.
December 3rd, 2009
06:00 PM ET

How should Senate address abortion in regard to health care reform?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Abortion is the political hot potato that could derail health care reform entirely.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It caused major disagreements in the House - and the Senate is now wrestling with how to address the issue. Democrat Ben Nelson says he will introduce an anti-abortion amendment... and that he won't vote for the health care bill unless this language gets added.

Nelson and others aren't satisfied with Majority Leader Harry Reid's current plan - that is to forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit - but to allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that get federal money offer plans that include coverage for abortion.

In the House - a group of anti-abortion Democrats added restrictions that would forbid any health plan that gets federal money from paying for abortions - except in the case of rape, incest or to save the mother's life. Also under the House bill, a new government insurance plan couldn't offer abortions - and women would have to buy separate coverage for abortion services.

Women's rights groups are outraged - as they should be - and vow to keep similar language out of the Senate bill, with hundreds rallying on Capitol Hill yesterday to insist the bill allow coverage of abortion. Those opposed to the House's abortion language say it amounts to "the biggest rollback in a woman's right to choose in three decades."

Others point to the existing Hyde Law - which already prevents government money from being used for abortion, except for the cases mentioned earlier.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to health care reform, how should the Senate address abortion?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Allison from Vancouver writes:
The Senate should vote to join the ranks of civilized countries like mine (and many others) who do not dictate whether a woman has a right to an abortion. Period. I chose to have one many years ago, and our health system paid for it. I thought there was supposed to be separation of Church and State, yet you people allow your fundamentalist Christians to dominate the political agenda. I find it really sad.

Chandra from Las Vegas writes:
Abortion should NOT be covered unless it is medically necessary or a pregnancy due to rape. Abortion should be treated as an elective procedure and paid for out of women’s own pockets if they want it. The focus should be on promoting birth control and decreasing the need for abortions.

Dawn from Bermuda writes:
I am a woman, a Democrat, and pro-choice. This bill needs to pass. If it takes not allowing federal funds to pay for those who choose to have an abortion for the Senate to pass the bill, then so be it. The greater good, Jack.

Jean writes:
The bill should simply reference the Hyde amendment and proceed. There will have to be insurance plans that do not cover abortion. The cost should be slightly lower and many men will want them.

Joe writes:
If men got pregnant, abortion would be socially-approved, legal and government-funded.

Joe writes:
Adopt the House language word for word.

Bill from Leesburg, Florida writes:
For those who are against abortion, don't have one, throw out all your plan B pills your daughters have. Leave others alone in the hard decision they may need to make. If you don't remember back-alley services, at least look it up before you stop others.


Filed under: Abortion • Health care
soundoff (153 Responses)
  1. Matt, Canoga Park CA

    Why are we all "created" equal except a small unborn fetus.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  2. Greg - Minneapolis

    Abortion should be treated for what it really is, an "elective" procedure. In all but a few cases, carrying a baby to term and delivering the baby is not fatal to a woman. If a woman does not want to keep the baby, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who DO WANT THAT BABY!! It is a biological fact that cannot be changed that a woman has what it takes to nurture a growing baby in her womb until it is ready to be born. And if artificial wombs are ever successfully created, that will be the epitome of selfishness over not wanting to be "inconvenienced" by carrying a baby to term!

    December 3, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  3. Eric - Houston

    Jack, I like to say that they should be silent on it, but that is a pipe dream. The problem with government getting involved with anything is that government is made up of people on both sides of the aisle who think they know better than we do what is good for us. They believe they should tell us how we should live, how to raise our kids, what to believe, what is acceptable to think and say and what choices we should make with our money. The arrogance is unbelievable. I like to think I am pretty good at making choices for me and my family, but I do not believe I should make decisions for others, certainly not a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. But then I did not go into government.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  4. Pablo in Arlington Texas

    Dear Jack
    The Senate should'nt do squat about abortion! It is a medical issue that should be between the patient and the doctor and nobody else. Why is it all these freedom loving small government yahoos are so hot to have big government jumping down a woman's felopian tubes.
    The abortion issue is only an issue to people who want to impose their morality on others. Far as I'm concerned they can all go jump in a hole and pull the dirt in after them!
    Pablo
    Arlington Texas

    December 3, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  5. Jasmine in Germany

    It should be in the bill as being covered if decided so by an independent medical commission who will decide if insurance should cover it based on the patient's individual case.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
  6. John Foss

    I wonder how the congress would vote on just about anything if there were NO lobby money involved.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  7. Esther Massillon Ohio

    don't ask don't tell
    MYOB

    December 3, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  8. Thom Richer

    Abortions for convenience or choice should not be payed for by any insurance provider, be it government health care or a private insurance provider. Abortions that endanger the health or life of the mother should be covered by national health care. Abortions because of rape pregnancies should be included in any plan. Aborting a pregnancy simply because it as "unplanned" or "unwanted" is not acceptable in this day and age of prevention options. Selfishness should never be rewarded. If children are not wanted, then do something before conception...not after. Use your head, prevention methods available and a little common sense and self control. There is very little excuse or reason now days for an unwanted or "accidental" pregnancy. Even for teens.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    December 3, 2009 at 6:56 pm |
  9. Rob

    I'm pro-Stem Cell research, but I'm anti-Abortion. There's a huge difference between research for the greater good from embryos that would otherwise be "Discarded" and killing an unborn child. Who cares if it's "your body"? You should have thought about the possibility of bringing life into this world before you decided to have sex. If you're too selfish and heartless to own up to your responsibility of parenthood then be abstinent! The sooner we stop abortion, the sooner we stop the murdering of unborn children.

    Rob, Warner Robins, Georgia

    December 3, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
  10. Jerry

    Keep it simple put a maximum payout of 10% on shares, anything over 12% is taxed at a rate of 100% this would allow 2% per year for a company warchest. Put a maximum wage at 25 times the minimum wage. these two things alone would stop the rape and pillage mentality of buisness.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
  11. Ann from Charleston, S.C.

    I don't think government money should be used for abortion out of respect for those who honestly believe abortion is murder. However, to be fair to those who believe it is a matter of choice, I don't think the government should prevent abortions. It leaves pro-choice people paying thier own way, but I haven't heard of any other way to handle this explosive issue. Wouldn't it be nice if people would put a lid on their outrage and respect those who hold a different point of view? I guess that would put you out of a job, Jack.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:05 pm |
  12. Nick McKinney, Texas

    They need to address it head on. Abortion is a medical procedure that some choose to utilize. Some for medical reasons and others to end a pregnancy. Either way a woman has a right to choose. Plain and simple. You can not dictate to people what medical procedures they or their doctor choose. That is up to the individual. If the government decides not to use tax dollars to pay for abortion then what else will they decide to not pay for later on? It is a very slipper slope.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:08 pm |
  13. Fred Dean Weaver Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    The Republicans are lying that abortion is in Health care Reform. Pass Healthcare reform, Pass Abortion as seperate insurane for those who want it and pay for it.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:08 pm |
  14. Karl from SF, CA

    How about we follow the Constitution instead of the Bible for a change? We condemn the Muslim world for what we consider its religious overbearing in the lives of its citizens and yet we are hypocrites doing the same thing. An abortion is a legal procedure under the law and Congress needs to quit inserting their religious beliefs into what should be a secular document. Pro abortion folks pay taxes just like the anti-abortion folks do. How about a little equality for everyone? I know, it won’t get the votes, like same sex marriage and the other wedge issues that detract from real equality in the so-called free country.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
  15. Ken Shade

    The Hyde Amendment, passed on 30 Sept. 1976 by the U.S. House is a limitation amendment barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. Put it in the Health Care Bill and let it go.

