A big step closer to health care reform - Macleans.ca
 

A big step closer to health care reform

The House passes the President’s bill 220 to 215—with a blow to abortion rights supporters


 

Late Saturday night the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a sweeping health care bill that will allow 36 million more Americans to have insurance coverage and will include a government health care program. Only one Republican, Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana, voted for the bill. And 39 Democrats voted against. During the last few days President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi won over some waffling Democrats. One concession was made to the anti-abortion contingent. The bill currently restricts any insurance company that receives federal money to cover abortions. But pro-choice Democrats will have a chance to try and change that wording as the bill moves through the Senate.

New York Times


 
Filed under:

A big step closer to health care reform

  1. You know, proper journalistic style on this issue is to say "anti abortion rights" and "pro abortion rights" not to use the positively spun label for one side (pro-choice) without using the positively spun label for the other side (pro-life).

    Neither side likes "pro abortion rights" or "anti abortion rights" but it is the most accurate, and most neutral, way of categorizing them.

    • The wording was apt.

      • In a world where many "pro-choice" parents pressure their daughters to get abortions so as to avoid public embarassment, and where "pro-life" people don't see anything wrong with killing abortion doctors, using the preferred label of either side is very much NOT apt.

        • …but seeing as how that's not the world we live in, some of us are failing to see your point here.

  2. What a dangerous compromise to a bill proposing universal health care coverage. Unwanted and unnecessary births are the price that must be paid to ensure the health of a nation's citizens.? Optimism engendered the recent passage of this bill is made empty by pandering to the anti abortion crowd. Church and state for too long have equated economic status and power with increasing population when in fact the current world problems of war, famine, disease, and climatic collapse can be attributed to unchecked population increase. " If fertility levels were to fall, global population will stabilize THREE CENTURIES FROM NOW at about nine billion! If fertility levels remained UNCHANGED FROM TODAY, the present world population of 6.4 billion would rise to 44 billion in 2100, 244 billion in 2150 and 1.34 trillion in 2300.” Thank the Chinese and the one child policy. Politicians and pontiffs may fear the decline of their prowess, but people should celebrate the new demographics and look for solutions to the predicted labour shortage through increased productivity, worker retention, immigration It is no longer a world of procreate or perish. We all need to share in the challenge of population control.

    • So a bill that doesn't alter the status quo at all, in a first-world country (which could support a much higher population) with a birth rate just barely above the replacement rate, is a harbinger of 1 trillion person global populations? Not to mention that the real issue when it comes to population control is access to (and education about) birth control, not abortion. Abortion is an issue of individual choice, not an issue of collective good. If the population was too low, relative to our resources, would you bring back an abortion ban?

    • Are you suggesting that contraceptive procedures are not covered under the bill, or are you suggesting that abortion opponents just want to force people to have lots of children?

  3. i believe one more countries become capitalist or attempt to be first world, the birth rate wil fall ..the high birth rate right now is mostly in poor countries ..in north america we don't even produce enough children to maintain the current population so have to rely on immigration to make up the difference …instead of abortion people should put the baby up for adoption or they should use science to make it so instead of killing a fetus the fetus could be removed … let's face it, abortion is not a good thing ..i can't imagine somebody being happy or proud of that decision

  4. Everyone should be able to do as they please it is their own body. A person should not be forced to carry a child against their will. If you cannot imagine doing it then when you are in the situation do not have an abortion. To suggest that somebody should go through pregnancy when they really don't want to is unfair. Even though we live in a technologically advanced world, giving birth comes with many side effects and can be dangerous to the mother. Everyone should be able to choose what they want to do.

    • This misses the issue at hand entirely. The debate in the US is over whether federal funding should support abortion clinics or not. Women have the right to choose, but what do you do if they lack the means to choose?

      • More to the point the Stupak amendment denies the right of women to purchase
        abortion-included insurance with their own money. Not federal funding. Their own money.

    • "Everyone should be able to choose what they want to do."

      Does that include choosing which medical procedures they have to support through taxation?

    • Does the child get a choice?

  5. "The bill currently restricts any insurance company that receives federal money to cover abortions. But pro-choice Democrats will have a chance to try and change that wording as the bill moves through the Senate.

    Obama, in his recent Congressional address: "[U]nder our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

    Are the Democrats trying to make a liar out of Obama?

  6. If cover is not in health plan then funding should be set up in federal victims bill to cover vicious rape by the disgusting creeps.