Gay Patriot Header Image

Waxman Eager to Mandate Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill

Of the issues that I have thought a lot about over the years, I have blogged the least about abortion.   My views on the issue have been in constant flux.  I used to consider myself a pro-lifer, having twice participated in the March for Life when I lived in DC.

Perhaps, as part of my general libertarian lurch while living in the Golden State, I have found myself moving into the pro-choice camp, though still favoring certain restrictions on the practice.  To be sue, the arguments of the pro-choicers did little to sway me; they’re not very good at making the case for the cause they champion.  It was more my own experiences, listening to women who had had abortions.  Some, I grant, had them just to dispose of what had become an inconvenience (I was not very sympathetic with these women), others because they bore a child which, amniocentesis revealed, had severe deformities which made Down Syndrome seem normal by comparison.

I still struggle with the issue and don’t think I’ll ever reach a conclusion with which I feel entirely comfortable.

While I reluctantly* believe that the state should allow abortions in certain circumstances, I remain sympathetic to a good many pro-lifers, aware of the sincerity of their advocacy.  Given their deeply held views, given even the ambivalence of many who struggle with the issue, I join them in supporting the Hyde Amendment, barring the federal government from funding abortions.

I would daresay a majority of Americans support that provision, even those of us who do not want to ban all abortions.  And for this reason, my meddlesome Congressman Henry Waxman seems to have created an issue which can help bring libertarian-inclined Republicans and social conservatives together.   Indeed, he may help make abortion part of the glue which holds the GOP together.

You see, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman “invoked House rules” to defeat an already-passed amendment to his health care bill barring that measure from imposing requirements for coverage of abortion.  After apparently strong arming Tennessee Democrat Bart Gordon to change his vote, the provision was defeated.

Without this amendment, it is entirely possible that the government could mandate coverage for abortion.  Tell that to the American people.  You’re going to get a lot of the ambivalent pro-choicers eager to join forces with pro-lifers in opposition to this legislation–and in outrage against those who would try to get others to pay for a practice they abhor.

*More should a critical mass of readers wish me to explain this reluctance.

Share

16 Comments

  1. How about we provide every woman considering an abortion with one of these models at taxpayer expense.

    But I suspect this new technology is yet another instance of progress that progressives would oppose. I suspect even congresses most limitless spenders, like Henry Waxman, would suddenly decide we dont have the money.

    Its progressives like Waxman, Obama and his eugenicist advisers that really make me believe that liberals simply rejoice in killing babies.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 2, 2009 @ 4:30 am - August 2, 2009

  2. oops, that should read: congress’

    Comment by American Elephant — August 2, 2009 @ 4:32 am - August 2, 2009

  3. How about we provide every woman considering an abortion with one of these models at taxpayer expense.

    That’s cool. Life imitates Star Trek (sorta) again.

    A guy calling Rush the other day had a good question. Why is it that the government can’t tell a woman what to do with their bodies, but they can tell us what to do with our bodies regarding smoking, drinking, eating etc.????

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 2, 2009 @ 5:08 am - August 2, 2009

  4. because its only reproductive organs you cant tell people what they can and cant do with. the state owns everything else.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 2, 2009 @ 6:06 am - August 2, 2009

  5. My question is why is it that old men like Waxman have anything to say about the issue at all ever!!!!!

    Comment by PatriotMom — August 2, 2009 @ 7:36 am - August 2, 2009

  6. Both sides of this issue have their priorities wrong. We should be focusing on getting women and men to make better decisions when it comes to sex and pregnancy. Just passing out condoms doesn’t work. Advocating abstinence is really just avoiding the real discussion. We need to teach kids (and adults) to be a lot more willing to talk about sex. Most folks will say this isn’t realistic and would never happen. But, just think what could really be accomplished if all the Pro-Life people and Pro-Choice people spent half the time they do on their current causes on preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

    Comment by Aaron — August 2, 2009 @ 7:52 am - August 2, 2009

  7. Because I believe there is a genetic component to homosexuality, I think that gays should be pro-life. If a predisposition to homosexuality can be diagnosed in the womb, many parents would choose to abort pre-gay children. Would Waxman fund that? Would aborting a gay child be a hate crime?

