Is Abortion A Right? Should Government Pay For It?

Yes, I know the law-thanks!

I believe that it is murder-and that if you choose to have the procedure done-you should pay for it yourself. Take some kind of responsibility for your actions.

If women want 100% say over their own body then they should have responsibility for what they do with it as well. Just imagine walking up to a perfect stranger and saying "I had sex and got pregnant. I don't want to have the baby and can't pay for an abortion so you have to give me the money." Yeah, right.

It really irks me when I see people arguing that it is a woman's business and no one else's but then all of those "exclusive rights" seem to dissappear when it comes to financial responsibility.

On the other hand, I dearly hope there are good provisions written in to provide BC at reasonable costs. Imho that would be the next responsible and humane step to take.

"I had sex and got pregnant. I don't want to have the baby and can't pay for an abortion so you have to give me the money."

How about, "I couldn't stop eating like a freakin pig, I weigh 100 pounds too much and I need a by-pass surgery and can't pay for it so you have to give me the money".

Abortion is cheaper than by-pass, can I pick which one I will pay for?

Abortion is cheaper than by-pass, can I pick which one I will pay for?

exactly that is why the Health care bill should just GO AWAY which one of us is going to decide who lives or dies.

People Lets try to take some personal responsibility!!!!! its your life deal with it

exactly that is why the Health care bill should just GO AWAY

Ah ha! It's not just abortion you are against, it is everything. Off topic.

which one of us is going to decide who lives or dies.

None of us should. It should not be up for a vote. Let's fund abortion and the fat people and everyone else.

People Lets try to take some personal responsibility!!!!! its your life deal with it

Health care should be available to all people equally and should have public option to ensure that it is but that is still off topic.

Health care should be available to all people equally and should have public option to ensure that it is

IT IS ALREADY!!! jeez

double post

IT IS ALREADY!!! jeez

Sorry, I forgot the word affordable.

its free if you choose not to pay the bill!!! how much cheaper do you want it to be?!?!?

its free if you choose not to pay the bill!!! how much cheaper do you want it to be?!?!?

Abortions must be paid for upfront, no money=no abortion.

Please do some research, please.

not, you assume too much, you live in one place and assume its the same everywhere. not true at all. can be done in hospitals and clinics at no cost to her!! thanks for the try

you live in one place and assume its the same everywhere.

True.

can be done in hospitals and clinics at no cost to her!!

Cool, let's make that a possible everywhere, all the time, to every woman!

Abortions must be paid for upfront, no money=no abortion.

And it should STAY this way. Considering all the abortions being performed in this country, I've yet to hear of an epidemic of women unable to scrape up the dough (pun intended) to kill their embryo/fetus.

Where there's a will there's a way, and apparently everyone's found a way.

and apparently everyone's found a way.

Wrong. Many women have unwanted children because of lack of alternatives.

Abortion is currently covered by most private insurance policies. The problem is that all insurance companies will want to participate in the exchange, but will not be allowed to unless they drop coverage for abortions.

The Hyde Amendment already prevents federal funds from being used for abortion, so nothing else needs to be included in this bill. The Stupak amendment is an attempt to make an end run around Roe v Wade by preventing private funds from being used to cover abortion as they are now in most insurance policies.

Gee, Zom Zom, for a person that is adamantly for the separation of church and state, you advocate that the government pay for abortions yet for people that do not believe in it, you use their tax money to fund it!

you advocate that the government pay for abortions yet for people that do not believe in it, you use their tax money to fund it!

Yes, I do. Church and state are a wholly separate issue to what our tax dollars should be involved in. The separation of church and state is mandated in the constitution. As is the right to collect tax dollars. As is the right to decide how they're distributed.

I do have the right, as a voting citizen, to influence what taxes are collected, and how they are distributed. I also have the right to demand that constitutional rights be upheld.

The idea that your tax dollars might pay for things that your religion disapproves of does not violate your freedom of religion.

If you want to try to argue that it does, that's fine with me, though. You can keep the ten cents a year you'd pay in taxes for abortions, and I could keep the thousands and thousands that I pay that go to the military, and we could call it even.

That is just plain stupid..even for you! SInce you have alot of money, maybe you should open up a fund for abortions or maybe contribute to that cause! (I am sure you already do) Keep my taxdollars out of it!

That is just plain stupid..even for you! SInce you have alot of money, maybe you should open up a fund for abortions or maybe contribute to that cause! (I am sure you already do) Keep my taxdollars out of it!

I don't have a lot of money. It's just that, when you take appropriations into account, approximately 50% of all tax dollars go into military funding.

And why is it stupid, exactly? That's not really an argument.

it is stupid because it takes my tax dollars and uses it to reward bad behavior. don't want to be pregnant, take precautions! it isn't a disease that you have no control over, it is a situation that you can avoid if you are responsible.

I agree with Zom Zom. There are a lot of things that the government pays for that I don't agree with or support. I have to pay for these things, why shouldn't you have to pay for things that you don't support or agree with. What makes this issue so special. If you say murder then you should also want military spending cut as the military murders hundreds of people every month. Murder is murder, one is killing the unborn the other is killing the "enemy". Both are wrong.

That is the problem with the "right to life" groups. They are really "right to be born" groups because they really don't care about the child after it is born.

it is stupid because it takes my tax dollars and uses it to reward bad behavior.

Fair enough. You don't have to pay for abortion, I don't have to pay for military. In my book, signing up to kill people is far worse behavior than having sex.

Sound good?

i guess i have a different take on that. let's see... abortion = medical procedure for irresponsible behavior. military spending = freedom for americans.

i guess i have a different take on that. let's see... abortion = medical procedure for irresponsible behavior. military spending = freedom for americans.

Absolutely. We each have a different take.

So, maybe it'd be a good idea if everyone paid taxes, even for things they disagree on. Sound fair?

I don't have to pay for military

i usually like to see what you post, but alas this is just sad. if you don't like the freedom the man and women provide you by protecting you, Switzerland i hear is a great place too live...

bye bye now

i usually like to see what you post, but alas this is just sad.