    This is the Republican way to kill Health Care Reform.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
  16. Reid

    Federal tax revenues should absolutely never – never – be used to pay for abortion. Period.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
  17. Austin

    We can either pay for a woman's right to an abortion or we can pay for their food stamps to feed her starving children at home. Conservatives are going to complain about both.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
  18. Michael H. in Albuquerque,NM

    Pro- Life should be Pro-Healthcare. Pro-Lifers should be willing to vote for whatever bill saves the lives of the uninsured. Currently 45,000 Americans die each year for the lack of health insurance. That's like the same number of people that died on 9-11 every month. The senate should deal with the Healthcare bill as if they had people lives in their hands, and strive to save them all. From the not yet born to those that have reached the end. Let them not abort any of us.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
  19. Frank J Storey, New Brunswick, Canada

    Jack
    Didn't the Supreme Court settle this issue some time ago? Which leaves me to ask is this a legal move by any legislative body?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
  20. Robert, Louisiana

    No way should this Healthcare / Insurance bill be allowed to change the status of abortion – either way!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
  21. Brad

    Hey Jack,

    Last I checked, abortion is still legal in this country. Women have a right to their bodies, they should be able render medical services of any kind, provided they are legal. It is wrong for a body of, predominantly men to sit around and tell women what they can and can't do with their body. Include it in the plan like the national plans of so many other prospering countries.

    Thanks,
    Brad
    Canton, NY

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  22. Jim Ekbom

    Simple, just legislate no abortions without prior approval of the fetus.

    Jim
    Pine City, MN

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  23. Joe McTighe

    Adopt the House language word for word.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  24. Faye Lewark Daniels

    Use the same language as is in Medicaid.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  25. deno

    No abortions provided with MY money, period!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  26. Chris

    Jack,

    Any time a company contracts with the government there are certain costs that can be reimbursed and cannot reimbursed. The government has a right not to reimburse abortion costs outside of the Hyde Law, but the government should not be meddling in the individual policies and what is covered and what is not. Abortion that does not fall within the scope of the Hyde Law should be treated as any other unallowable cost.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  27. Fran B. Reed, MPH

    Abortion should not be mentioned. Women should
    have whatever health care they need , talking with
    their doctors. The Legislature wants to erase what
    the Judicial did in "Roe V. Wade". If men got pregnant,
    this would not be in the discussion. They want to control
    our lives and bodies. Fran

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  28. Austin

    Marion, LA

    We can either pay for a woman's right to an abortion or we can pay for her food stamps for her starving children at home. Conservatives are going to complain about both.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  29. Jean

    The bill should simply reference the Hyde amendment and proceed. There will have to be insurance plans that do not cover abortion. The cost should be slightly lower and many men will want them.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  30. MikeM

    It's simple. If the Senate doesn't want abortion coverage for Americans, then they need to have the same coverage for themselves and their families. Any health care they're willing to deny to any Americans needs also to be denied to all members of Congress.

    Let's see how they vote when it's their own insurance on the line.

    Besides, federal money is certainly going to pay for Congressional health insurance. What a bunch of hypocrites.

    Mike M
    Youngstown, OH

    December 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
  31. Jon from Tempe, Az

    Jack, I am a liberal but this debate is rediculous. The government should not pay for elective abortions. I do not want to pay for an abortion for a lady that went out and got pregnant due to her own irresposibility. People need to be responsible for their behavior.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
  32. Jane

    The Senate should uphold the law of the land, and the law says that abortions are legal. Period. Case closed long ago. The Senate should figure out how to grant every citizen the health care provisions it enjoys in its own insurance plan. Anything less is descriminatory, and I'm still trying to figure out why all of America isn't outraged.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
  33. Fran B. Reed, MPH

    If men got pregnant, this would not be up for discussion.
    They are trying to legistlate away "Roe V. Wade".
    Fran

    December 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
  34. Gregory

    While the Republicans, as well as the Democrats, insist that "government run health care" should not get between the patient and her doctor, these restrictions on abortion are as clear a case of government intervention in health care as one could imagine. All medical decisions, including abortion, should be made between the patient, and her physician, and no one else!!!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
  35. Melody

    It has to be a Republican plot. Just get the health care reform bill PASSED. Don't throw the bay out with the bath water, so to speak. Work on these specifics later.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
  36. A. Smith, Oregon

    Jack, The Christian wing-nuts and their Republican puppet lawmakers are desperately trying to side-step the Supreme Court's decision and reverse women's abilitys and rights to obtain an abortion.

    As written, any Hospital or Physicians group that accepts public funding would be prohibited from performing abortions. This morass of a bill had to be thought up in some Christian backroom to ram down the throats of all women in America.

    Women across American should shout, 'Hell No' to these corrupt attempts to bypass the US Supreme Court.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  37. Kathy

    Why can't Congress find a way to fund a SOLUTION to this problem. Why can't medical science be used to find a way to incubate the child outside the womb for the entire gestation period. This would allow a woman to have control over her body AND protect the life of the child? This type of solution is the only way to satisfy both sides of this very critical debate – both sides win!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  38. Dutch Huette

    Jack: In one 'cold' sense, abortion is elective surgery. Should we pay for elective surgery for woman to abort? Should we pay for elective surgery for obese to 'trim down'. It is a choice. It's not a necessity. In this sense, I don't want to pay for people's choices. So, if the doctor bill comes my way...... I'll pass.
    Dutch Huette, Iowa City, Iowa.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  39. Craig in Illinois

    Provide abortions for illegal aliens, then deport the parents.
    No anchor babies to keep them here.
    Illegal aliens already have free healthcare at the taxpayers expense.
    It's time for a change!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  40. CArol Onstad

    Abortions are medicals procedures and absolutely no amendment should be made in the health care reformk bill that treats these procedures any differently from any others or restricts them in any way.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  41. Karin Wagner

    Jack- when I think about the Hyde ammendment and prohibiting Federal funding for abortion- I think the real fear is the gobernment is afraid that people on welfare and disabiity payments are going to have rampant sex and multiple pregnancies and then rely on government money for abortions....why not have some kind of built in "ceiling" in that woman with plans like this can have one abortion only- more than one will not be covered- unless it is the result of rape or the woman's life is at stake...I have not heard any mention of this- but rather an all or none feature.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  42. Balazs Schreil

    This is typical of congress: mix up issues, so that nothing gets done.

