 |
| |
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
September 27, 2002 at 8:25:05 PDT
Unborn Children to Get Health Care
By LAURA MECKLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON- The Bush administration said Friday that it would classify developing fetuses as unborn children as a way of extending prenatal care to low-income pregnant women, brushing aside complaints that the move is a backdoor way of undercutting abortion rights.
The change allows states to extend health insurance to fetuses - or even embryos - from the moment of conception by enrolling them in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
It specifically allows coverage for all fetuses even if their mothers are immigrants who are ineligible for government help. CHIP does not cover any illegal immigrants and only covers legal immigrants who have been in the country for five years. But babies born in the United States are citizens and therefore eligible for assistance.
Because CHIP is aimed at kids, it does not typically cover parents or pregnant women, although states can get permission to include adults if they ask for it. Under these new rules, it will be a routine matter for states to add unborn children to their CHIP programs.
"It represents a speedy new option for states that want to do more to ensure that women get critical prenatal care that will increase the chances that their children are born healthy," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said in a statement Friday.
He also praised the benefits of prenatal care and called the change a "common-sense, compassionate measure."
The final regulation, first proposed in January, will be published Wednesday in the Federal Register.
Women's and abortion rights groups were outraged by the move, calling it an effort to give the fetus legal status and therefore undermine Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women the right to abortion.
"To me it's a very offensive backdoor way to get coverage for a fetus," Laurie Rubiner of the National Partnership for Women and Families, said Friday.
The administration says it has nothing do to with abortion.
"This has to do with prenatal care, which is undisputedly very important for the health of mother and the health of the child," HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said Friday. "It's about that issue and that issue alone."
Rubiner said she was particularly outraged that the administration would cover the developing fetus carried by a legal immigrant while supporting the ban on direct benefits for her.
"It's so offensive to immigrant women to say we don't care about you, but if you're pregnant, we'll give your fetus coverage - but never you," she said.
States can already cover pregnant women under their CHIP programs, though they need to get a waiver from the federal government. Two states - New Jersey and Rhode Island - have waivers to cover them.
The new plan does not include any new money for the coverage. Rather, states that want to participate would simply add to their existing programs in which they share the cost of coverage with the federal government.
Thompson has said he also supports legislation pending in the Senate that would allow states to automatically add pregnant women to CHIP, much as poor pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s.../092706361.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I thought it was a good response to Che and others calling pro-life people "anti-choice".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
'anti-life' and 'anti-choice' are not compatible Lincoln, so yes it is a troll.
To say that you are 'anti-choice' implies that you don't beleive a woman can choose to have an abortion, since that is wrong, murder. So, you are aginst women having a choice on abortion, because you believe is a crime, and people don't get a choice to commit crime.
To say one is anti-life implies that one approves of murder and does not care- but many who suport abortion don't se it as murder because they don't share the belief you do, that human life begins at conception. So, they are in no way for murder- simply disagree with you on what can be defined as 'murder'.
To call you anti-choice is consistent with your own beliefs again, commiting murder is not something one gets to chose), while calling people who support abortion anti-life is not consistent wth their actual beliefs (that abortion does not constitute murder).
Basic troll Lincoln
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
No, calling a pro life person "anti-choice" is inflamatory because we would like the unborn to have a choice while the anti-life people would deny that choice because they cannot hear the voice of the one they are going to kill. If someone is going to extinguish an innocent life then perhaps they are anti-life after all...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Why do both sides have to split the good ideas between them? It's probably an attempt to undermine abortion rights, otherwise the legislation could just provide a means of prenatal care for the mother, without providing the benefits directly to the fetus/embryo. Regardless of the abortion issue it's a good thing to provide prenatal care to those who can't afford it.
It does look like a purely political means of attacking the pro-choice side though. It's rather ingenious actually, as to oppose this legislation would look like opposition to being kind hearted. Usually the health care issue works the other way, with Liberals supporting helping those who can't help themselves, and Conservatives saying "screw em". Stupid politics. At least something good is coming of it in this case. |
I agree. And people say that Bush is stupid. He exposed his opposition as the hypocrites that they are and did a good thing for children in the process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No, calling a pro life person "anti-choice" is inflamatory because we would like the unborn to have a choice while the anti-life people would deny that choice because they cannot hear the voice of the one they are going to kill. If someone is going to extinguish an innocent life then perhaps they are anti-life after all... |
Lincoln... it is hard to make a choice when you don't know what a choice is: someone without the capacity to make a decision is not allowed by the state to make one- this is why chldren for the most part get a different justic system, the mentally disabled get different treatment, why children can't drive, smoke, have sex, vote, or get married. Uness you want 12 year olds to be able to choose whether they want to smoke, have sex, marry, start families, work, and vote- then your better chnage your rather vacous definition of 'choice'.
Again, i don't think a fetus is a Human being, so terminating its life is not murder. But wait Lincoln, you said anti-life; so i guess you are a lithovore since you would never take a life.....
your better get some better logic, oh, and less sappy next time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Again, i don't think a fetus is a Human being, so terminating its life is not murder"
Oh, I didn't call you anti human being, I said anti-life. You obviously have no problem with terminating "its life" so I guess you are anti-life. Might want to brush up on some logic...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"Again, i don't think a fetus is a Human being, so terminating its life is not murder"
Oh, I didn't call you anti human being, I said anti-life. You obviously have no problem with terminating "its life" so I guess you are anti-life. Might want to brush up on some logic... |
Lincoln, why do you think I put in the lithovore comment? A cow is alive. you eat meat right? I guess you sopport the taking of the life of a cow,and of pigs, chickens, turkeys, fish, shellfish, crustaceans, sheep, corn, wheat, rice, millet, potatoes, fruit trees, and coutless other species: YOU MUST BE ANTI-LIFE!
If you suport the deat penalty then there is no way you could think of yourself as pro-life: you support the taking of life of other human beings. Are you a pacificist, opposed to war? If not, then you can't call yourself pro-life since you would support actions that knowingly lead to the deaths of others. Should I keep going with this endless list?
'Life' is such a vague word that it always leaves room for such stupid logic. Which is why I am direct and get to the point: Anti-abortionists (the best term of all) believe abortion is murder. simple. (Now, I could go into the whole bit that taking a human life is not always murder, which is why manslaughter exists, but that's too long a discussion) I don't think abortion is muder: simple. Is the fetus alive? yes, but so is the fetus of a chicken before i fry it in a pan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Lincoln, why do you think I put in the lithovore comment? A cow is alive. you eat meat right? I guess you sopport the taking of the life of a cow,and of pigs, chickens, turkeys, fish, shellfish, crustaceans, sheep, corn, wheat, rice, millet, potatoes, fruit trees, and coutless other species: YOU MUST BE ANTI-LIFE!
If you suport the deat penalty then there is no way you could think of yourself as pro-life: you support the taking of life of other human beings. Are you a pacificist, opposed to war? If not, then you can't call yourself pro-life since you would support actions that knowingly lead to the deaths of others. Should I keep going with this endless list?
'Life' is such a vague word that it always leaves room for such stupid logic. Which is why I am direct and get to the point: Anti-abortionists (the best term of all) believe abortion is murder. simple. (Now, I could go into the whole bit that taking a human life is not always murder, which is why manslaughter exists, but that's too long a discussion) I don't think abortion is muder: simple. Is the fetus alive? yes, but so is the fetus of a chicken before i fry it in a pan. |
I don't call myself pro-life really but that is the label that has been put on me because I support giving a voice to the unborn instead of killing "it" before it can make a choice. I support the government's obligation to go to war and punish criminals by death if necessary so I suppose I am not really pro-life.
And the "fetus is a chicken" argument denies even elementary biology. Yes a chicken begets chickens and and I think you can see what a human being begets as well as I can.
As far as leaving the choice to the mother and the doctor that is not the point of this tread. This issue is the vehement response of those whose agenda has nothing to do with "women's health". I think that is obvious.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-09-2002 01:21
It's more to the crux of the matter.
Lincoln is correct though. Anti-life makes about as much sense as anti-choice or anti-woman.
|