    Listening to women discuss their abortions is exactly like listening to slaveowners discuss their slaves. Should a slaveowner have the right to kill her human property? Just because it’s inconvenient? Or because the slave has birth defects and can’t do the work? Or is the idea that one human being is the property of another to do with what she wishes simply and abhorrent concept?

    Different DNA means a different person. Women have the right to do what they choose with their bodies, but not with another person’s body. The unborn child is not their property.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — August 2, 2009 @ 9:37 am - August 2, 2009

  8. #5 – My question is how someone who looks as horrid as Waxman can be elected to represent the beautiful people of Hollyweird.

    The guy looks like a poster child for the next Lord of the Rings movie.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 2, 2009 @ 11:46 am - August 2, 2009

  9. I agree. Government should not subsidize abortion. If people want to have an abortion they should make a charity to help fund the procedure. I hope we can gather together as many pro-life Democratic party legislators to block this legislation.

    And there are a few Ohio Democratic party legislators that got bamboozled by Waxman and Ohio is a very pro-life state, The Ohio Republican Party should proudly advertise that these Democrats sponsored abortion in the committee vote.

    Comment by Matt from California — August 2, 2009 @ 12:06 pm - August 2, 2009

  10. #8, He looks like a hog, draw in a couple tusks and add a few wire haired whiskers and walla. Oh shame on me…but hey…

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — August 2, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - August 2, 2009

  11. #8 Asked and answered. BOOSH!!!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 2, 2009 @ 4:34 pm - August 2, 2009

  12. Wow, that’s neat AE,

    We’ve a supreme court Justice who thinks Roe v Wade was to weed out undesirables, an administration official who has advocated birth control in the water supply… Why not get the legislature to approve slaughter on demand.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 2, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - August 2, 2009

  13. Gay old people would also be the first victims of government-sponsored euthanasia. We know that nursing homes are not safe for gays now–why would this kind of health insurance make them safer? Old people are generally seen as expendable since they can’t work–and gays are among the most expendable old people.

    I would love to have a public option for health care–but not one that discriminates against the old, the unborn, or the fat.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — August 2, 2009 @ 8:03 pm - August 2, 2009

  14. I agree with Aron. I wouldn’t have an abortion myself. That’s my choice. There are circumstances where abortion is the lesser of two evils. I see no reason for a ten-year-old to carry a child. I see no reason for someone to carry a child that is the result of rape with all the baggage that goes with that unless they choose to. I see no reason for someone to carry a child that is anacephalic and will die at soon after birth. I don’t see a reason for abortion as a means of birth control. If you don’t want a child, then be responsible for taking the precaustions to prevent conception.

    Comment by MaryAnn — August 3, 2009 @ 9:35 am - August 3, 2009

  15. So, is a slaveowner killing a slave simply the slaveowner’s choice? When is a person a person? A slave wasn’t legally a person, so why couldn’t the slaveowner kill him?

    Once you start killing children because they are anacephalic, you start killing children because they might be gay, or because they might be stupid, or because they might be fat.

    It is not your DNA, it is not your body, it is not your choice.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — August 3, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - August 3, 2009

  16. I see no reason for a ten-year-old to carry a child. I see no reason for someone to carry a child that is the result of rape with all the baggage that goes with that

    Um, what about all the baggage that goes with killing a defenseless child?

    I see no reason for a ten-year-old to endure the horrors of an abortion and the life-long scars that go along with killing an unborn child. There is no good answer to what to do with a ten year old girl who gets pregnant. But your assumption that killing the baby is the lesser of two evils — I guess simply because abortion has become commonplace — is deeply wrong.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 3, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - August 3, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.