American to purchase health insurance, it requires every state to establish health insurance exchanges, and it dramatically expands Medicaid. Each of these – private health insurances programs, exchanges, and Medicaid – can, and in some case are required to, provide coverage for abortion. The result is hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled to the abortion industry every year and the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Post topic ideas on the Discussion Message Board

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Join or login to comment.

  • marios

    I do not have to come in defense of Brent but besides humans what we going to say about a lion chasing a gazelle, a giraffe or a buffalo? I think their killing is brutal but I will like ask a question for the believers which side god takes the hunter's or the hunted?

    1 · February 22, 2014

    • Dominic

      yes I agree. I guess I used too strong of a word. But I like to think that it keeps those in check instead of letting ego get in the way that we really know nothing...well almost

      February 23, 2014

    • Brent

      Okay, I deleted the repeated comments; why the same thing was posted four times, I dunno, but I did leave one, so I only removed three other identical ones.

      The ironic thing is that the people who are claiming we know nothing turn around and claim they know something the rest of us don't, and we're supposed to accept that sans evidence. Yes, there's a lot we don't know; that is no excuse for accepting any weird idea without evidence. In fact, it is precisely that lack of knowledge that should keep us from wasting time on baseless claims. There are too many things we have evidence for but don't understand as well as we should. Investigate those, not the obvious cons - like EFT.

      1 · February 24, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    antibiotics do NOT effect birth control!

    The only antibiotic that has ever been shown to interfere with birth control levels and effectiveness is a medicine called rifampin which is used to treat tuberculosis. Rifampin may also interfere with the birth control patch and vaginal ring so if you are taking it, be sure to use a back-up, non-hormonal (i.e. condom) form of birth control.

    http://shs.osu.edu/blog/the-truth-about-antibiotics-and-birth-control

    February 20, 2014

    • Linda

      .........."The other way that antibiotics could interfere with the effectiveness of birth control pills is by reducing the re-circulation of estrogens within the body. Estrogens, e.g., ethinyl estradiol, in birth control pills are broken-down by conversion in the liver to other chemicals which are then secreted into the intestines in the bile that is produced by the liver. Bacteria in the intestine are able to convert these chemicals back into the active estrogen which is then reabsorbed into the body.....antibiotics can kill the bacteria that convert the inactive chemicals to the active estrogen, and, therefore, may interfere with the effectiveness of birth control pills. Unwanted pregnancies could occur. Although it has not been proven that unwanted pregnancies can occur by this means, drug manufacturers caution that antibiotics could decrease the effectiveness of birth control pills.
      http://www.medicinene...­

      February 21, 2014

    • Karen A.

      What an interesting perspective presented in the video

      1 · February 21, 2014

    • Jean M.

      Havent watched vid yet-- but corporate welfare honks me off...

      February 21, 2014

  • marios

    yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    February 19, 2014

    • Brent

      Not exactly sure what you're agreeing with, Marios! <G>

      February 19, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    February 19, 2014

  • Jean M.

    Derail about the k-word---"karma". What a pile of evidence-free nonsense.!! And it's a cruel bit of nonsense---- the notion that if something bad has happened that you must have earned it or you must deserve it----"karma"----- should be challenged and questioned. Bazilions of examples surround us of dick wads getting away with all types of evil, bazillions of examples of kind loving generous people suffer, yet people Still love to propagate the kword.....???

    1 · February 19, 2014

    • Jean M.

      This is a derail from another thread that was the derail from the main topic. I do not necessarily think derails are 'bad' things on an informal forum like this.

      2 · February 19, 2014

  • Byron

    Great group and great meeting. Thoroughly enjoyed learning from the various points of view and being able to express mine. Looking forward to March--St. Paddy's Day--session...

    2 · February 18, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    started with low turn out, ended up being a very interesting discussion

    1 · February 18, 2014

  • Jean M.

    Very good meeting. Very well moderated.

    Much to everyone's surprise, no blood was shed, no one lost their mind. Very very calm, dispassionate, even humorous discussion.

    The "afterglow" with cocktails was even more fun. A suggestion was made, that next meetup, we pass round a bottle with shotglasses.....