    The bills should be separate. Healtch Care Reform should be in one bill, and anything relating to abortion should be in another bill. The Republicans have tried to prohibit abortion for decades. Now that Health Care is on the table, they see it as an opportunity to prohibit abortion.

    This is an under-handed slimy technique, and it sucks!

    Had the Democrats united, we would not need the Republicans anyways. What the?????

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  43. Lucy Zimmermann

    Government should't restrict women's right to choose. The cynical insertion of religous dogma into the Health Bill, by whatever means, takes away essential women's rights.

    However the anti-choice people beliefe, they shouldn't be allowed to FORCE their religious views onto others.

    Lucy Z.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  44. George J. Carlucci

    Jack,

    My only question is whom among these congressmen and senators will be raising, feeding and educating these children who are not aborted. I do agree that abortion should not be used for "birth control" however, there are many reasons to haave an abortion other than rape, incest or the health of the mother.

    George
    New hampshire

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  45. Lou Viola

    If the reactionary obstructionists posing as Conservatives were really conservative, they would remember that the Constitution requires citizens check their religion at the door. Against abortion? Don't have one. Don't want your tax dollars to pay for abortions? Understood and agreed. But don't deny people health care because of your religious beliefs.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  46. Joyce

    It isn't just the abortion situation – what about all the rest of the bill we, the public, haven't been told about! And hasn't even been read by the majority of the voting congressmen!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  47. Ruth, Perry, GA

    That's just it Jack. they shouldn't address it. We already have with Wade so let's move on and focus on the task at hand....making it possible for retirees like me who are too healthy for medicaid and too young for medicare...COBRA...forget it!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  48. Tammy

    Abortions should NOT be covered in the health care bill. Abortion is not a medical problem, it is an elective procedure. Other electives will not be covered I'm sure, so this should not either. The other problem is that it goes against many peoples religion and therefore people should not be forced to pay into this system if it includes abortion.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  49. J Davey

    The Senate should adopt language similar to the House regarding taxpayer responsibility for funding abortions; i.e., it should include Hyde amendment language prohibiting the use of public funding for abortion (with the accepted exceptions).
    If the Administration wants a Health Care reform bill, it and its liberal Democratic allies, should suck it up and accept what is the right position...no taxpayer funds for abortion.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  50. RC Rubinnoupoulous

    The Senate should treat abortion like breast augmentation.

    It's an elective procedure except in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

    There is no reason why the people should have to pay for breast augmentations or viagra. The same goes for abortion.

    It's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  51. Phil, Georgia

    How about having the percentage that you have to cover through private funds be covered for abortion.

    This really should not be the huge killer. For this is mainly a religious argument which is suppose to be separate from State. We have to continually follow the practice of COMPROMISE.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  52. Jacki

    The government needs to stay out of peoples healthcare – its simply none of their business. Addtionally, its unconstitutional as its up to the individual to choose what type of healthcare, if any, they will use. This is a free country, isn't it? It's not up to the government to allow or not allow anything any individual wants to do with their body. They may not agree with the choices some make, but the choices are not up to them. Now we've being dictated to by facists and it must cease and desist immediately. We must stop allowing the government and the corporations from colluding to make our decisions for us and profit only them. That is why most came to and stay in this country. Keep America a free REPUBLIC.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  53. joe thompson

    If men got pregnant, abortion would be socially approved, legal and government funded.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  54. Bridget

    My insurance company won't pay for an abortion unless it's an emergent condition that endangers my life because it's considered elective surgery. Any reform approved by the Senate should not cover such an elective procedure. Are they going to pay for facelifts, too?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  55. Angela

    The new insurance plan should not include abortions. Women should be responsible and prevent pregnancy. Most are young teens who don't understand and are too ignorant to understand they are creating a living human being. Basically if you open your legs you should take care of what comes out because of your carelessness. Dallas tx

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  56. Lee

    How about this:
    If no coverage for abortions, then no coverage for any erectile disfunctions or drugs to "relieve" that condition! It won't balance out completely but there is a certain symmetry...

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  57. jOH

    The Senate should prevent any monies to be used for any abortions and should not creqiuire any agency or hospital to provide for abortions

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  58. Sharon G. in Molalla Oregon

    Abortion is a legal procedure and shouldn't be an issue at all. When will the right to lifers give up? The right wing types talk about the government making their health care decisions for them ... what do you call this? All legal medical procedures are between the patient and doctor. Don't let this stop health care reform WITH A PUBLIC OPTION. The democrats are going to find themselves voted of office if they don't grew a pair.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
  59. Donald L. Engel

    Since there is nothing in the Bible about abortion, What is the basis for the pro-lifer's demand that abortion not be covered in the health care plan? (I have a biblical quote that illustrates God's non-concern about fetuses if you're interested.)

    December 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  60. Sarah

    What about tax payers' dollars supporting the execution of criminals? It seems contradictory to be so forceful against funding abortion, but then be blind to the fact that our dollars pay for executions of criminals in this country. Do they think that once a human is out of the womb murder expectable?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  61. Richard Knapp

    In lieu of having self control, those couples creating unwanted potential progeny should pay the bulk of the cost of their abortions.
    Give them a $100 payment and good wishes.
    Richard/Tampa

    December 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  62. Chuck Coffelt from Oregon

    Jack, abortion is like any other medical procedure and should be decided between the doctor and patient.
    All the religious fanatics shouldn't have a say in health decisions of someone that doesn't agree with them. They protest and even kill abortion doctors. I don't see them around after the baby is born...to babysit, help with finances and mentoring to help that baby grow up in a healthy environment. They're just weekend warriors trying to make someone else live up to their beliefs because their "god" wants it that way.
    Abortion should be covered like any other medical procedure. Remember....separation of church and State? Seems those lines are way too blurred these days.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  63. Lacey Gallik

    Abortion should not be considered at all in the Health Care Reform bill. Abortion is an "elective" procedure. If it doesn't affect the health of the mother, it is not a necessity and should not be funded by government dollars. It's a slippery slope into a whole new argument of paying for other's elective procedures that aren't life saving or necessary. What's next, I'm going to pay for someone's breast enhancement? As a woman, I'm sick of so called "women's rights" groups saying that the bill is anti-woman if it lacks such provisions. I think you were out of line yourself for saying you agreed with those groups.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  64. Tim-Flagstaff

    Just get the bill passed. work on the other issues later. i wouldn't put it pased the Republicans to having been behind ANY hot issues just to slow or stop the bill from passing

    December 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  65. James in Sacramento

    Roe vs Wade basically said that women have the right to choose; thus, abortion should be covered by the new healthcare bill so long as it is deemed psychologically worthwhile to the woman and/or family involved. I don't understand why conservative Christians continue to pressure congress members to ban abortion, when the supreme court already set the precedent decades ago. It is legal and allowed. Get over it you religious zealots.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  66. Cliff Glass - East Rockaway, NY

    Jack,

    Congress needs to stop being hypocrites(again!). If anti-abortion legislation is added to the health care bill, then Congress must both provide government-funded birth control measures and subsidies for bringing fetuses to term and then guarantee the adoption of any unwanted child.