I'm using it as an example, to make a point. Some sects of Islam, for instance, have religious objections to supporting a military, same as Catholicism has objections to abortion.

one is lack of personal responsibility and the other a country responsiblity. so no. i don't want to be responsible for peoples individual errors.

one is lack of personal responsibility and the other a country responsiblity. so no. i don't want to be responsible for peoples individual errors.

And you think that's different? What about when someone gets hit by a bus? Can I not have to let my tax dollars go to that, if I disapprove of people who walk in front of buses?

Your analogy is flawed, in the Constitution, it provides for the defense of our country therefore, everyone pays taxes toward it no matter if it is seemingly wrong or not! Abortion, in most cases is a matter of convenience and not a constitutional issue with regards to the public funding it!

A significant number of women seeking abortions are married and were using birth control. How exactly were they behaving irresponsibly? Do only married women using birth control that fails qualify for abotions? What about the ones who discover they need to terminate their pregnancies in order to begin immediate treatment for cancer? Wouldn't it be irresponsible of them to delay their cancer treatment if they already had children depending on them? Who gave you or the government the right to sit in judgement of the most intimate and personal details of women's lives anyway?

I guess Amazedtexan is hoping we'll will our independance from Iraq soon now, so we'll finally be free...

i agree that there are special circumstances where an abortion is necessary. if you read my post i am oppossed to funding the abortions that are just someones lazy form of birth control. but go ahead and twist my words if it makes you feel better.

Charger - the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the common defense - we invaded another country - invaded - no defense there - it was all offense & for profit alone - the Constitution does not grant for the common OFFENSE

but go ahead and twist my words if it makes you feel better.

So, then, you're not claiming that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for someone else's mistakes? Because the was the only meaning I "twisted" out of your words, was that claim.

it provides for the defense of our country therefore, everyone pays taxes toward it no matter if it is seemingly wrong or not!

And, regarding abortion, it provides for the well-being of the nation therefore, everyone pays towards it no matter if it is seemingly wrong or not!

Pick a side, already. Should people not have to pay taxes for things they don't like, or should they? Or is it just that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for things you don't like, but everybody else should?

we invaded another country - invaded - no defense there

well looking back sure anyone should be able to get it right, but we are there now and they are not back to a stable government.

abortion provides for the well-being of our nation? wow. i guess i am just in over my head in this conversation because i am not getting that at all.

amazedtexan - you are amazing <sarcasm> - down below you just out right stated you don;t care if women get abortions as long as you don't have to pay for them - now here you are arguing against abortions in total - so which is it? -

abortion provides for the well-being of our nation? wow. i guess i am just in over my head in this conversation because i am not getting that at all.

Abortions are had by women who cannot afford or do not want children. If they cannot afford the child, they increase poverty. If the do not want the children, they compound the problems of our adoption/foster care system.

If they do have an abortion, it costs us nothing.

nica,

i can't stop anyone from having an abortion, but i don't want to fund it. and i did say there were special circumstances. if you want to be irresponsible when you have sex then pay for your own abortion, but when you pat people on the head and reward them for this behavior it is a problem for me. so when this person has unprotected sex and wants the taxpayer to pay for her abortion will we also be paying for her treatment for aids or other stds that could occur from unprotected sex?

zom,

the care of the child cost us nothing, but the cost of other diseases that can be shared by having unprotected sex for the rest of her life might be kind of pricey.

bottom line is i am just in favor of personal responsibililty. i will not apologize for that.

the care of the child cost us nothing, but the cost of other diseases that can be shared by having unprotected sex for the rest of her life might be kind of pricey.

Do you actually believe that your tax dollars do not go to both impoverished children and those that are put up for adoption? They very much do.

bottom line is i am just in favor of personal responsibililty. i will not apologize for that.

So am I. Who isn't? That has jack-squat to do with paying for abortions with taxes. Because, at that point, the question "what do we do about it now?"

So we're back to Amazedtexan allowing abortions for married women who used contraception that failed - or in short, women's who's personal lives he approves of only.

If they do have an abortion, it costs us nothing.

the care of the cost of the child is nothing when they have an abortion. i was just repeating what you said, i just wasn't very clear.

red,

i am not a he, so you might want to change that to a she. i am not talking about married women who used faulty contraception, i am talking about women who don't use contraception and depend on abortions as their birth control.

Taken from #4.16

What about the ones who discover they need to terminate their pregnancies in order to begin immediate treatment for cancer?

This is a flawed example, even the Catholic church would be ok with the termination in this case (they wouldn't be 'happy' about it, but they would be ok) since the intent of the abortion is to help treat the cancer not kill the child (ok fetus). That's what I was told by the director of my archdiocese's department of natural family planning.

Ring,

that is why I have a HUGE problem with the catholic church, you are either for it or against it.

It's the intent, in the case quoted the abortion is an unwanted side affect of the cancer treatment.

Sort of like having a blowout while driving a car that results in running someone over, killing them. Opposed to purposely swerving the car at people walk on the sidewalk.

Amazedtexan, you may not be talking about married women who used contraception that failed, but most of the women seeking abortions are one or the other or both. And you are still insisting on being the one to judge the most intimate and personal details of other people's lives.

RingoWolf, I love their logic. God always implants souls in every egg cell whenever it's fertilized, unless our intentions later in aborting it are indirect, such as in treating ectopic pregnancies. Then God must not have given that zygote a soul after all. How convenient for them.

i am not judging anyone. i am stating how i feel about it. if you want women to be able to get and abortion, no matter what the reason, that is your take and i am fine with that. i was just stating how i thought it should be.

Red, Can you show your sources on your inferences that most abortions are either married women and/or cases of failed BC? All of the info I've seen indicate the exact opposite. A few examples for you. Funny enough, in the first one a reason for inconsistent use was changing partners.

http://contraception.about.com/od/unplannedpregnancy/a/abortion_stats.htm

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

This one says women who have never married account for 2/3 of all abortions. Also check out the section about contraceptive use.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

I said most were either married or using contraception. You already have the sources. Add them up yourself. About a third are married, and over a third were using contraception. That totals over two-thirds that were either one or the the other.

