Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Abortions Fly Out the Window
There are very few Americans who have never heard of Roe v. Wade: the landmark decision that legalized abortion for women in the United States. Since that moment in history, abortion has become a tenuous privilege, restricted greatly (in part by the various prohibitions against so-called “partial birth abortions”), but not impossible.
But, as many know, accessing health care is as much about dollars in the bank as it is about legalized health care services. It doesn’t matter so much if it’s legal if no one can afford to use the service.
Well, abortions are particularly difficult since they affect young, poor women in disproportionate numbers. For abortion, in particular, lack of insured access will effectively kill the flow of this medical service to the bulk of people who need it most.
All of this is common sense.
Yet 64 Democrats voted to include an effective ban on insured abortions in the health care bill passed through the House. They did this knowing that their amendment would end abortion access for many vulnerable women.
There is nothing to say about this except that it is yet another example of the Democrats erasing campaign promises – this time to protect a woman’s right to choose. As LGBTÂ people we know how this feels. As members of a free society we should be outraged.
bama-stu,
Sometimes a post gets regulated to spam by the system. Once this is done, we have to manually unspam it. Sorry for the hassle.
James
Go figure … none of my posts show up, so I re-post. And then all three show up at once LOL!
I guess I really, really wanted to get my point across
I’ve tried posting here twice already, and am ready to try again.
This is of interest to us on several counts.
First, not all the readers of this site are gay men. Believe it or not guys, there are lesbians out there that this will affect.
Secondly, this is another example of the Democrats in Congress selling out on a principal for political expediency and to stay in power. If all the politicans in Washington (and local for that matter), were there to serve their constituents then DOMA and DADT would be history already and the United States would already have universal health care.
As for abortion, I agree with Hillary – abortion should be legal, safe and rare. Many of the anti-abortion activists today do not remember the time before Roe Vs. Wade. Women were dying because they were having illegal, back-street abortions given by doctors and quacks with no regard for safety. Look, women have been trying to abort their pregnancies for millenia and will continue to do so. As for the people who use abortion as birth control – lets stop funding abstinence only education in favor of a well rounded approach to sex ed in schools. And no opting out for the religous right!
On a side note – has anyone noticed how many anti-abortion activists (and the people in Congress voting on this) are men. What right does a man have to tell a woman what to do with her healthcare choices? For that matter, what right does anyone have to tell me what to do with my body!
It matters to gays because it’s the state intervening in matters that are too personal to justify as a state interest. If it’s acceptable to deny insurance coverage of abortion, then I wanna know why it’s completely OK for gays who become HIV-positive to demand that the state commit huge resources for treatment of a medical condition which, like pregnancy, did not appear in a vacuum. Some here may “not approve of abortion”; what the hell gives you the right to judge, yet it’s absolutely unacceptable for ANYONE–any point on the social or political spectrum–to make a directly analogous gesture when it comes to HIV infection and treatment. The only reason that HIV is treated differently than smallpox or TB is that it became a political vehicle for American gays.
I’ve never known a woman who had an abortion for basic contraceptive purposes. Imagine someone scraping the inside of your ass–not much fun. Not something you do casually. In most places you can’t do it casually–that lovely waiting-period provision. And that’s assuming you’re in a city where there’s an abortion provider.
There’d be plenty of anger on this site if Medicaid and/or Ryan White didn’t pay for HIV meds, and forced poz gays to physically go to Mexico or Canada to buy their meds. Again, you don’t contract HIV by opening a hymnal or going to Costco, just as it takes more than these activities to get pregnant. But somehow, gay men can still be self-righteous and maintain a cognitive dissonance that only gets turned against us. Today it’s the state controlling a woman’s uterus, tomorrow it’s the state using that same degree of authority to control what gays do. We don’t help ourselves when we accept the singling out of another group as a legitimate action of the state.
This article does pertain to our rights. The underlying concepts implicit to the decision behind Roe vs. Wade were similar to those in Lawrence vs. Texas, both using Griswold vs. Connecticutt and Eisenstad vs. Baird to denote the inferred right of privacy. Adding legal constraints to the ability for women to avail themselves of this privacy concern begins the slippery slope of disallowing privacy rights under certain circumstances. Essentially that is where we are with marriages. Any two people can get married as long as there is a man and a woman in the two person group. Any one can get an abortion as long as they have the money to pay for it.
Now, that being said, I disagree with abortions. However, since pregnancy has been used by men to subjugate women throughout the ages, I would never attempt to regulate it and would only hope to influence individuals’ decisions by being open to adoption and contributing to support for unmarried women.
I believe in retroactive abortions. say the kid is 10 yrs old and really is a shi….
This aticle absolutely belonds on this site for a couple of reasons.
First of all, any law that impacts a women’s health choices is of interest to women. And, sorry to tel the gay men out there, lesbians are women and are part of our minority.