    February 18, 2014

  • Linda

    Thought provoking!

    1 · February 17, 2014

  • Katherine S.

    I'd love to be there for this one, but it's a tad too far of a commute for me at the moment. :)

    1 · February 11, 2014

    • marios

      Katherine you can express yourself here, without coming is just as good.

      2 · February 11, 2014

    • A. Colin F.

      we can Skype you into the meeting too!

      February 17, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    I will be traveling on vacation, sorry to miss this. As a humanist, I believe that the right exists solely with a woman's decision. As a former Christian, I think otherwise sometimes. And as a guy who got his 18 YO GF pregnant and then stayed married to her for 22 yrs I have my own personal experience. But as Humans we need to learn to accept not judge or secretly judge by hiding behind the consciousness of the law or tax payers.

    2 · February 16, 2014

    • Scooter D.

      Proving procreation, family planning, marriage, and family are all personal decisions that no one-size-fits-all state mandated solution will apply. Nor will the heart wrenching decisions at each step in the path. See you at the next mtg.

      2 · February 16, 2014

  • Evelyn

    Sorry, have a family event. This one may be a challenge to discuss dispassionately. I'm sure the meeting will be interesting, as always.

    1 · February 11, 2014

    • Scooter D.

      Checking for tomatoes at the door. ; ) See you next month.

      1 · February 11, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    Does & Should Public Funding Encourage sex education? Does & Should Public Funding Encourage birth control? Does & Should Public Funding encourage sex? Does & Should Public Funding or laws Encourage prostution? Where do we draw the lines?

    1 · February 11, 2014

  • Trude D.

    And here's why I'm not attending: As preventive birth control measures become more widely and affordably available in the US, abortion rates have been and will surely continue to be decreasing. See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/us/abortions-declining-in-us-study-finds.html?_r=0. Some news is good news. On the issue of gov't encouragement ... funding measures for preventing any type of condition that would reduce suffering (as education reduces stupidity at least some of the time, and don't give the "ignorance is bliss" line) is a place I'm happy for my tax dollars to go. Similarly, funding measures that enable individual free choice effectively reduces the need for legislation and the cost of enforcing it. I'm all for that efficiency.

    3 · February 11, 2014

  • Karen A.

    Here's an opinion piece about Medicare paying for men's sex issues and nobody having a problem with it:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/08/1275891/-It-s-odd-how-managing-the-menfolk-s-sexytimes-never-turns-into-a-movement?detail=email

    2 · February 10, 2014

  • Karen A.

    This was in last week's WOMEN'S POLICY REPORT:
    Twenty-four states have prohibited most abortion coverage in plans being sold through the Affordable Care Act's (PL[masked]) insurance marketplaces, Mother Jones reports.

    In nine states -- Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah -- all private health plans are barred from covering abortion, according to NWLC. In each of those states except Utah, there is no exemption if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

    Ten other states -- Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia -- attempted similar bans from 2011 to 2013, according to Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at Guttmacher. Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia are scheduled this year to consider bans on all abortion coverage (Redden, Mother Jones, 2/4).

    2 · February 9, 2014

  • Scooter D.

    Public funding of flood ins encourages rebuilding on vulnerable coastline. Government road funds encourages cars over transit. Government airport and FAA tower funding encourages air flight over high speed rail. Govt sugar domestic subsidies and import protections encouraged departure of candy and gum mfgrs to foreign low cost sugar sources. Does government funding encourage eyeglasses, unnecessary hip replacements, or bariatric surgery? Why always mix in the confusion of abortion?

    2 · January 26, 2014

    • Scooter D.

      Science, as a field, self-corrects. But "big medicine", if you will, is well known to have corrupted the pure scientific process for approval and use. Regulations, patents, blind studies, peer reviewed papers, one off uses (for starters) all create profit but minimally do not aid health and in some cases harm it. "Big medicine" has itself to blame, aided by the "big lawsuit" industry for our current status where doctors have a high but not steller perception. Snake oil has always played on the "wishes" of the ill, just like dire warning play on the fears of the healthy. America, and the free world needs what it thought it had, a group or agency whose charter is only to represent consumers, and willing to scrutinise any proposed solution.