So married women don't use contraception? Is there a posiable overlap?

Okay, there's 1/3 of abortions who have been married. Then of the 54% who had used contraception, only 13% of pill users were using it consistently and only 14% of condom users were using it consistently. "I screwed up" doesn't really count as BC failure.

Your implication that most abortions are from married women and/or are a result of BC failure is not exactly accurate. Most of the women have never been married and most of the abortions are not due to BC failure.

Let's do break it down by numbers. Let's start with 300. Of that 100 had been married. 162 overall had used BC. Going with half&half on the pill and condom users, and by your logic of applying one or both criteria, there would be aprox. 121.84 that fit the criteria.

Oh, and as far as those using contraception, I only counted those who were consistently using it at the time of conception. Imho user irresponsibility doesn't count as "BC failure". The percentage you were using for those "using BC" is a bit deceptive if you don't go beyond that point and look at what they mean by it and the real percentages.

We could argue about how many people said, "I must have missed a pill, because I'm pregnant now," but that would be pointless. The popular misconception that most abortions are sought by irresponsible people with multiple partners relying on abortion as their only means of birth control is a false one. 27% of those seeking abortions report themselves as being Catholic. (Who knows how many more Catholics seeking abortions don't volunteer their religion?) They were probably taught by their Church pushing Natural Family Planning that consistant use of condoms is not necessary.

If BC is around 97% effective (when used correctly), then how many unwanted pregnancies could possibly be a result of its failure?

I'm guessing it's a fairly small number (like maybe 3%?)

With the effectiveness rate, and the amount of abortions plus the info from the statistics, yeah irresponsibility is a big part of it. I know there are a million and one smoke screens and excuses but it does all boil down to our decisons. The exceptions to the rule make up a very small percentage.

When we demand exclusive ownership over our own bodies but then make up excuses when it comes to the results of our decisions in regards to our bodies we lose all credibility.

I realize some say that those getting abortions are promiscuous and agree completely that is a ridiculous and wrong assumption. There is however plenty of info supporting the idea of irresponsibility.

i will agree to let the government pay for abortions as long as the woman has her tubes permanently tied at the time. no second mistakes.

That's a failure rate of 3% per year. Now how many unwanted pregnancies per year would that be for 50 million responsible women? Answer: about 1.5 million per year.

How about castrating the men responsible for those pregnancies, Amazedtexan?

amazed.....that's ridiculous....with 11-12 year olds becoming "women" they could be pregnant before they have their first period.....and you want to sterilize them.....

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I was only pointing out the absurdity of Amazedtexans last proposal.

i do think it would be a great deterent, but i couldn't really support that. but i guess if we just nuetered everyone. lol. i could support the plan of anyone getting an abortion has to get a bc implant in their arm though.

I think most people getting abortions would welcome a free birth control implant included at not extra charge.

Freedom is about choices... the more choices that are removed from the options list, the less freedom you have. Abortion should never be considered a right, but it should always remain an option for a woman to have the right to be in control of her own body

The choice to abort is still there. It's still legal, still available, still an option. The only thing that's not there is requiring taxpayers to pay for it.

Actually it has to do more with the women's body than then men's sperm. The conditions of the women have to be just right or no pregnancy. You could dump a boat load of sperm into a woman and if the conditions are not right no pregnancy.

So sorry Rainbow your logic is incorrect.

Actually it has to do more with the women's body than then men's sperm. You could dump a boat load of sperm into a woman and if the conditions are not right no pregnancy.

And conversely, if all the conditions in the woman's body are just right, but no sperm? No pregnancy.

The problem is that most people want to keep the insurance policies that have, but the companies offering them will want to participate in the exchange, which will require them to drop the coverage for abortions that they currently offer.

*No matter which side a person stands on this issue, I think it can be agreed that abortion is mentally grueling. No one goes in for the procedure with a light heart. (unless I am completely naive?)

I don't think that you're completely naive, but maybe a little bit. Abortion can cause serious health and mental health problems, in rare instance. By and large, however? It's an outpatient procedure and the biggest part of the mental health consequences result not from the abortion, but from the people who make others feel bad about having had abortions.

I have never been in the situation where I had to make a choice like that, I don't envy anyone that has. I just do not think that others could make you feel bad if you were all gun ho about the proceedure. I think a woman may feel like it is something that needs to be done, but certainly it can not be "hey, let me get knocked up because I just can't wait to spend the day at a clinic!"

I think a woman may feel like it is something that needs to be done, but certainly it can not be "hey, let me get knocked up because I just can't wait to spend the day at a clinic!"

Of course not.

I just do not think that others could make you feel bad if you were all gun ho about the proceedure.

You don't think that if half of society spent its time accusing you of being a murder and condemning you to hell, you'd start to have a little in the way of self-esteem issues?

Anyone would, and it wouldn't matter whether it was over something you felt bad about or not. Image you're on a date and you order a slice of pie, a la mode, and your date gets up and screams "YOU @!$%#ING MONSTER!" in your face and walks out. Now imagine that half of all people you know react that way when they find out that you eat ice cream. Now imagine how you feel about yourself.

I think the argument that you become a person at conception is bogus because there is no conscientiousness, no self awareness and the basic philosophy of "I am therefore I exist", does not apply yet.

A better question would be when does the soul enter a body and when does it leave, but this is a religious opinion and has nothing to do with the rights of the living.

The other reason I don't go for the life begins at conception argument, is who's rights should have priority, the mother already in the world with all those responsibilities and others that depend on her? Or an embryo that up until 90 days of age most people couldn't tell the difference between shark, dog, hippo or human!

There is a part of the natural instinct in a women to be nurturing. Whether or not they are met with protest or keep the whole situation a secret, there would be a certain amount of regret. It may simply be regrettable because they were irresponsible and did not prevent themselves from getting pregnant.