    If only Congress would discuss and adopt term limit legislation with equal fervor, we would all be better off.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  67. Stephanie Jacobs

    I am totally opposed to using taxpayer money to fund abortions. The Hyde Law should remain intact. I do not believe the Health Care Reform should address it.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  68. Chelsea

    It's a legal procedure and should be covered. Being controversial should not matter. Some people disagree with epidurals or weight loss surgeries, should only the procedures that EVERYONE agrees on be covered? Abortion has been around for a long time, the only variable is the safety with which they are preformed. Access for the wealthy, the poor are left to fend for themselves.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  69. Ernie from Winnipeg

    I find it incredible that what is a legal medical procedure in the U.S. has been singled out for specific restrictions in the Health Care reform bill(s). This restriction is being proposed by those very same senators & congresspersons who warn that a Public Option in Health Care reform will "put the government between you & your doctor". What a bunch of hypocrits!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  70. David A Whitaker

    Jack I am feed up to my eyeball with this abortion crap. If I am not mistaken abortion in this country is legal. Why in the heck some people shouldn't be able to use their health for abortion something that is legal in this country. All of these personal belief has nothing to do with issueit is legal. More and more hot air please please take a break.

    David
    Martinsburg, WV

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  71. John, Fort Collins, CO

    The Senate should adopt the same abortion language as the house version of the bill. As a moderate Democrat, I would rather see millions of uninsured Americans have access to adequate health care than insist on proving a legitimate point on the abortion issue. At least with abortion women now have a right to choose - the only choice the uninsured have no choice is to allow their illnesses to take their course. Getting to where we really need to be is like eating an elephant: it must be done one bite at a time.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  72. Sue From Idaho

    Any senator that doesn't believe in abortion should not have one. Years ago when my mother in law said she didn't believe in vasectomies that is what I told her.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  73. kay green

    Abortion should be covered under healthcare! Period. Think of all the situations where the mothers health is at stake... how they try to take a womans right to choose! Each womans situation is different, rape, incest , poverty etc. these are apart of a woman's choice to choose. Its a slap in the face. This is the Eve of 2010 and they still cant support us.There should be always be some type of coverage to cover it, its situational and if we can apropriate funds for other programs based on situations and other countries for that matter then this shouldnt be an issue. Wake up America!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  74. Rosanne Catanzaro

    What ever happened to the rights of American women to choose? Not every women chooses to have a baby. Why is that looked at as a major sin in the U.S.? Isn't abortion legal in the United States? Why are right wingers and conversative democrats trying to take away our rights in America? Our countrymen & women should be tolerant of a women's right to choose. Just like most intelligent and open-minded people are tolerant of other people's religious beliefs and lifestyles. Having a tolerant country and the freedom to choose what is right for an individual is why I choose to live in the U.S and what most sane people want. America is supposed to be a free country and have equal rights....NOT in some people's closed minds!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
  75. Dan Tarrant

    As a Christian I find it hard to accept that my tax dollars can be used for something that I consider immoral. As an American I find it hard to accept that a human that has a heartbeat and brainwaves doesn't have rights. The rich and powerful only get richer and more powerful with the healthcare system we have now, so change is imperative for the sake of growing number of vulnerable people in our country. But I can't accept this reform if it puts at greater risk the vulnerable Americans in the womb - and uses my hard earned money to do it.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
  76. J.T Rovison

    Jack, I have two points to make.
    1.) Why is abortion and insurance coverage coming into play now? Why can't we use the status quo of the last 30 years as a precedent?
    2.) Personally as a male, I do have my own opinion regarding abortion, however I feel that my opinion shouldn't really matter. Abortion relates to a women's body and I feel that abortion should be a women's choice/decision.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
  77. Bob

    Abortion is a legal medical procedure and Congress should get out of the way and let a woman and her doctor decide. Ii don't think we want to get into letting people opt out of paying taxes for things they disapprove of.A Quaker is opposed to war does that mean he/she can demand that no portion of his/her taxes can go to the military because of religious beliefs?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
  78. Isaac

    Abortion is either legal or it isn't.

    If abortion is a legal medical procedure in most circumstances (and it currently is), no insurance policy whether publicly or privately funded should be prohibited from covering it.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
  79. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    I do not know how you and Wolf deal with these self righteous, power hungry, politicians day in and day out.

    Abortion is a matter left to the individual and God. The only consensus driven abortion should be aborting the brain dead 635 members from Capitol Hill.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
  80. Richard Smykle

    As a Catholic, like Vice-President Joe Biden, I support the women's right to make abortion decisions while still opposing abortion.

    I also believe that the Catholic Church should not be threatening Catholics with excommication for views different from the church's.

    In my view, women should exercise prudence before aborting and review alternatives before doing so.,

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  81. Annie

    Unless Congress is willing to guarantee that all children and the family that is needed to raise those children have health coverage, they should stay out of the American family unit. These people are letting their personal beliefs cloud their judgement and getting into people's personal lives, they need to understand that fetuses become people and people need health coverage.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  82. jeane

    Why do men want control over a woman's body so badly and some women so eager to give it to them?????

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  83. Beth Wilson

    No federal funds for abortions!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  84. Debi in Oklahoma

    This is ludicrous. The senate was NOT elected to force their personal religious belief down every one else's throat. Women have the right to choose. It is bad enough that the religious nut jobs have made it almost impossible to obtain birth control, now they want to force women to either remain pregnant against their will, or go backwards in time to back alley butchers doing abortions illegally on a dirty kitchen table or a back alley.

    When the politicians start making laws based only upon their religious preferences, then it is time for their religious affiliation to start paying taxes. As in the RCC denying communion to a Kennedy simply because he is following the laws of this land and representing ALL of the people he was elected to represent and not legislating based upon the RCC dogma.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  85. Doug D.

    No, the Senate should note allow the use of tax dollars for abortion. Nor should the House or any part of the health care program.

    Why is it that you say this would push women's reproductive rights back if we do not allow federal funds to fund abortions? It repulses me to think that the taxes I would pay would be used to take the life of a shild not yet born.