      1 · February 3, 2014

    • Dominic

      suffering is suffering...whether we have a practical solution to avoid all suffering is a different question all together

      February 3, 2014

  • Scooter D.

    A few years back, many parent groups organized around schools removing elem school bookd like "billy has two moms". They claimed govt "encouraged" the homosexual lifestyle, by indoctrinating young impressionable kids. School social workers said children were bullied, even terrorized, by classmates thru no fault of their own, based on their family situation. The books we targeted to reduce bullying (govt "encouraging" tolerance of the child) not to "encourage" picking an adult gay lifestyle 20 years in the future. Concerned parents countered that other books, about being a doctor or athlete, encouraged the kids to identify with the adult character, not the child. Obviously, the school was "encouraging" something, were the parents within their rights, and were they correct, to try to have the books withdrawn?

    1 · January 31, 2014

    • Brent

      Considering sexual orientation is not a choice, I don't think any amount of "encouraging" could make me gay. People who compare sexual orientation to choice of career are simply ignorant, and obviously should not be allowed to dictate public policy. It's like saying someone who was born with blue eyes is defective and should be "encouraged" to change eye color. They might hide it with contacts, but internally there's no change.

      January 31, 2014

    • Scooter D.

      That's not how the parents felt. They first worked to elect conservative school boards (remember rhonda storms?). Several boards around the country passed curricula that immediately fell to constitutional challenge. After those failures, these parents' legislators loosened home school requirements, creating a generation with a significant population of low information, low curiosity, anti science Americans. With that "success", we now see the progress first of charter schools and now vouchers, each effort passing through over half a dozen unconstitutional permutations (and SCOTUS reappointments) to accomplish their original wish while maintaining the fig leaf of constitutionality. The question of federal tax and social policy working against a conservative or reactionary agends is not so simple as "that's not true". What of these parents' convictions, actions, and premeditated erosions to the wall between church and state in public education? I think they are wrong, but they don't.

      February 3, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    Abortion rate peaked in 1981 under former President Reagan (though he had just taken office), and is at the lowest rate since 1973 as of 2011, under President Obama. The abortion rate had been falling until it “stalled” between 2005 and 2008, under former President Bush.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/03/newsflash-republicans-abortion-rate-fell-13-president-obama.html

    February 3, 2014

    • Brent

      Of course, that's the documented abortion rate - no telling how many women had to resort to self-induced or back-alley abortions that weren't known to anyone, due to ever-more-limited access to proper places - hospitals and clinics - that are willing to perform them.

      1 · February 3, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    just posted the 10 worst decisions ever made and Prohibition was one of them! "Prohibition was considered the "noble experiment." It was supposed to lower crime levels and reduce the amount of money spent on prisons. It was supposed to clean us up socially, as well as improve our health and hygiene. What resulted instead was an explosion of alcohol-related crime, and eventually a corrupt law enforcement and political system willing to take bribes or look the other way. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking; it just changed the what and where of the equation. Because they were illegal, foot juice (slang for cheap wine around the speakeasy) and jag juice (for those who like something a little harder) were unregulated, and tainted alcohol killed an average of 1,000 during every dry year [source: Lerner]. Unexpected negative financial effects also fell on a country expecting an economic windfall. For example, states lost revenue previously gained from liquor sales."

    2 · January 31, 2014

    • Karen A.

      Interesting facts. I just had a discussion with someone about the legalization of pot and how it's predicted that it should reduce crime. Some discussion on TV cited some of the same info you do about Prohibition and they suggested the same could happen if all states legalize pot - hopefully put some drug cartels out of business.