I can't agree that having the unpopular opinion on something causes a self esteem issue. I see your point and all, I just do not agree.

And as for the state funding abortion, I think there is already enough aid provided for poor and in the case of criminality. I think that women that make this choice should also pay for this choice, elective surgery is never covered.

I can't agree that having the unpopular opinion on something causes a self esteem issue. I see your point and all, I just do not agree.

Then I recommend an introduction to psychology. Anyone 101 book can explain it to you. Having society constantly put you down for something about yourself will either A) negatively impact your self-esteem or B) turn you into a sociopath.

Ok, Zom2 …thank you for directing me to psychology 101~ I am sure that would prove useful. lol

In saying that a woman only feels bad because she is made to feel bad simply implies that her choice was somewhat regrettable to begin with.

Zom Zom know everything huh?

Zom Zom know everything huh?

No... I've never understood dog lovers at all.

Zom Zom wrote: No... I've never understood dog lovers at all.

That's a shame Zom. If you had a dog you'd understand concepts such as loyalty, unconditional love, companionship, sympathy. All of those things come naturally to a dog because their sole aim is to please their companions--and they don't ask for much at all: a little affection, a walk or two, a treat now and again, a little food, a warm spot to sleep at... Really, life's needs are simple when one has a dog.

Really, life's needs are simple when one has a dog.

I prefer cats: "The hand that feeds me? NOM NOM NOM!"

Abortion may be chosen to avoid the risks of pregnancy, just as tonsilectomies are chosen to avoid the dangers of recuring infections of the tonsils. Both are elective surgeries, since both are choices to avoid more dangerous conditions. Both should be covered.

That would call for a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation , REDaly, and then pregnancy would be avoided. If a woman can't safely carry a baby/ fetus then a termination would be medically necessary, just as a termination for a person that was violated would be necessary. Those type of situations are already taken into account.

Hysterectomies and tubal ligations are major surgery, not minor procedures, and they're permanent.

No pregnancy is ever safe, but women have a right to choose to carry them, when they want to. They do not have to take the risks of them when they don't want to.

tubal ligations are major surgery, not minor procedures, and they're permanent

Yeah no it is not on both counts, It is a minor procedure with 3 1/4 inch incision, and no NOT permanent can be done out patient...

You've performed a lot of them, I take it.

*laughing*

my daughter just had her tubes tied. it was out patient surgery and pretty minor.

well since you have NO idea about what you are talking about, wife had one, and we reversed it to have the 2 children we have so yeah I have a pretty good IDEA what the hell I am talking about.

Zom Zom wrote: I prefer cats: "The hand that feeds me? NOM NOM NOM!"

You know, I've met some perfectly nice puddy tats... It's just that I can't get over how my best friend's cat, Endora, bit me when I was younger. Ever since, I've been gun-shy around cats...

But I don't think cats are bad. They're just extraordinarily self-absorbed little creatures... :D

Even a very good Rx plan doesn't cover birth control; it is an out of pocket expense. Why not throw money at that? Make birth control readily available to women and begin to diminish the need for abortions.

My insurance has always covered prescription B/C. In cases where the provider doesn't cover it, places like Wal Mart and Walgreens have generic B/C for around $5 a month.

only 27 states carry a mandate for insurance companies to cover BC - and if the woman has no where to get the prescription how does she get it filled?

she could move to one of those 27 states or abstain.

or go to wal-mart, but Not over it will say they don't have one in that state. if that was true I want to move there...

I know $5 buck is toooo much to pay for the free free free generation but hey 5 buck now or 500 later... can you do the math?

amazedtexan - you are all for people moving to accomplish what they want - maybe you should move to a different country if you don't like this one - see how stupid that argument is? - move & have no job - and why should she abstain - just to please you & all you moralistic people that stick your nose in other people's business - IF people didn't stick their nose into a private medical procedure this would not be an issue - it could be done with no hoopla but because people think they know what is best for everyone else they think they can dictate - i think you should have to supply your employees with health insurance - i don't care if you can afford it - IF you want to own a business here in the good ole USA then you should be forced too - because people without insurance have bee dying -

IF people didn't stick their nose into a private medical procedure this would not be an issue - it could be done with no hoopla but because people think they know what is best for everyone else they think they can dictate

If it's a private medical procedure, pay for it yourself. There...issue resolved.

i think you should have to supply your employees with health insurance - i don't care if you can afford it -

Are you a business owner? I'm assuming not. Slightly illogical to tell a company they have to provide insurance and then say "I don't care if you can afford it". What if I told you you should have to pay for my car insurance, even if you can't afford it?

IF you want to own a business here in the good ole USA then you should be forced too

Owning a business here in the "good ole USA" means the government doesn't get to tell you which benefits you are forced to offer employees,

- because people without insurance have bee dying -

And people with insurance have been dying (even after they paid their premiums). People in Great Britain with free healthcare are dying (their cancer mortality rates are higher than ours because of the lack of prompt treatment).

so i will be punished for her not having birth control because her state doesn't mandate birth control? why not change the state law? i am already paying for state funded birth control in my state and would prefer not to pick up the cost of the entire country. if she can't find birth control, then she should at least abstain till she finds it. i am not a big proponent for abstinance. as far as sticking my nose in her medical procedure, i have no wish to have my nose or my tax dollars anywhere near it. if she paid for i would not even know about it. all my employees have health care. they all make enough money to pay for individual plans (that our company found and negogiated for them). i hate to burst your bubble, but even people that have insurance are going to die. btw, in texas you cannot be denied medical care at any hospital.

just like it no one's business if a woman decides NOT to carry a pregnancy to term - that was the point of scenario - we are all paying for those that are not insured already - if you don't get that you are living in fantasy world and those of us paying insurance premiums are already funding abortion - my policy & i am sure many others do cover abortion

Medicaid will only pay for abortions under the safety of the mother or rape/insest options. So it would not be any different than it is right now.