    Everyone speaks about the rights of the women (pro-choice). Who speaks for the rights of the child not yet born?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  86. Pat Woods

    I am a 75 year old female.....and I had an illegal abortion in the 1950's. I only chose this after having 3 children that my husband could not afford to take care of....at age 25!!!!
    I lived in northern NY at the time and had to hire an attorney to take me to Rhode Island......
    MALE SENATORS AND LEGISLATORS HAVE NO RIGHT TO VOTE ON THE NOW LEGAL ABORTION ISSUE!!! IT IS FOR WOMEN ONLY!!! Women only have the right to vote on this issue.
    MAYBE THEY WANT US TO START WEARING CAFTANS LIKE THE WOMEN MUST IN AFGHANISTAN.....

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  87. Dan from Newtown, PA

    December 3rd, 2009 7:17 pm ET
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    As a Christian I find it hard to accept that my tax dollars can be used for something that I consider immoral. As an American I find it hard to accept that a human that has a heartbeat and brainwaves doesn't have rights. The rich and powerful only get richer and more powerful with the healthcare system we have now, so change is imperative for the sake of growing number of vulnerable people in our country. But I can't accept this reform if it puts at greater risk the vulnerable Americans in the womb – and uses my hard earned money to do it.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  88. leonce locke

    The issues concerning abortions are most serious, bound with deep-seated emotion from both sides of the fence, and touch down to the core of the heart of a person. Therefore, the option to go through with an abortion is something that should be handled with personal funds and not public funds, The country should not be expected to finance something of extreme division. There should be consolation in the fact that its not an illegal procedure.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  89. RoseAnne McClellan

    I am deeply concerned about many in this country who are more concerned about animals than the baby human. I cannot even begin to understand how anyone can coldly kill an unborn baby or a partially born baby. It is barbarian and breaks my heart.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  90. Phil Stang

    What ever happened to the separation of church & state. Abortion is a religious issue & has no place in the discussion of the health care of Americans.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
  91. Ruth, Perry, GA

    .....by the way Jack, Abortion has never been a legal issue, it is and always will be a moral decision between woman and God. Legal or not, if a woman choose to end an unwanted pregnancy, she will find a way to do it. Isn't that what history has shown us?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
  92. Al

    Maybe health care will provide birth control and knowledge. As bad as it sounds more people are dying without heath care than the other. It is inportant to think of the over all. They will be the ones who change things

    December 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
  93. Susan, Denver

    Jack, they shouldn't address abortion at all - except to make sure it isn't mentioned in the bill. Current law is clear. Nothing in the health care reform bill should change, restrict, or eliminate rights that women already have.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
  94. Rick Lay

    Here in Canada our health care covers abortions without condition , this for me is not teaching people to be sexually responsible and is only necessary under the conditions mentioned on your broadcast. I don't think Americans should make the same mistake by defeating a national health care for all people over an issue which has as much to do with self control as it does with responsibility for the consequences of ones actions

    December 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
  95. Drew

    The right to choose is the problem. By choosing this proceedure it is by definition an elective medical proceedure. Why should that be covered? What about liposuction? I have the right to choose that, should the tax-payers have to pay for my choice?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
  96. Sadie

    If you're against abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!! Requiring a woman, often a teenager, to bear an unwanted baby sentences her to 18 years of "hard labor." Parenting is difficult enough without this burden. A majority of the people in our jails were the results of such unwanted and unplanned pregnancies–often victims themselves of child abuse by their teenage mothers ill-equipped to care for them. Those who are against abortion should be the very people to endorse sex education, birth control, child care services based on sliding scales and government funding for all aspects education and health care!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
  97. Lorraine Solimine

    West Dundee, IL

    I believe, women have a right to have an abortion if the choose, however, I do not support abortion. Why shoud tax payer have to pick up the tab to abort babies...if you want an abortion and have your choice to do so...PAY FOR IT YOURSELF. I personally object to paying to kill babies.

    The senate should support minimum allowances for abortion funding.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:20 pm |
  98. Catherine, Tiskilwa IL

    OK, I'm willing to respect their "beliefs", but here's the deal; no federal dollars for abortion, also not one red federal cent to pay for so much as one little blue viagra pill, and not one cent for in-vitro fertilazation, and not one cent for fertility treatments -all of which are NOT health issues, but personal lifestyle choices. I'll even forgo any money for birth control pills and devices, but I want some serious funding for sex education and birth control information and some meaningful penalties for any person, male or female who has children he or she is not supporting. So, abortion foes -do we have an agreement ?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:20 pm |
  99. Steven

    Health Insurance should be for unforseen and non-preventable illnesses. Pregnancy is something that under most circumstances can be prevented with proper planning. The Senate should not include abortion in any national healthcare insurance plan.

    Steve, Los Angeles, CA

    December 3, 2009 at 7:21 pm |
  100. Sheri

    Jack~

    If men bore the child we would not even be having this discussion! I am thankful that it is now my choice to decide what to do in the event I should become pregnant. However, it is my CHOICE and it should be my responsibility to pay for my CHOICE. Unless it is in the case of rape, incest or physical harm to the mother, in which case insurance, whether it be private or public should help.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:21 pm |
  101. Mary

    How should the Senate address abortion in health care reform? I'll tell you. There should not be ANY restrictions on abortion in the final draft of the health care reform bill. Doctors, not politicians are the only ones qualified to determine what care is appropriate for a patient.
    A woman never comes to the decision of an abortion easily, whether it is for medically necessary reasons (risk of life to the mother or the fetus) or if it is for reasons personal, which may also have medical reasons attached to the final decision. The fact is, the decision to abort is between the doctor and the female patient, but there are some reasons that are difficult to share even with your health care provider, for fear of the same kind male chauvinism and fundamentalist Christian judgemental behavior that has been allowed to run rampant in American politics for far too long. If these male politicians want these babies to be born so badly, then they can carry them to term, raise them, pay for their medical bills, and deal with the social stigma of being an un-wed mother!

    Knoxville, TN, USA

    December 3, 2009 at 7:22 pm |
  102. Mike C

    Jack, I applaud the Senator's that are standing up to protect
    the lives of the Unborn. If Healthcare does not pass due to
    an inclusion of anti-abortion language- that's okay with me.
    Abortion is not Healthcare and never will be Healthcare.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:22 pm |
  103. Roland

    The Senate should say no to any abortion.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:22 pm |
  104. LISA BALTIMORE

    Although I am pro-choice, I feel that there should be stipulations as to who should be able to access federal funds. If a woman can afford an abortion, she should have to pay for it. For women who cannot afford it, then the government should not restrict them from having an abortion. The fiscal conservatives are real geniuses. If an unwanted baby is brought into the world because of restricted funding, then the cost to raise that baby will probably become the financial responsibility of the government. Now does that make fiscal sense? I am really curious to see how many pro-lifers are adoptive parents to the tens of thousands of chilldren in foster care waiting for families?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:22 pm |
  105. phil

    What is with the bizarre love of abortion that makes the extreme left force it into every issue? No one here is trying to put people in jail for this. The average abortion costs less than $500. The ridiculous contention that women will flock to back alley abortionists without govt. funded abortions, that this is a vital to "women's health issues" is patently specious. Democrats will again show themselves to be their own worst enemy by risking the health care bill over their continued obsession with the euphemism-cloaked "woman's right to choose."

    December 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
  106. Larry Kinney

    Any final health plan should include coverage for abortions. Women do not plan to have an abortion but under certain circumstances it is the only recourse. There are too many unwanted and unloved youth running around and they are are present day criminals or soon to be criminals. I am a tax payer and I want a portion of my taxes to go toward necessary abortions and toward family planning which in the long run would reduce the number of necessary abortions. Abortion is legal in our great country. If you don't agree with abortion then don't get one.
    From an elderly white male in upstate central NY.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
  107. Faye in Tx.

    Shouldn't the Hyde Amendment language suffice ? Anti-abortion groups must think we are so stupid that we will fall for their backdoor strategy.By the way, isn't Ben Nelson from the land of Mutual of Omaha.Hmmm. Maybe he has motives other than altruism.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
  108. AJ, Potsdam, NY

    Jack,

    Health insurance should cover all legal medical procedures; it is for a licensed physician, and their patient, to make treatment choices – not ideologues. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. If you are not in favor of abortion, don't have one. End of discussion.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
  109. Lawrence Kansas

    I don't want to pay for the "war on drugs," which is going swimmingly. I would, however, like to support women's rights. It's a legal procedure, what gives them the right to reclassify it as "legal, but, you know, not really."

    December 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
  110. Mary Joan Wickham

    45 million abortions between 1973 and 2005.
    This is an irresponsible way to live our lives.
    1.21 million abortions a year. There are not that many accidents or medical emergencies. Abortion undermines womens health both mental and physical. We can ban smoking but never would think of banning unprotected sex. Same argument. The rest of the country is picking up the bill for this irresponsibility either way. Grow up!!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
  111. ALI

    my tax showed not pay for killing babys

    December 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
  112. RLT

    Abortion is a private medical procedure and should not even be discussed by Congress. Women have been self aborting since the beginning of time and the dangers of self abortion are well known. When will self rightous, non- medical blow hards stop this totally un-necessary discussion.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
  113. Denise Lewis Harlos

    Dear Jack,
    Rather than try to legislate abortion coverage out of the health care bill, let's first legislate that those opposing abortion get in line tomorrow & start adopting all the children waiting patiently across this country for loving homes...
    Abortion is legal and they have no business holding it hostage on capitol hill in the health care debate.
    Fuming in Minneapolis

    December 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm |
  114. Tony

    Abortion is NOT health care and I certainly don't want to pay for someone's poor "choice".
    Finally a hint of hope that this country might be moving in the right direction.
    Mr. Cafferty... I'll bet your happy that your mother chose LIFE!

    Gettysburg, PA

    December 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm |
  115. Susan Masser

    When we start picking and choosing what procedures to cover based on public opinion or political expediency, we cease to allow physicians to practice good medicine.

    Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country. As such, neither the Senate nor House of Representatives should place restrictions or limitations on coverage of this procedure.

    Medical decisions need to be left to the medical practitioner and individual patient, without interference based on political, religious, or moral beliefs .

    Unless we can achieve a 0% maternal mortality rate; create a readily available, inexpensive form of 100% effective birth control without major side effects; guarantee that no woman becomes pregnant by spousal, date, stranger, or familial rape; guarantee that no child will be be abused or killed by their birth, step, adoptive, foster parent, relative or partner of their parent; there will remain a need for woman to have a choice in whether they can carry a pregnancy to term.

    It is a highly personal decision, and nobody should interfere in the making of that decision or the delivery of medical services in support that decision.

    Anyone opposed to abortion is welcome not to have one.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm |
  116. mike saunders

    This is a no brainer question. Health is what the issue is about and not choice. One does not have a choice when one is sick ie. cancer or some other chronic disease. However one can make a choice regarding pregnancy. One does not have to wait until an abortion is pendining and a surgical requirement is wished for. Have you heard of the morning after pill? In the same way the bill does not discuss or address plastic surgery that is esthetic ie. Michael Jackson. The bill 's function is to provide MEDICAL care to people who don't or can't afford healthcare. Keep your eye on the ball and beware of those who wish to take your eye off what the issues are about.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm |
  117. Doug Shelley

    The abortion issue is a red herring Jack. There are already laws that govern abortion and its funding by the federal government. If federal money mingles with other money in some companies that offer abortion coverage it is no different than when federal money mingled with bonus money paid to the pukes on Wall Street. Political hacks in the pocket of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries are using this to justify a “no” vote on reform. A hack congressman (Democratic) from New Mexico wrote me that he voted against reform because it would give the insurance companies too much money. You bet. One more line of BS similar to that spewed forth by another hack, Joe Lieberman.

    Can we say, “Lobby & campaign finance reform”? Can we start to say it a bit louder?

    Doug S.
    Silver City, NM

    December 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
  118. al rogers

    The religious right is truly showing its colors. They would deny millions of poorer people medical care in order to impose their and the Pope's view of abortion on the 74% of us who disagree with them. So much for healing the sick and tending the poor.... They have made a glaring breach in the Constitution's wall between church and state. It's time our Senators & Representatives showed some backbone and Republicans lived up to their minimalist government pose.

    Punta Gorda, Florida

    December 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
  119. Nicolas Lay, Canada

    Well Jack I always believed that an abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that if a women wishes to have one performed she ought to have the right to do so. Abortions should only be federally funded in reguards to the cases you mentioned : rape, teen pregnancy, disfuctional family, ect. Other than that performing abortions for no real medical or traumatic reasons should be paid for privately. I do not think abortions should be left out completely.

    –Nicolas
    Alberta Canada

    December 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
  120. Travis

    If the language is already on the books to prevent tax payer dollars from funding abortions why is this such a hot-topic issue? I am 100% behind reforming health care and do not feel that abortion rights should prevent the country and its' working citizens from their right to receive affordable and effective health care. The lawmakers in this country are so-far removed from reality that they do not understand the long-term effects of their short-minded decisions.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
  121. Carrie k.