      2 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    "If anti-choice forces prevail in their efforts, Dr. Thomas’ experience in the New York hospital
    wards during the 1960s and the deaths of women like Rosie Jimenez and Becky Bell are likely to
    be repeated. Studies show that the more restrictions are placed on abortion care, the less
    accessible the medical procedure becomes. However, history demonstrates that restricted
    access does not eliminate abortion; rather, in an anti-choice climate, women are forced to seek
    control over their reproductive lives in any way possible, often risking serious injury or death.
    Lifting abortion restrictions reduces the number of clandestine, unsafe abortions. Removal of
    legal barriers to abortion care would improve women’s health, and spurious claims that
    abortion services are dangerous should not be used to justify more restrictions on a woman’s
    right to choose."
    January 1, 2013

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    "Each year, an estimated 42 million women worldwide obtain abortion services to end
    unplanned pregnancies; approximately 21 million of them obtain the procedure illegally.42 Complications due to unsafe abortion account for approximately 13 percent of material
    deaths worldwide, nearly 50,000 deaths a year.
    43
    Where abortion is illegal, the risk of
    complications and maternal mortality is high. In fact, the abortion-related death rate is
    hundreds of times higher in developing regions, where the procedure is often illegal, than in
    developed countries"

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

     It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. women resorted to illegal abortion each year
    and that unsafe illegal abortions caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    "In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug mifepristone
    (originally known as RU 486) for the termination of very early pregnancy. Mifepristone,
    which is distributed under the brand name Mifeprex®, is approved for use during the first
    seven weeks after the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period. Mifepristone does not
    require an invasive procedure or surgery and requires no anesthesia.
     In the 12 years since FDA approval of mifepristone, more than one million U.S.
    women have used the drug for safe and effective nonsurgical abortion care.13 Meanwhile, millions of women worldwide have used mifepristone safely. "

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    The legalization of abortion in the United States led to the near elimination of deaths from
    the procedure.8
    Between 1973 and 1997, the mortality rate associated with legal abortion
    procedures declined from 4.1 to 0.6 per 100,000 abortions.
    9 The American Medical
    Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs credits the shift from illegal to legal abortion
    services as an important factor in the decline of the abortion-related death rate after Roe v.
    Wade.
    10  Eighty-eight percent of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and nearly 99
    percent occur during the first 20 weeks. Earlier abortions are associated with fewer
    mortality and morbidity risks.11  Studies of abortion services worldwide found that abortion-related deaths are rare in
    countries where the procedure is legal, accessible, and performed early in pregnancy by
    skilled providers.12

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    The
    American Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs reaffirmed this finding in 1992
    when it attributed the marked decline in deaths from abortion services to “the shift from illegal
    to legal abortion,” along with the introduction of antibiotics and the widespread use of effective
    contraception in the 1960s.

    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-distorting-science-safety-legal-abortion.pdf

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    Welfare provisions such as mandated work hours, time limits on child care subsidies, "family caps" that deny additional benefits for another child and paternity proof requirements, Fried says, punish poor and low-income women who give birth, making real reproductive choice a privilege of those who can afford it, rather than a fundamental right. "In the year 2000," Fried continues, "the right to choose, in its fullest sense, is an empty promise for thousands of poor and low-income women."

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/2/gr030208.html

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    "At hospitals in three cities where public funding for legal abortions had been restricted, we reviewed the records of women with complications of all types of abortions. We compared the number of complications in the year before funding restriction with the number in the following year, during restriction. For complications of illegal and spontaneous abortions, we found no significant change in either the number or proportion of publicly funded hospitalizations. For complications of legal abortions, we found a decrease in both the number and proportion of publicly funded hospitalizations. For poor women, it appears that restriction of public funding for legal abortions has not markedly increased the number of illegal abortions, but has reduced the number of legal abortions, especially those at later gestational ages, which would have cost more and been at greater risk of complications."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1619707/

    1 · January 31, 2014

  • Karen A.

    Can anyone bring data on how/how much the U.S. funds abortions? How much goes thru Planned Parenthood? Can women get an abortion thru medicare or medicaid?

    January 28, 2014

    • Scooter D.

      Thanks, good detail information. Now, how do we turn that into the original question about "encourage" vs "discourage" ... vs "neutral" ... vs "illegal" ... vs "???"

      1 · January 30, 2014

    • Brent

      Perhaps we could compare the numbers before it was legal...if we had them, but it's had to say when something is illegal just how many were performed.