Secondly, it is another example of how the Democrats will turn their collective backs on a core constituency for political expediency or belief. When thinking about this, remember the fantastic progress we’ve made on DOMA and DADT! Oh – that’s right – we haven’t made any progress.
As for the basic issue of abortion, I agree with Hillary Clinton. Abortion should be legal, safe and rare. We, as a country, need to scrap “abstinence only” education because it doesn’t work. How many anti-abortion activists remember life before Roe vs. Wade? Not many I would guess. Prior to Roe vs. Wade, women were dying after undergoing illegal, back-street abortions. And if the United States were to suddently outlaw abortion – women would still seek to terminate their pregancies (as women have done throughout history) resulting in more women dying because of botched abortions.
Facebook User: You are right in one respect, some people use abortion as a form of birth control. However, if every child had sex ed in school (and I don’t mean just abstinence only, but the whole story), then they would be aware of other options open to them and the number of unwanted and teen pregnancies would drop.
This article abosolutely belongs on this site for several reasons. First of all, in case you gay men hadn’t noticed, there are lesbians out in the big wide world that this legislation will affect.
And secondly, and perhaps more important to the LGBT community has a whole, it shows that the Democrats are not above using people’s rights as a negotiating tool to retain their power.
As for being pro-choice or anti-abortion I agree with Hillary Clinton: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Many, many people – especially those in the anti-abortion movement – do not remember life before Roe vs. Wade. How many women died because of botched, back-street abortions? Too many! Women throughout history have tried to abort their fetus’ and whether abortion is legal or illegal in this country, women will still look for ways to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Isn’t it better that a women who decides to go that route can do so legally, safely and with, if necessary, the counseling necessary both before and after!
This article does not belong on this site
I was wondering why this article was on this site as well. This really isnt a gay issue.
And I understand that some are mad that the house left abortion out of the health care bill, but are you so dense that you dont understand politics? First we all know they’re all liars and second they’ve been debating health care for months and getting nowhere. So eventually both sides will have to find a compromise. For Democrats to get a public option and other things they were wanting they had to give up abortion. It’s not that they arent trying to stand strong and taking back promises but if they dont give the right something then health care will never go through. You people act like you’ve never had to compromise something in order to get the job done. You’re like little spoiled brats that want it all and cry if you dont get exactly what you want, with no alterations.
Sorry but I have to disagree with this one.
What the hell does this article have to do with gay rights?
Not every gay person on the planet is pro choice.
I have no problem with abortion if the mothers life is in danger or in cases of incest or rape.
But for those irresponsible straights that use abortion as a method of birth control because they’re too stupid/lazy to throw on a condom???
That’s on them, why should I have to pay for that?
Why would anyone on this site even care?
Ummmmmmm…..your gay, you’ll never get pregnant anyway unless you deliberately set out to do so.
Another question.
Why is it a woman can abort and it’s simply a fetus.
But when someone commits murder and the victim is pregnant it’s suddenly a double homicide.
Where do we draw the line?
Honestly I just dont care if it’s even legal or not. This subject doesn’t affect me or any other gay person.
Post these articles on NOW’s website.
I think both sides would like to see a reduction in abortions.
Here’s todays helpful hint.
USE BIRTH CONTROL YOU MORONS!!!
Don’t ask me to pay for your stupidity.
The democratic party always will put civil rights in the realm of political negotiations. It shows that they consider civil rights only a political issue, or for leverage with a group of constituents. But the best use of civil rights is to stand firm on them, and to prioritize them very very highly. The democrats are missing a crucial opportunity to actually stand for something, and attract people to the base. The party does not understand how central civil rights are to the very core of who we are as a people. Equality? Freedom of choice? Non-criminalization where objections are only religious? Respect for the rule of law of our Constitution? Rahm, Axlerod and Plouffe only see civil rights as a minority issue and a political liability. They don’t realize that to appease christian conservatives is to erode constitutional principles. But if used strongly, always stading up for civil rights first could be an enormous political act demonstrating courage and principle. Always putting civil rights on the bottom of the list is the biggest mistake the party is making, and spells their defeat by eroding the base. Obama could have showed balls, but instead is looking like Clinton, where everything goes on sale at the democrat mart.
Absolutley. Being able to control one’s reproduction, whether or not one wishes to be pregnant, safely, is important to women’s freedom.
I was watching Chris Matthew’s Hardball on MSNBC last night, with outrage. He referred to it as an option that people should pay for themselves. It’s hardly like choosing a nose or breast job. This is an option, ok, but one that fundamentally affects a woman’s life and her rights and freedoms. All women must have access.
You folks really need a serious third party in your political system.
What are you talking about, Emma? The overwhelming majority of Democrats voting AGAINST this amendment, while just 64 voted for it. And almost all of those minority Democrats are officially anti-abortion in their public stances and election materials. So nobody went against their campaign promises. Pro-choice politicians opposed the amendment and anti-abortion politicians supported it.
You really should dig a little deeper and try to understand the political process before making wild accusations like saying this was “yet another example of the Democrats erasing campaign promises.”