    I would agree to have no public funding for woman's abortions when men take responsibility for preventing the need for abortions and the government provides free birth control for all, men and women. Also this is an opportunity to aim health care dollars toward eliminated sexually transmitted diseases in this country. Wouldn't that be responsible use of money?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
  122. Vickie Sandell Stangl

    A common sense solution has already been offered that would allow women to pay for their own insurance coverage for an abortion procedure. Men like Senator Ben Nelson simply reveal how mean and petty they are as they callously endanger women's health. Maybe the next thing the Senator's could debate is whether women should be allowed outside the home and receive an education in America?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
  123. william fitzwater

    I think there needs to be language like the house bill amendment prohibiting funding for aborting using public monies . While I believe in choice I do not think it is apporreatie to for public funding of abortions . That is elective abortion unless a women is willing to use her own monies.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
  124. Mike

    Abortion is a choice. Yes, the Supreme Court allows it, but that does not mean the taxpayer should pay for it. This is where rights and responsibilities meet. It is your responsibility to care for your rights.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
  125. Frank, Virginia

    Jack, President Obama promised the abortion industry a financial bailout and vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) the day he took office. Because of Pro-life efforts the bill did not reach his desk. He and the Democratic Congress have since tried to meet that promise by using Health Care Reform to create the largest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. Since 1973 51 million children’s lives have been ended by abortion. 71% of Americans do not want taxpayer money funding elective abortions. Pro –abortion advocates point to the Hyde Amendment to prevent federal funds being used to fund abortions. The fact is the Hyde Amendment affects the HHS appropriations bill and would not apply to money appropriated for the Health Care Reform. Pro-life advocates are trying to keep the status quo on abortions not cut back on women’s rights. The abortion industry is pushing this reform to increase there bottom line at the expense of unborn children.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm |
  126. Jeffrey

    I'm still a bit confused as to how the abortion issue got characterized as one of "choice". It seems to me that there are two parties involved in the procedure, the mother and the unborn. The mother's "choice" is only favored because she's the more vocal of the two.

    Call it an issue of "choice", "privacy", "life", or whatever, but abortion proponents are still ignoring the basic rights of at least one human being: the child.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm |
  127. Joe

    I think the government needs to stay out of health care unless it involves a woman and her doctor. Seriously, I think it should be a choice made by the woman in conjunction with her doctor, not a mandated decision by anyone else..

    December 3, 2009 at 7:31 pm |
  128. Phil G in FL

    I do not agree with Government funding of insurance companies that pay for abortions either. But, with that said, I would like to ask all others that oppose this; Does your private insurance company (you know, the one your company forces you to choose) pay for abortions? Are you going to find out and drop your insurance if it does?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:31 pm |
  129. harold ramsey

    Abortion is not up to men to decide on; they only decide to create wars, which destroy women and children. The fetus is NOT a human life until the umbelical cord is severed is breathing. The arrogant, loud mouthed, airheads will always shout that fact down due to incescent vanities. No man has any right to tell a woman what she may, or not do with HER reproduction organs.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:31 pm |
  130. Marjie

    I am tired of hearing about women's right. what about the babies right. It shouldn't be included in this outragious bill that will cost us an arm and a leg. I know it is legal to have an abortion, I 'm apalled that we have become such a murderous nation. maybe these believers in murdering innocent children should study and watch what goes on when these procedures are done. no, they like to turn there heads and proclaim there rights and bask in the glory of murder.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm |
  131. John/Jack hopkins

    Grwat job Jack; you will never see this as I have been trying for over a year each day. The subject is a Woman' s choice. We badly need health care changes; the RNC continues to boycot this as they are lackeys of the Industry. Aslo Chenny, Rummy Rumsfiels, Gonso and etc Moms should have had abortionsmot those irtems years ago; and you can inclose another from TX........ [I know waiting to be editited.]

    Wounded war Vet. CW4, Chino Hill, CA.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm |
  132. Myrna Goss

    Jack, Why are all these grim, gray men talking only about keeping the government from paying for women's health needs? Does the proposed health bill or Medicare now pay for Viagra or Cialis or similar drugs to give men the capability to make them pregnant in the first place?? It takes two to tango, but no one is objecting publicly to restricting the government from paying for erectile dysfunction problems. Probably half the senate and congress are on Viagra, and that explains why there are so many sexual picadillos coming to light.
    Let 'em eat Pablum.
    Myrna
    Corpus Christi TX

    December 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm |
  133. Jeff (Sarasota, FL)

    Jack,

    I know that the insurance companies are big on voluntary sterilization whether it is a man getting a vasectomy or a woman getting a tubal ligation... it is a lot cheaper procedure than 9 months of care and then the cost of the actual birth of a child... so why shouldn't abortion be available... suppose a woman got raped and impregnated by someone with AIDs... the odds are the baby will have it and be born with all types of defects and will probably not live that long... who is the person that is actually willing to stand up in front of everyone and say that woman can't have an abortion and let the baby be born and suffer... makes no sense to me considering all the reasons behind getting an abortion besides just not wanting the baby...

    December 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm |
  134. Jacqui

    The health care reform bill should not change abortion coveragel...the law should remain as is ...no publc funds for abortion. Health care decisions should be between a doctor and patient without congressional interference.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm |
  135. D

    Jack,
    Why do people in Congress assume everyone is against their tax dollars being used to fund abortion? If over half the people in this country are for a woman's right to choose, they probably aren't against their tax dollars being used for abortion when necessary. I'm against my tax dollars being used to give a pension to ex-lawmakers that have gone to jail. I'm against my tax dollars being given to Halliburton with no-bid contracts (and ultimately to Dick Cheney who still has huge shares in Hallibuton...why didn't anyone ever cover that blatant conflict of interest?). How about on our tax form we have a check list of what our tax dollars can be used for and what they can't be used for? Then they'll have enough tax dollars to fund abortion if need be!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:34 pm |
  136. Eduardo Cohen

    Dear Jack,

    Though the point at which a human fetus actually becomes a human being may be debated forever, aborting a fetus is taking a life. That makes the question of whether or not to have an abortion one of the most serious moral and ethical decisions that a pregnant woman can face.

    It is precisely for that reason that it should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor and /or religious or spiritual adviser and, if appropriate, her family.

    This is not a question that should be decided for a woman by her government or by politicians in Washington. Excluding abortion from the list of medical procedures that are available through government subsidized or associated insurance unquestionably constitutes the intrusion of government into one of the most personal decisions that a woman may ever make.

    It’s strange that many of the opponents of medical insurance including abortion coverage say they oppose big government imposing itself on its citizens. Accept, I guess, when its one of the most personal and private matters that a citizen can face.

    How about talking about all the boys and men who physically or emotionally coerce girls and women into having unprotected sex? They don’t seem concerned with that.

    Eduardo Cohen
    San Mateo, California

    December 3, 2009 at 7:34 pm |
  137. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Women should be able to make their own decisions regarding their body and men should learn to keep their hands off. The day a man can have a baby then that's the day he should be part of any decision making on abortion.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:37 pm |
  138. Andrew, Amherst NY

    Jack,
    It seems like a lot people really don't know how abortion will be effected. Neither bill should effect the current law on abortion, it is legal and doctors, who chose, should be allowed to perform the porcedure. However, not one single cent should of tax payer money should be given to any plan that covers this. The same policy should go for viagara also.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:39 pm |
  139. Phyllis G Williams

    Deuteronomy 30: 19 states on top “Choice of Life or Death”
    Pro-Choice = Pro-Death which ends in the Lake of Fire –
    (Revelation 20: 14
    Pro-Life = Pro-Life which ends on the Street of Gold –
    (Revelation 21: 21)
    This is a sin and humans must repent. Women have no 'rights' they cannot make life and so cannot take life, their only right is to avoid getting pregnant. All human beings who have done this must acknowledge their sin, promise God never to do it again, and ask the Lord Jesus to wash out their sin with His blood from Calvary =
    (Psalm 103: 12)
    If you love them do not give them money to kill babies. If you don’t care what happens to their souls, then you will send them to the Lake of Fire.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
  140. Ed

    Since it's been such a big debate they should just set it off and deal with it as an seperately after the real part of reform is passed because we don't need anymore debates on passing the reform.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
  141. Dale in SD

    What’s NOT being talked about is I would bet most people in the house and senate who are against health care reform are against it because of the abortion issues because they are of the catholic faith!

    Isn’t there some kind of document that’s says something about separation of church and state? Oh that’s right…that’s WHY it’s not being brought up in public. How would it look to vote for or against an issue simply because you are of a particular faith!

    Health reform will never pass due to abortion/catholic issues in this country. How stupid.

    We are supposed to be the “best” country… the strongest, richest etc… yet we can’t come up with a national health plan like France, Canada and so many other countries. We are 38th on the list of health care systems in the world.

    I have one simple question to ask all politicians… If all these other countries can do it… why can’t we?

    #1 problem with health care system in this country??... it is a FOR PROFIT business… end of story.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
  142. Ed

    Since it's been such a big debate they should just set it off and deal with it seperately after the real part of reform is passed because we don't need anymore debates on passing the reform.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
  143. Tuesday

    I feel this is completely outrageous and is total jump backwards when it comes to Women's Rights. By no means do I see abortion as a means of birth control and I can completely understand women getting an abortion for circumstances such as rape or incest; however, to have this issue stop the health care bill from pushing forward is ridiculous. A woman's body is her own and there should not be any laws telling her what she can or cannot do, and to pass a law without the choice of abortion is disgusting. Whether or not you agree with it is your own choice, but that doesn't meant the option should not be made available.

    We are supposed to be a progressive country, what is going on?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
  144. Eduardo Cohen

    (Slightly edited)

    Dear Jack,

    Though the point at which a human fetus actually becomes a human being may be debated forever, aborting a fetus is taking a life. That makes the question of whether or not to have an abortion one of the most serious moral and ethical decisions that a pregnant woman can face.

    It is precisely for that reason that it should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor and /or religious or spiritual adviser and, if appropriate, her family.

    This is not a question that should be decided for a woman by her government or by politicians in Washington. Excluding abortion from the list of medical procedures that are available through government subsidized or associated insurance unquestionably constitutes the intrusion of government into one of the most personal decisions that a woman may ever make.

    It’s strange that many who oppose abortion coverage included in medical insurance say they oppose big government imposing itself on its citizens. Accept, I guess, when its one of the most personal and private matters that a citizen can face.

    How about talking about all the boys and men who physically or emotionally coerce girls and women into having unprotected sex? They don’t seem concerned with that.

    Eduardo Cohen
    San Mateo, Califonia

    December 3, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
  145. Jasmine in Germany

    It's a legal procedure. We have a separation of church and state. Medical reasons include mental health, not just physical. So what's the problem?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:43 pm |
  146. Sue, SC

    Abortion is currently a legal medical procedure—if it’s legal, why completely deny federal funds? Also, it seems to me that the doctor-patient relationship concerning this procedure should merit the same level of privacy accorded attorney-client privilege.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:43 pm |
  147. Jimmy

    wowwwwwww
    since we paying for abortion, why not do the same for nose and breasts jobs guys!!!
    it is ridiculous, the money of tax payers should be used to pay to necessary procedures, not to bail out every single woman that dosesnt know how to use birth control!!! especially that using it will be much cheaper and healthier to women and society!!!!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:45 pm |
  148. Greg

    In a taxpayer funded public healthcare system, there are certain procedures that should not be covered. Abortion should be one of them, unless it to save the life of the mother. If a woman wants the right to choose, then she can choose to pay for it. This has nothing to do with the legality of abortion. Private insurance companies can cover it if they want, but the public system should not.

    Greg
    Ottawa

    December 3, 2009 at 7:47 pm |
  149. Jerry - Fountain CO

    Keep men out of the decision making process re: abortion.
    It is more cost-effective for insurance companies to pay for abortion – an inexpensive procedure – than it is for them to pay for maternity services, complications from botched abortions & healthcare for the resulting kids. It's all about money, isn't it?

    December 3, 2009 at 7:47 pm |
  150. Debi in Oklahoma

    Mike Saunders, in response to what you wrote, you must realize that there are many hospitals (Catholic) that refuse to allow a physician to even speak to a patient about the morning after pill, even in the case of rape or incest, or the life of the mother.

    Look at Mississippi, they are not allowed to discuss or provide contraceptives in many counties.

    Look at the Pharmacies, that refuse to fill legal prescriptions for contraceptives or the morning after pill. Pharmacists that have held prescriptions hostage, refused to allow the patient to have the prescription back, and refused to call it to another pharmacy. Why? Because he decided his religious dogma should dictate which prescriptions a person needs. Not a doctor, no physical exam, he could care less if the woman or child was raped, he just decides he is not going to fill it and makes sure nobody else will either.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
  151. Phyllis G Williams

    Deuteronomy 30: 19 states on top “Choice of Life or Death”
    Pro-Choice = Pro-Death which ends in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20: 14
    Pro-Life = Pro-Life which ends on the Street of Gold (Revelation 21: 21)
    This is a sin and humans must repent. Women have no 'rights' they cannot make life and so cannot take life, their only right is to avoid getting pregnant. All human beings who have done this must acknowledge their sin, promise God never to do it again, and ask the Lord Jesus to wash out their sin with His blood from Calvary –
    (Psalm 103: 12)
    If you love them do not give them money to kill babies. If you don’t care what happens to their souls, then you will send them to the Lake of Fire. Humans should pay for their own sins both on earth and hereafter, It is Death Assistance not Health Reform

    December 3, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
  152. Debi in Oklahoma

    Abortion is a legal medical procedure. I read how people don't want their tax dollars going toward an abortion.

    I don't want my tax dollars going toward some old goats viagra, but the men have decided that is a "covered" medical procedure.

    I don't want my tax dollars spent on a never ending war – but we don't have a choice but pay taxes. They don't ask us how those tax dollars are spent.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
  153. Aaron

    People who pay taxes shouldn't have to chip in for the death of an unborn child. Not that I have anything against abortion. But it depends on the situation. If a woman is a hussy, and decides to have sex unprotected, or not have birth control it should not be our responsibility to help them. There are married families out there that need that money more. Condoms are already being given out for free, maybe the solution could be free birth control then again, in the end, it comes down to, that tax payers money, is being used so people can have sex without consequence.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:52 pm |