      1 · January 30, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    There is a rampant faulty assumption, which is, again, reflective of cognitive dissonance: That I am aggressing against you by not paying for or supporting what you want. I don't owe you anything, nor do you to me, other than to mutually leave each other alone. If you think that i have a duty to pay for your abortion, then why don't you have a duty to pay for my car repairs? I'm certain that I make far less $ than most of the people here. Well, fork over my fare share of what's yours, folks, if you truly believe in this "entitlement" pathology.

    January 27, 2014

    • Scooter D.

      Brent, I disagree with your interpretation. The libertarian position is the same for healthcare, police & jails, car repairs. He doesn't want to pay for your abortion, or appendectomy or impacted wisdom tooth. That he thinks a fetus is a person gets swirled into the subject, but logically needs to be separated. He doesn't think you should pay ANY of this for him. HE doesn't want to pay for YOUR roof repairs, sidewalks, trim your trees or provide a park for your kids. He doesn't expect YOU to reciprocate. ... Can we restart a thread at a park, a street, a jail, then work our way to an abortion? Can we start our way at a child, a baby, then work our way to a fetus zygote then the morning after pill? Can we start at life ins and annuities, FDIC, mandatory Fire Ins, then ease to Med Ins, then mandatory coverage? ... I don't think we've really used this chance to peel back the onion of this subject. Instead we just chopped it open and left everybody in tears.

      1 · January 30, 2014

    • Brent

      I'm not crying - but the topic was abortion, specifically public funding of, wasn't it? And since other, not as extremist as Libertarians, support public funding of things in general, I think that would be rather off-topic. If you want to have a discussion on "Is minimal public funding a rational and wise public policy?" we can certainly have it - on another date. I was trying my best to stick to the topic, which is hard to do when someone is claiming their objection is to public funding in general, except for things they approve of.

      1 · January 30, 2014

  • Dee D

    Don't leave out the public funding of more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the past decade providing free penis pumps, and also include the various erection pills provided to men - resulting in many pregnancies when women expected these men wouldn't be climbing on.

    4 · January 28, 2014

    • Brent

      And did you imagine our mostly-older-male Congress would ever vote against their right to shtup interns, regardless of party affiliation?

      2 · January 29, 2014

  • Karen A.

    The problem with not funding abortions for low income women is that the result will probably be more children born into low income homes. That leads to more funding for school lunches, healthcare, foodstamps, etc.

    2 · January 23, 2014

    • Jean M.

      Also a person may want a pregnancy with all her heart, conceive, and learn later the child has a terminal n horrible disorder and may decide to abort. I say that choice is up to her-----not you Charles.

      1 · January 28, 2014

    • Jean M.

      I personally do not even care WHY any female decides that she is not going to be pregnant for almost an entire year. Its not my business. Its not your business either charles.

      1 · January 28, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    If you think that killing a human helps society, then start with yourself!

    January 25, 2014

    • Scooter D.

      Thank you, I think, for the kind word among the blood on the floor and walls. I strongly believe "the state", the village, the tribe, the extended family, has an interest in children. We prevent child porn, child sex (consider it statutorally nonconsensual), compulsory education, limited work, a degree health & safety. It is a HUGE issue to remove a child from its parents, even then often placing them with another blood relative. When a parent is an addict, a neglector, a sadist, an abuser; we fellow citizen, acting as "the state" will take action. Children are the future of every society, future parents, workers, leaders, or future criminals and convicts. ... "The State", villiage, social contract, has a right, a duty, an obligation to protect its weakest citizens; children; in VERY rare outstanding circumstances.

      January 27, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      Agree with you in principle 100% Dave! I just don't believe that those causes are best served by the state.

      January 27, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    If the concern for children born into unfortunate circumstances is so great, then why not adopt them instead of killing them? Don't think for a minute that I'll let you deceive yourselves into rationalizing your abdication of responsibility by this "noble cause" of preventing undue suffering. In as much as i don't believe in coercion of any sort, I would be much more comfortable, considering the structure in which we currently live, if adoption were susidized. To be clear: even on that, I would not support the idea that the proponents of abortion be forced to pay for adoption; the proponents of adoption should voluntarily pay for it themselves.