The problem is that most private policies cover pregnancy termination now, but they'll have to drop that coverage to participate in the exchange. This amendment will stop private funds from covering pregnancy terminations. The Hyde Amendment already prohibited using public funds to cover them. This one goes much further.

Then would you be in favor of stopping all "personhood initiatives" that would make contraceptives illegal? Would you be in favor of requiring health insurance companies to cover birthcontrol pills?

Then would you be in favor of stopping all "personhood initiatives" that would make contraceptives illegal?

I'm not aware of any such initiatives; are there any that have even a chance of passing anywhere? And I'm not in favor of outlawing contraception.

Would you be in favor of requiring health insurance companies to cover birthcontrol pills?

I would leave it up to the insurance companies, as long as they are private companies. You can get a prescription for a generic B/C pill available at Wal Mart or Walgreens for $5/mo., so it's not really that big of an issue anyway.

You are not being realistic. There is the choice of adoption, but many women after carrying the child to term keep it. They then abuse it and starve it to death. Unless these women are made to give up their babies, you can't stop this cycle. I don't think the government should pay for abortions but when I hear people say naive things like there is no reason for abortion, it turns my stomach. I personally have seen enough stories about abused, broken, starved babies to last me a life time.

All medical procedures are either elective or done on an emergency basis. The non-emergency procedures are scheduled as a matter of convenience to avoid conditions developing into emergencies. Pregnancy is never safe. It always carries risks of becoming an emergency situation. Why shouldn't people have the right to terminate them before they do as a preventative measure when they don't want to take any of the risks they pose?

Carolyn also forgets that a significant number of women seeking abortions were using other birth control measures that failed. Many of them are also married. What poor choices are married women making when their contraception fails?

Carolyn also forgets that a significant number of women seeking abortions were using other birth control measures that failed. Many of them are also married. What poor choices are married women making when their contraception fails?

While I know that sometimes contraception fails, taking into consideration the average failure rate of around 3%, it is not the reason for the vast majority of abortions.

That's 3% per year, fedupwithliberals. So what's 3% of about 50 million? Answer: about 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies every year.

absolutely correct! i don't care if people have abortions, just don't ask me to pay for it.

and what a funding a man's choice to use male enhancement? why should that be covered - i don't want to foot the bill for some old guy's hard on

nica - Another good point.

So people in need of medical treatments to prevent conditions from getting worse shouldn't be allowed the choice of getting them until their conditions actually become life-threatening?

and what a funding a man's choice to use male enhancement? why should that be covered - i don't want to foot the bill for some old guy's hard on

You aren't, they pay for their own coverage, not you or yours. That is what privet health insurance is, privet...

Right - IAA - and so are abortions - so you are not paying for them either OR are you suggesting that only women needing abortions will use the public option not men that want hard ons - they will all have their own insurance? - kind of sexist if you ask me

the question on the original seed was whether govt. should pay for it.

public option

I don't want it.

and if GOD forbid we get stuck with it, don't you hopey and wish they wont have that be covered? on both sides? I would. But I am hoping the Public option is never and option

Anyone know if this would apply......my health insurance is pre-tax through my employer.....if my health insurance coverage included abortion, will this be discontinued now? If the health insurance company won't be able to get any of the "new" enrollees, won't all insurance companies drop abortion coverage in order to capture these "new" enrollees?

So basically, what they are doing is charging women of reproductive age a fee to be sexually active.....think about it for a minute. You're going to charge approx 50M women more money because they're female.

amazedtexan - but you flip flop on your arguments so how can anyone take you seriously?

IAA - i may not want Viagra covered but it most likely will be since it is already covered by most insurance companies while BC pills are not - can you figure out why that is? - and better yet do you really think it would not be covered by the public option? - i think it will be while women's health issues will not be such as abortion and BC pills - mainly as a control mechanism

That's odd, birth control is covered by my insurance.

only 27 states mandate that insurance cover BC - so in all the other states it is up to the insurance companies - mine does not but will pay for my husband's Viagra if he needed it (he does not)

finally, someone who gets it. thanks.

As if birth control pills didn't have well-established failure rates or were contraindicated for some people who then have to rely on other birth control techniques with even higher failure rates.

As if birth control pills didn't have well-established failure rates or were contraindicated for some people who then have to rely on other birth control techniques with even higher failure rates.

What is the failure rate? How does it compare to the number of unwanted pregnancies where B/C failure wasn't the cause?

One more time, Fedupwithliberals. The best contraception has a failure rate of about 3% per year. That's 3 out of a hundred people using it getting pregnant every year, or about 1 1/2 million out of 50 million sexually active women per year.

Not everyone can take birth control pills. Some people have to rely on condoms, which have a failure rate of closer to 14%. I'll let you do the math on that.

there are a lot of birth control methods that have a great success rate. a shot of deproprevarin last for six months. their are also implants that are inserted in the upper arm that are very effective.

The total number of legit failures is impressive but still not nearly as large as the total number of abortions. With a large majority of abortions BC was either not being used at all or was being used "inconsistently" at the time of conception.

I had the numbers yesterday. I think it was 54% of abortions where the woman said they had used BC at some point. Of that percentage, only 13% of pill users were using it consistently and only 14% of condom users were using them consistently. When you compare that to the total number of abortions where BC was not used consistently or at all, that's a whole lot of women choosing to have sex and not taking the proper steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

Your math is a little off, Justme. There's over 4 times as many unplanned pregnancies each year resulting from failure of birth control pills and condoms as there are abortions. Most people choose to carry those pregnancies to term anyway. Only a minority choose to terminate those pregnancies because of various private circumstances, which are not subject to public review.

