FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A new government insurance plan that's before Congress would cover abortion - and that could make the debate over health care reform even more complicated and heated than it already is. Currently, federal money can be used only for abortions in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life.
Abortion opponents say the same should hold true in any new legislation; and they call the issue of abortion a sticking point in passing health care reform.
But supporters of abortion rights say that could mean millions of women would be denied coverage for abortion if they leave their employers' insurance plans and choose the public option.
Needless to say - both sides are gearing up for a fight here. The original health care legislation introduced by Democrats didn't mention abortion. And, since it is a legal medical procedure, experts say not mentioning it would let health care plans provide unrestricted coverage.
A compromise approved by a House committee would allow the government plan to cover abortion - but without using federal funds. The author of this compromise says she was trying to find a way to accommodate both sides - and that "with all due respect, not everyone adheres to what Catholic bishops believe."
But over in the Senate, aides say this compromise is unacceptable to Republicans. Critics call it a sham and say the government would still be subsidizing abortions.
Here’s my question to you: Government insurance would cover abortion. Should it?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Absolutely. So long as abortion is a constitutional right, the Congress should not let the religious zealots hijack the health care plan to get their plan of controlling the bodies of women through the back door – when they couldn't get in through the front.
Dave from Alabama writes:
A straight-up answer would be that govt. insurance should cover what private insurance covers and vice versa. By law, federal funds cannot be used in Medicaid programs for abortion and there are some state laws that prohibit state funds to be used. In all cases, both federal and state, there is an exception when abortion is required to save the mother's life which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. As a minimum, I think the govt. insurance should cover that situation.
Jan from Illinois writes:
No. I am the government, I am the taxpayer. I don't want anything to do with abortion; this makes me part of it and I refuse to be part of it.
As a pro-choice woman, I still do not believe that government insurance should pay for an abortion. While I feel that those against abortion should not attempt to prevent others from getting one, I also don't believe that their tax dollars should be taken to fund something that they are so adamantly against.
The Republicans shouldn't complain; abortions are cheaper than births. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
No, absolutely not. Abortion is not a procedure necessary to save a life but to terminate a life. Those who elect to have this procedure done should do it with their own money.
No, it should make the poor women give birth to babies they really don't want or can't afford. Only wealthy women should have abortions. We need more children on welfare, isn't that the Republican way?