    January 27, 2014

    • Brent

      Great, now I get to stop paying for everything I object to! We'll start with war, that lowers my taxes by about half, or more. Stadiums? Forget it! Churches? No way! In fact, I morally object to taxes period, so I shouldn't have to pay them at all! I NEVER said my stance had ANYTHING to do with preventing undue suffering. It's solely about who gets to decide if abortion is permissible as a healthcare expense. If you get to decide for other people based on "moral" objections, I do too - and my decision is paying nothing. And since all taxes will henceforth be voluntary, we'll soon be a nation just like your ideal, which is apparently Sudan. There's a place you can go where your selfishness would be appreciated. Try it!

      2 · January 27, 2014

  • Eileen

    http://www.cnsnews.com/node/58249
    Taking Viagra is "elective" yet prescriptions are funded by taxpayers.

    2 · January 24, 2014

    • Brent

      And so should be any medication that provides a better life, whether anti-depressant or anti-deflationary, lol!

      1 · January 24, 2014

    • A. Colin F.

      exactly, why I bring up this issue! Why Viagra, why not birth control too?

      January 26, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    Congress isn't "at anything" again. The bill to prohibit federal funding for abortions is entirely appropriate.

    I am pro-choice. However, I do not believe that legislation should apply to moral decisions, nor elective ones, both of which describe abortion. As for "conscience protections," no doctor should be forced to legally provide any service that conflicts with his or her personal moral code. This is also, therefore, a perfectly appropriate element of the bill.

    I fully support health care coverage of birth control and of preventive reproductive care, but I do not believe the taxpayer funds should cover abortion any more than they should cover teeth cleanings.

    1 · January 22, 2014

    • Jean M.

      ....kinda.

      January 24, 2014

    • Brent

      Not really. It's kinda like saying, "I'M not a racist, but I think that if people want to be racist on "moral grounds", their "morals" should trump that other race's rights. I'd still consider them racist, in fact, they're being hypocritical and letting the government do their dirty work. We only have her word she's okay with abortion; I happen to doubt that's true.

      2 · January 24, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    “After Tiller”

    It didn’t make the Oscar documentary shortlist, but “After Tiller” was one of the finest nonfiction films this year. Profiling the four remaining late-term abortion doctors (after the murder of George Tiller), this impassioned, heartfelt film provides remarkable access and insight to their work as well as their lives outside their clinics. Filmmakers Martha Shane and Lana Wilson treat both the doctors and their patients with incredible respect, and they give sufficient time to the antiabortion laws and protesters.

    January 1, 2014

    • Jean M.

      Dave, that IS a darn good point there, one I hadn't realized til you pointed it out. Why is that?

      1 · January 9, 2014

    • Brent

      Because the Religious Reich, years ago, glommed onto the issue as a political tool. In the 50s and 60s and before they were all for abortion, thinking of course that mainly black and poor people got them. For centuries before that, the church had no problem with abortion, and before that, they approved of exposure: leaving an unwanted newborn out to die. Of course, if he was meant to live, god would save him, like he did Moses or Krishna or any of the myriad gods with similar stories. So this abortion hooey is just a political scam, an inconsistent and irrational but highly emotional tool for suckering the gullible.

      1 · January 24, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    where IS the line for public intervention? Case by case? Blanket rule? Is every unborn child worth protecting? http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/23/marlise_munoz_case_the_fetus_of_a_brain_dead_texas_woman_is_said_to_be_distinctly.html

    January 23, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    I'm not opposed to clean teeth at all. I've never had a cavity, never wore braces, and I have a sparkling, dazzling smile. So in fairness, maybe that does bias my opinion of emergency dental care and I should've used another example. The point is, I'm not against abortion at all and I recognize that it lowers the rate of unwanted births and the subsequent macroeconomic impact. I just don't believe it should be funded by taxpayers, and I don't believe any doctor should be forced to perform them. As for your opinion that I should "think more," is not the point of this group to discuss a range of ideas about a particular topic? I think it'd be a pretty boring group if we all believe the same things. Please don't discourage exploration by being antagonistic.