Currert estimates range from .8 to 1.2 million abortions per year in the U.S. Let's use 1 million as an average. My estimate of 50 million sexually active women was probably very low. While birth control pills have a failure rate of about 3%, condoms are more widely used, and they have a failure rate of about 14% per year. If we assume 25 million in each group, and the condom group is actually much larger, we get a total of over 4 million unplanned pregnancies per year from failure of birth control properly used. As you pointed out, not everyone uses birth control properly, so 4 million is only a theoretical minimum. The actual number has to be well over twice that. And my estimates assume only 1 out of 6 members of the population are sexually active women of childbearing age, which again is a low estimate. The surprising thing is how few abortions there are, when there's only about 1 million abortions per year compared to roughly 10 million unplanned pregnancies (assuming another 6 million among peole not using birth control consistantly).

Red, You are talking about total number of unplanned pregnancies due to BC failure. I was talking about the number of abortions from pregnancies that were due to BC failure.

Do you have any references for your statistics? Statistics are such a royal pain to find. So far I've found one article that does indicate many unplanned pregnancies are due to incorrect use or forgot to use it all.

Funny you mention that it's surprising there aren't more abortions. The same articles says they found that many women who were "lax" about their bc were ambivilant about preventing a pregnancy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1233107520080513

Another site said there are aprox. 6 million pregnancies per year in the US. Where are you getting 10 million?

If you're going with 1 million abortions, the site below states 16.9% of abortions are due to contraception failed with proper use. That comes out to 169,000. Out of 1 million, that is a lot of preventable abortions.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Interestingly enough, the one article is really pushing more widespread availability of good BC options which is something I believe we all need to be focusing on. The abortion issue would be much much smaller if we did.

Interestingly enough, the one article is really pushing more widespread availability of good BC options which is something I believe we all need to be focusing on. The abortion issue would be much much smaller if we did.

Amen to that! Volunteer at your local Planned Parenthood.

At the moment I'd prefer to help finance giving out BC since my plate is more than full. I already do Red Cross and with being a mom working full-time I barely have time to tie my shoes! With the new health care plan I wouldn't mind at all paying a little extra if it means another woman with no resources can get BC. Those of us in a position to help should imo.

get over the adoption scenario - we all know that is untrue or there would not be so many children in foster care & babies that are drug addicted or HIV positive languishing in hospitals - and here you are wanting to impose your rights over the rights of a living breathing woman that does have a life - what life does a embryo have? - can they function outside the uterus? can they function in the world?

Well, I'm one of those adoptees, so I think I probably know a bit more about it than you do. People want to adopt babies, not older kids, so if you knew anything about the situation, you'd realize the kids in foster homes are not babies, as babies get adopted easily and theres a long waiting line for them. The kids in foster homes had parents who thought they could parent, but these people turn out to be abusive or neglectful, so the child ends up in foster care. The parents don't want to admit they're irresponsible, so won't relinquish their parental rights, so the children are not able to be put up for adoption. These people thought they could parent, so wouldn't have had abortions anyway. I work in the court system so know about those situations too. The nonsense about embryo's funtioning in the world is too bizarre to reply to. Infants can't function on their own either, and I'm surprised sometimes at the so-called adults who get by with very limited intelligence.

rtg - sorry i know more about it than you think - people want to adopt healthy babies - not HIV positive & crack addicted - where i work that is evident by the number that are born here & left here until placement in the foster care system - these babies are not adopted - infants BREATHE - they EAT - therefore they FUNCTION without being attached to someone else - talk about unintelligent

You Nica, are a prime example of what's wrong with this whole system. You take the smallest percentage and adapt it to the whole. Unfortunately, there are kids born with HIV and crack addicted, but they obviously aren't the ones being aborted. You can't fix stupid people by paying for abortions. Stupid people will still have babies they shouldn't have, cause guess what? They're stupid. And no, people wait for years to adopt babies, but usually don't want HIV infected babies for the obvious reason, who wants to have a baby just to love it and possibly lose it so early? The crack addicts aren't gonna get abortions anyway, they fall into the stupid category. I have 3 sets of friends who were on the wait list for a baby, and one ended up going to China to get one, one adopted a beautiful little boy thru open adoption and one never got a baby.

Any by the way, I realize its unrealistic to have a discussion with someone like you. Despite overwhelming evidence, there are some people who honestly think if a baby hasn't been delivered yet, its not really a baby, like you said "infants BREATHE - they EAT - therefore they FUNCTION without being attached to some else", which basically puts you in that "can't fix stupid" category .

rtg - call it what you will but when pregnant women can claim embryos on their tax forms makiing them people you let me know

what is this evidence that says an embryo is a person? - it is a living bunch of cells that cannot survive outside the uterus - a uterus OWNED by a person - yea those breeders

saying that babies (meaning infants) can't function on their own was a stupid statement - unfortunately there is no reasoning with someone that thinks their way takes precedence over everyone else's life - like i care what you think

So a court system would be wrong when it charges someone for 2 murders when they killed a pregnant woman and her unborn 8-month old baby (which because it isn't outside the womb yet you call it an embryo), because technically, she couldn't have claimed him on a tax return? I've heard all kinds of justifications, but you're quite original in that one. I guess some people can find ways to justify almost anything.

The fact that you're a big time pro-abortionist is a given, but the question here is should all of us have to fund other people's abortions? I don't think I should have to pay for you or anyone else to get an abortion, since I don't believe in them. You can rant all day about unborn babies not being alive or human, but ranting won't make it truth. I will not dig up a bunch of scientific articles and documentary's for you, cause you'd just claim all the scientists and doctors were lying. If you really wanted to know you'd have looked already. Its much easier to claim babies are just embryo's so not really alive, makes it much easier to dispose of them without any guilt.

How can any woman demand exclusive say and control over her own body and then expect everyone else to pay for what she does with it? Isn't that hypocritical or a double standard or something? That just doesn't make sense.

Personally, no way in hell I would want the government to have any control over this aspect of my life because then the door is left wide open for the government to start setting all kinds of terms and conditions on me in an area of my life where they don't belong.

How can any woman demand exclusive say and control over her own body and then expect everyone else to pay for what she does with it?

Women are not trying to exclude men from having health care and nobody has ever told a man what they can or cannot do with their body.

The Peterson fetus was 8 months old, viable and killed without the mother's consent - nothing at all like abortions, which can only be performed on fetuses that advanced in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformities incompatable with life and serious risk to permanent damage to the health or life of the mother. Those abortions aren't under dispute anyway.

People are free to live the liefestyle of their choice and eat the diet of their choice and still expect coverage for diabetes, heart and blood pressure conditions and preventable cancer, not to mention preventable accidents. The insurance permiums you pay today already go to cover many preventable medical conditions caused by other people's poor choices. Should insurance companies be allowed to refuse claims for other condtions by saying they could have been prevented by better choices on the part of the patients?

People need to learn to take responsibility for their poor decisions, not expect the government to just take of it for them. I remember a long time ago the phrase "you play, you pay" had merit. Now, nobody seems to think they should take responsibility for their own actions.

I'm sure you won't object then when your insurance company uses your logic to deny your claims.

They are already allowed to charge more if you choose to smoke. Why should they not be allowed to charge more if you choose not to use BC properly?

That would make sense, but who's going to verify that or how much rest or exercise a person gets or what kind of diet they eat?

Beats me. I'm sure the good folks in California will come up with something eventually. The point is we are already charging more for peoples' personal choices. How can we say one is okay but another isn't?

Should the Government pay for it?--only when it doesn't want to pay for the raising of the children from unwanted pregnancies.

If we're going to say the government should pay for abortion if they don't want to pay for raising the kids, then an argument could easily made that we don't want to pay for their kids or their abortions and just tie their tubes. If women start handing over responsibility to the government for what they do with their bodies, they will also start handing over their rights. Not a good route for us to go.

Women's rights to make their own choices about having babies or not having them are far too personal and private to be turned over the goverment to control. If those choices are taken from individuals and given to governments, then governments could just as easily require abortions in cases of mothers on welfare, for example, as they could outlaw them in other cases. Once freedoms and choices are turned over to governments to control, governments rarely ever give them back to the people. Those who would turn the control of abortions over to governments only assume that those governments will always make the choices they want them to make. Opponents of abortions should be thankful for their freedom to choose not to have them, rather than turning that choice over to governments to make for them.

Women's rights to make their own choices about having babies or not having them are far too personal and private to be turned over the goverment to control.

Then you don't think the government should pay for abortions, right? Because if they pay for them, guess what...they have control. And who's to say that once they get that control, someone down the line may decide that only certain people can have babies, or only male babies, etc. It's a slippery slope, and one I don't really want to go down.

We're not talking about abortions being outlawed; we're talking about whether taxpayer dollars should be used to pay for them. At this point in time, it's still legal, so I'm not sure what your point is.

This issue exists because of the pro-life movement. Commenting on the movement that is causing this issue to be given much more time than it should certainly relates to the article in my mind.

Now that you say that though, you either pay for the abortion as a tax-payer, or you pay to take care of the children once they are born as a tax-payer. The cost of an abortion is astronomically smaller than the costs of raising a child to adulthood. Plus, how 'moral' is it to bring a child into this world knowing it will face grinding poverty, and probably will for the rest of his/her life? Don't we have enough mouths to feed as it is? Or is 7 billion people not enough?

And I mean none of it.

But abortion and viagra are not in any way comparable. It is perfectly reasonable to deny Viagra and pay for abortions. Abortions are actual medical procedures with actual ramifications if not attended to.

Perhaps but it does cost the state and that's not right. Prenatal care, including many diagnostics that are medical procedues are comparable.

No "cherry picking" by the hypocrites that feel abortion shouldn't be covered and yet have "no problem" with the rest.

Okay I agree paying for Viagra is ridiculous but prenatal care? Seriously? So does that mean that they should not pay for people to get checkups, screenings, vaccinations, or anything else that could be deemed as preventive care?

when i was a kid insurance was handled quite differently and very affordable. if you went to the dr. for routine stuff you paid for it yourself. if you needed surgery or something catastrauphic then you paid a deductible and the insurance reimbursed you for the rest. does your car insurance pay for oil changes and tune ups? or do you pay that out of pocket because it is necessarry to keep your car running? as far as viagra, i am sure the govt. option will replace that with duct tape and a popsicle stick. lol.

not, not all people get Viagra for the nice little side affect it comes with, many get it for its intended purpose.

IAA - how many get it for its intended purpose - have any stats?

not, not all people get Viagra for the nice little side affect it comes with, many get it for its intended purpose.

So what you are saying is that I should leave the medical decisions to the doctor and the patient and keep my nose out of it?

OK, I will if you will.

OK, I will if you will

if only you would, sorry can't trust you. so I must stand up for those that can't stand up for themselves, as I and my brothers in arms have done for YEARS

if only you would,

Me?? Haha you are funny. I am not the one trying to make medical decisions for women.

Perhaps but it does cost the state and that's not right. Prenatal care, including many diagnostics that are medical procedues are comparable.

Seriously? Would you rather pay for prenatal care (i.e. making sure mother and baby are healthy throughout the pregnancy), or pay for possible complications, emergency delivery, preventable birth defects, etc.?

And what about premature delivery? If a baby is born at 28 weeks and must be in the NICU for up to 2 months, do you have an issue with the government paying for it?

I am not the one trying to make medical decisions for women

no you are just not wanting to take responsibility for your own actions, and pass it on to the tax payers.

no you are just not wanting to take responsibility for your own actions, and pass it on to the tax payers.

That is utter bull@!$%#. Do you say the same thing about:

Fat people that eat too much and need by-pass? They aren't taking responsibility.

Rock climbers that break a leg? They aren't taking responsibility.

Drunk guy with a head injury after a car accident? He isn't taking responsibility.

Guy that cuts his fingers off with a lawn mower? He isn't taking responsibility.

Do you care if these people have to take responsibility or just women that have sex?

By the way by-pass surgery, setting a broken leg, treating a head injury and re-attaching fingers cost a helluva lot more than an abortion.,

By the way by-pass surgery, setting a broken leg, treating a head injury and re-attaching fingers cost a helluva lot more than an abortion

you assume way to much; its a small copay for me of $100. so stop think you have any idea about what and whom you are talking too. That is why I have privet health insurance.

