Nothing you wrote here shows an inconsistency in people who don't feel that their tax payer money should pay for abortions or for health care. Whether a person is treated at a hospital before or after it is determined they can pay has nothing to do with whether they receive tax money or not. I'm all in agreement on the problems with this country's health care systems, but that is a separate issue on what some individuals feel tax raised monies should be spent on.
Those in need of serious (and expensive) aid (such as I mentioned) are treated. They aren't given financial forms to fill out so that payment may be assured. Plus, hospitals are not going to stand by while someone in the waiting room dies because it isn't verified whether they can pay. Healthcare comes first. Our ridiculous payment methods come second, often leaving the hospital unpaid or minimally paid. The taxes come to hospitals in part because hospitals today are struggling and get tax dollars so they can continue. Expensive insurance and hospital bills come in part from hospitals defraying the cost of those who receive services for which they can't pay. Abortions come when treatment options for the woman don't allow for the continuation of a pregnancy, and the woman chooses to be treated. This is a medical decision made by analysis and decision making by a doctor and patient. Also, I'd point out that Canada has NO laws against pregnancy and abortions are part of their healthcare that everyone gets. They have fewer abortions per pregnancy than does the US.
I don't know if you are not really reading what I wrote, and making an inadvertent strawman, or doing so deliberately. So let's start at the beginning. Both Bowerbird's and my comments are on what some individual people want tax payer money to go for or not go for. What the hospitals are or are not doing in the way of healthcare, and when they are seeking the payment for their services have nothing to do with the desires of individuals as to what they want tax payer money to go for and not go for. My comment was that someone who did want tax payer money to go for abortions and also didn't want tax payer money to go for health care are consistent in their desires as to what they don't want tax payer money going for. That would be opposed to wanting tax payer money going for one, but not the other, which would be inconsistent. How does what you wrote in posts 25 and 27 relate to what such individuals want with regards to how tax payer money is spent?
As far as I know, tax payer money goes to hospitals to defray the deficit they are running. Tax payer dollars also go to pay down the cost of insurance for those without the income to allow for buying health insurance. In the past, those who want to use funding stress on low income women to force people to not get abortions have put pressure on removing abortion care from healthcare insurance. So with such insurance requirements, now besides these draconian Republican laws dictating the healthcare of women who need abortions, we also have healthcare plans that also dictate whether an abortion is necessary for a woman's healthcare. Can you correct me on this?
Which has nothing to do with what a person wants said money going to. Let me remind you what Bowerbird and I were responding to. It doesn't matter what it actually currently is going to. We are responding to what a person wants it to go to. Bowerbird asked AARguy if he had rather his tax money go to non-abortion healthcare that resulted from not getting an abortion, and I noted that there are some who would not want tax money to go to any health care and that such people are rather consistent in that view, even if I don't agree with the view. No need to since you are not talking about what Bowerbird and I were responding to. So far every one of your posts to me since 25 has been a strawman argument.
What part of "and I will want to ban it to avoid participating in evil" makes you think I'm speaking in the present tense? As far as I know, I'm not funding it. So long as that remains true, its none of my business.
Alright let’s start with your misconception about your own religion. Most leaders will allow abortion if the life of the mother is endangered. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/exception-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother-12052 The problem lies in where anyone draws the line for “life of the mother”
Its all the same money. Anything being paid for with public funds is being paid for, in part, by me. We are the public. If you want to donate to a private fund to help with abortion, that's your business. If you want me to help finance the killing of unborn children, I will get political about it.
I'm saying that the government can't differentiate. Trying to write laws about which are healthcare and which are not isn't a rational direction to attempt. It may be something that some individual WANTS, but that doesn't make it a reasonable approach. Wanting a healthcare system where healthcare is limited by the patient's ability to pay is a different issue, isn't it? Canada has no laws against abortion and their universal healthcare system pays for it. Yet, they have fewer abortions per thousand pregnancies. We should be looking at what causes women to choose abortion. Maybe that will show some problems we can address. And, we should allow doctors to make medical decisions.
next the right wants to go after birth control, but they are not supposed to say that out loud "Trump says he is open to restrictions on contraception before backing away from the statement" https://apnews.com/article/trump-co...bortion-2024-8f73bb1b3a5864b24157f15eb272a3e6
While I agree with a lot of what you are saying, it's still not addressing what I originally wrote and how you failed to comprehend or address that. I had stated, in response to something Bowerbird wrote, that some people who don't want their tax money to go towards any Healthcare, yet alone abortions. I stated that this was a very consistent position as opposed to wanting taxes to pay for some forms of Healthcare, but not others. That position/observation has nothing to with anything you've put out since in your responses to me. The points you have made are valid ones in my opinion. They just don't fit the context of the post of mine that you originally responded to, which in turn set off this particular chain.
That post of mine included the line: "Wanting a healthcare system where healthcare is limited by the patient's ability to pay is a different issue, isn't it?" So, yes I was certainly wrong on what your issue is. I frequently forget that there are those who believe that if someone doesn't have enough money, then it's legitimate to allow them to suffer serious consequences, or die. I've certainly respected your posts on this and other topics. I'm sure I carried this too far
What a great idea and greater news it;s become a reality. 'Newsom Bill Allows Arizona Doctors to Operate in California While Abortion Ban in Effect' 'The stop gap measure will allow Arizonans to get an abortion in CA' "A bill introduced by California Governor Gavin Newsom to allow Arizona doctors to perform abortions in California while Arizona's 1864 near-total abortion ban remains in effect has passed the California legislature. The bill, SB 233, will quickly certify Arizona abortion providers for work across the border in California so that they may continue to treat their patients, creating a stop gap to prevent lapses in necessary reproductive healthcare. The bill fills "a critical gap for care during a meaningful period of time," according to a statement from the Governor's office, since the Arizona ban may still be in place for months due to legislative processes' cont https://meidasnews.com/news/newsom-...te-in-california-while-abortion-ban-in-effect
Best news ever from Trump/Republicans, keep it up it's only 6 months to the election. 90% of Americans support keeping contraception legal. 'Senate Will Take Up Contraception Rights Bill After Trump Comments' 'Nine Republicans will need to back the bill for passage' Troy Matthews 3 hours ago 'Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Wednesday that the Senate will take up a bill to protect access to contraception nationally, following comments from Donald Trump that he would support contraception restrictions in states if elected President. "Now more than ever, contraception is a critical piece of protecting women's reproductive freedoms," Schumer said of the bill which would codify access to contraception as a "fundamental right." The bill will serve as a critical test for Republicans heading into the Fall election, after the party has waffled on support for contraception and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), both popular among the American public, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Trump himself backtracked on his comments in an interview with a Pittsburgh CBS affiliate, during which he said he would support the right of states to ban the morning-after pill.' 'Trump Suggests He'd Support Restrictions on Contraception at State Level By Troy Matthews Follow troy_in_tahoe https://meidasnews.com/news/senate-will-take-up-contraception-rights-bill-after-trump-comments
Good for Newsom. BUT, not every rape victim, incest victim, or others who don't have the money, freedom or ability to travel are NOT helped by this act. And, it doesn't protect those returning to Arizona, Texas or other states who create these assaults on healthcare and personal bodily autonomy.
Absolutely. There is need for a replacement for Roe that doesn't leave women with the requirement to go out of state for healthcare. Going to CA for healthcare isn't a solution. Only a percentage can do that due to ability to travel and in emergencies. And, when a pregnant woman goes in for healthcare, it's not necessarily clear whether she should have gone to some other state if she can.
So a surgical procedure (D&C+D&E) are used for more than “abortion”. So would you refuse to fund the procedure no matter what