    1 · January 23, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      Yes, if the doctor feels uncomfortable performing a vasectomy for whatever reason, moral or otherwise, then he shouldn't be legally bound to do it. Case in point: My mother had to go to a different hospital to have her tubal ligation performed back in the 70s--after Roe versus Wade, mind you--because the hospital where I was born was a Catholic hospital and they did not perform contraceptive procedures. It was The hospital's right to that decision back then, and I believe that should be true today. As for the other examples you cited, keep in mind that a hospital also has the right to staff those doctors who adhere to the policies or positions of that particular facility, whatever those may be. Maybe it's not treating certain gunshot wounds or Nazis, who knows.

      January 23, 2014

    • Brent

      Why do hospitals get to discriminate? Why do they have all the rights, and patients have none?

      2 · January 23, 2014

    • A. Colin F.

      Christine Todd Whitman: Most Republican Women Support Abortion Rights
      Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman says Republicans in Congress have lost their way on abortion — and the state should get out of the business of marriage.

      January 23, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      Hear, hear!!

      January 23, 2014

  • Brent

    And why are you opposed to teeth being clean? Are you a fan of bad breath, and the higher cost of emergency dental care? Methinks you need to think more.

    January 23, 2014

  • Brent

    Hmm, no taxpayer funded benefit is a right? So after paying into Social Security for forty years, I have no right to get it? Sounds rather absurd to me.

    The evidence is clear that more abortions means fewer health care costs, fewer welfare costs, fewer education costs, fewer prison costs, a better environment, a better society, the list goes on. Every government expenditure goes up when there are more unwanted children. Frankly, anyone who doesn't want taxpayer-funded abortion wants higher taxes and a much less pleasant world. Doesn't make sense to me.

    1 · January 23, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    Further, no taxpayer-funded benefit is a right; it is a privilege. We seem to be forgetting that.

    January 22, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    On Roe V. Wade's 41st anniversary, 13 charts that show how the ruling changed abortion rights in America: http://wapo.st/LG2lx5

    January 22, 2014

  • Karen A.

    I just got this from The American Humanists and it seems relevant:

    Congress is at it again, trying once more to limit the right of women to control their own bodies.

    Recently, a bill called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” cleared a House committee and is on its way to be voted on before the entire U.S. House of Representatives. This bill takes the unnecessary step of prohibiting the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion and also includes “conscience protections” for medical officials who do not wish to provide abortions services for religious reasons.

    Enough is enough! Take action now, and tell your Representative to oppose the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

    This dangerous piece of legislation further limits the ability of women—many of whom cannot afford the expense—to receive safe access to an abortion.

    Please help us stand up for the rights of women by opposing this bill.

    1 · January 22, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    Wish I could join this discussion, but I have a standing commitment on Monday nights through early Spring.

    1 · January 22, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    41 years ago - The Way It Was Before Roe vs. Wade
    The Beatles ruled. The mini was in. I was seventeen, and pregnant. What happened next is what could happen again.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was

    January 22, 2014

    • A. Colin F.

      Nature, the ultimate unsentimental pragmatist, has its own notions about what constitutes a quality liaison. What nature wants is for sperm and egg to meet, as often as possible, whenever and wherever possible. Whatever it takes to expedite that meeting is fine with nature. If it's two people with a bassinet and a nursery all decorated and waiting and a shelf full of baby books, fine. If it's a 12-year-old girl who's been married off to a 70-year-old Afghan chieftain, fine. And if it's a couple of healthy young oafs like my friend and me, who knew perfectly well where babies come from but just got stupid for about 15 minutes, that's fine, too.

      January 22, 2014

  • A. Colin F.

    If public funding DOESN"T encourage abortion, should it? Or should public funding then DIS-ENCOURAGE abortion? Should states actively restrict access to abortion? Should they have laws different than the federal government? Are the people against abortion also against sex education and birth control? Is this logical?

    January 22, 2014

15 went

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy