We can support policies that actually tend to reduce abortions in the short run. Or we can adopt a political strategy of taking over every branch of government with like-minded politicians so we can (try to) use the long arm of the law to force people to not have abortions – someday in a golden future.
This is from an article in the “New England Journal of Medicine”
The recent experience in Massachusetts suggests that universal health care coverage has been associated with a decrease in the number of abortions performed,
And this actual “decrease in the number of abortions performed” comes
despite public and private funding of abortion that is substantially more liberal than the provisions of the federal legislation currently under consideration by Congress.
Just what one would expect. Better healthcare options = fewer abortions. So if we want fewer abortions, let us please begin to provide those better options for our fellow citizens!
[Thanks to dkos for the clue-in.]
As of February 2010, more than 439,000 additional people were covered by health insurance, according to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, yet the most recent data indicate that the number of abortions in Massachusetts simultaneously reached its lowest level since at least the 1970s.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” I hope this sounds familiar, Ms. Bauer, and yet it always bears repeating. Allow me to address some of the issues that you bring forward, in order to demonstrate that the Department of Health and Human Services is prohibiting the free exercise of religion by forcing religious organizations to provide coverage for birth control.
You say that you are against abortion but not birth control, and yet you seem to be for the Dept. of HHS despite their inclusion of morning after drugs as a form of preventative birth control. How do you justify this? The Old Testament? While I cannot remember any Scriptural references to women rendering themselves barren (Perhaps someone else does?), my understanding is this: if their practice prevented conception, it was not murder, as life begins at conception. If it terminated pregnancy after conception by destroying the fetus, it was murder. Therefore, morning after pills, destroying fetal humans at their earliest stages, are a form of murder. It does not matter if the victim is hours, years, or decades old; a life is a life. If you agree with this, as anyone truly opposed to abortion must, than you should at least object to the Government’s forcing a Christian organization to cover morning after pills.
A word in respect to your fallacious “parable” about the restaurant: You have inadvertently summarized the problem with socialized health care- everyone has to go to the same lousy restaurant and pick from the same three lousy dishes. Allow me to give you a better analogy. Say you are a Buddhist, and you are convicted that eating meat is a sin because it necessitates killing an animal. You go to the Beltway Buffet, look at the menu, and find pork, beef, and chicken. You summon the waiter, who says that at much personal inconvenience he could do a chicken salad without the chicken. BUT, you have to pay the full price for it, so you are still paying for the chicken to be killed, even though you do not have to eat it. What do you do? The best answer- go to another restaurant. But here is the rub- the Beltway Buffet is the only restaurant, you are being forced to eat there, and eventually they will want to make you eat the chicken too. This is why so many Christians object to the metastasis of czars and laws left open-ended for bureaucratic regulation. We don’t want a new menu without the word Pork on it- and only a socialist would call that religious freedom- we want the liberty to walk away from the table completely if the cook will not respect our convictions. Most of all we want the liberty to come to the Lord’s Table with a clean conscience in the knowledge that our money was not taken and spent on drugs that flush tiny human beings out of the womb and down the toilet.
I feel very disapointed at the Church Leaders that are using the subject of HHS for politics. I don’t see how that is an attempt against religion freedom. I am as well againts abortion but not birth control. The woman of the old testament actually used to have a drink that will render them “barren” ..It was called an action of vanity but never murder. But going back to the opposition of the Bishops….Why is that the Pope never opposed to the same ruling in Europe? …The issue for our goverment is that is cheaper for the goverment to offer insurance for those in need that have contraception included as part of the policy. If the person is going to sin he will do it regardless of what the policy includes or does not includes. If the goverment start making exeptions for every religion the policies will become less cost effective. ( Expensive) . I see it this way …less take for sample a Jehova Withness….They will not reject having an insurance policy because cover blood transfusion …..they just say NO when is time to have one. The sin comes with the person that acts on it. ….the basic idea to help those in need with health care coverage should be greater than the issue of contraception …..Now our not so GREAT BISHOPS ……are placing that on the line . If the republican party wins because of the issue ..there will be millions of peoples left” in the dry” without health insurance ….
The goverment is not forcing them to use contraception …is just part of the insurance coverage …How many people have insurance coverage that include things that they will never use ? How is that they never opposed for the goverment of Bush paying for VIAGARA? We need insurance coverage for the needy ….That is the right thing to do ….will demostrate with a “parable ” A jew, a catholic , A protestant went to eat to a restaurant .. the Restaurant offered two Menus…In one they offered an appetizer, main course and dessert for $20 . Within the items offered for $20 the main course were chiken, beef and pork . They Jew can eat chicken or beef he doesnt have to eat the Pork. But what the Bishops are doing will be like the Jew saying…You need to give me a new menu, one that doesn’t have the word PORK on it …because offend my religious freedom ……Get the point ? The sin is with the person …alla around us there are many temptations …is up to us whether we sin or not
Please send the citation to the original article!
It’s behind the words “an article in” in the first line of the 2d paragraph.