PS all those are covered if the injured person goes to the er to get it fixed like you should.

IIA, did you think your bills for those things were paid for by the private insurance fairy? They're paid for by other people's money paid in the form of premiums, -- other people who might not like paying for your irresponsible choices. That is, you hope, they'll be paid for, unless your private insurance company uses your own logic and decides not to cover them because you could have prevented them by making better choices.

Not everyone that gets an abortion is a "Welfare Queen" either.

And, abortion is NOT genocide. The Holocaust and abortion are NOT comparable. This not concentration camps.

Or are women simply just incubators for a men's world and society? Just "titty mommas" for sex ( no, NOT love, because if it WAS love, this be a whole different scenario!) and "breeders" rather humans on their accord??

Men need to be able to get pregnant the whole way through without the "bennies" nor "risks".

Most medical procedures are unpleasant to watch up close and in person. Have you ever seen or smelled an appendectomy? Would you deny them to people who need them based on your observations of them?

Totally and for every man that is also responsibile for that same pregnancy, let the money for that abortion come out of his pocket and other subsequent pregnancies that are unintended for both parties, Should also have the man either be made to pay for it with $$ or jail time, if he wishes to forfeit that, then mandatory elimination of hissexual capability and libido. Women can be sterlized

But that can't be done in a non-fascist country......

let the money for that abortion come out of his pocket and other subsequent pregnancies that are unintended for both parties

still want in the mans pocket book i see. That statement is just childish and foolish. try again with it? How about this, if they get pregnant they BOTH pay and keep the government out of it...

Why is it foolish? Men can't get pregnant and it's the woman that has the abortion, not the man. The statement from couples that state "we are pregnant" is both silly and a lie. Both are NOT pregnant, just her and it's the woman that gets bashed constantly for sex, not the man. He wants "freebies", he pays too, not just her. Both CAN get sterlized.

. vine ghost

that was not your statement in 24.1 it reads as fallows, "Totally and for every man that is also responsibile for that same pregnancy, let the money for that abortion come out of his pocket and other subsequent pregnancies that are unintended for both parties, Should also have the man either be made to pay for it with $$ or jail time"

Reading it to me it says, she gets pregnant its the mans fault and he should have to pay not her. sounds to me like you are giving her a pass and him a sentence.

just some clarity please...

The woman gets pregnant, not the man. The woman bears the physical brunt of pregnancy, not the man. The woman is damned if gets an abortion, and damned if she keeps the child, She's damned if she doesn't want to be married, and damned if married , but doesn't want kids. She's damned if she works while having kids and damned if she''s stays home while having kids. She's damned if she is a prostitute, but not the man who pays for her services.

NO! Men already get a free pass, not women!

still waiting for an answer to it or some clarity on it...

Should also have the man either be made to pay for it with $$ or jail time"

That's the clarity. If you can't see it, then I can't help you. All a man has to is stick it in and last not even 5 seconds and he's out the door. A woman bears the brunt of all things sexual from her looks to her lifestyle. it is NOT just a3oman's responsibilty of the effects of sex, but the world and everyone else is acting like it is. If awoman has to suffer the brunt, then the man should bear it too.

Period!

Dang computer, keys got jammed and mispelled "woman"

your statement says he pays or goes to jail, what about her paying?

that is what clarity is. ask and answer... you never answered that if you had this would have been over long ago, but just continue bashing men as if its only them at fault and they are the only one that needs to pay for "her" abortion.

If men are to have no rights regarding abortion they should have no responsibility either. You can't have it both ways.

Men take on none of the medical risks of pregnancies, but they cause them, so they should be held responsible.

You all are talking about who's to blame, right? They're both to blame. He could have worn a condom and she could have had a nice little once-a-month shot or taken a pill. At this time in the U.S., if she gets pregnant, he pays child support until that child is 18, and she usually raises the child. If she doesn't want the child, she goes to a doctor, gets an abortion and he pays for it. Unless the woman was raped, they are both responsible for that pregnancy. Why should we, the American people, have to pay for that abortion because between the two of them, they couldn't take the necessary precautions? I watched a documentary on this, and in that documentary, over half of the people getting abortions had done it before. Ooops, can't be bothered taking my pill so I'll just get myself a nice, quick little abortion, again. Some of these women actually use abortion as their birth control, and that's just wrong.

tell me what this documentary is - i want to see where HALF of them have had multiple abortions - how many abortions were featured in this documentary - get real - abortion as a BC method is ludicrous - i think i will have an abortion rather than take my pill - or make my boyfriend use a condom - so you realize that BC pills are counteracted by anitbiotics? - many women that take antibiotics and the BC pill do not know this & are not informed of this - guess what? they end up pregnant - they were not irresponsible - their doctor was for not informing them - does that mean the doctor pays for everything and raises the child? -

it says on the packaging that antibiotics make them ineffective. try again.

i don't have to try again - so what is the side affects of every prescription you have ever taken - did your doctor tell you? - people ask why people get pregnant if they do not want to - THAT is a reason - even if they are on the pill - so nope - you try again - oh thats right you can flip flop in your arguments - i forgot - you are against abortions in one post but in another say that you don't care as long as you don't have to pay for them - you say most of your employees were making minimum wage until the fed rate changed and then in another post said most of your employees are paid higher than minimum & can afford their own health insurance - flip flop

i don't depend on my doctor to tell me the side affects, but the pharmacist always attaches a sheet that has all that information on it. if not, then i look it up on the web. i would never take a drug that i had not researched. i am against abortion, but unlike the left, i feel that i can't really tell other people how to live so i can only hope that i won't be forced to finance their indescretions. i said my employees were making the minimum wage at the time, more than minimum wage is what i meant. i guess i should have just said that it didn't affect my payroll since my employees have surpassed that amount. we hire electricians, trust me no electrician would work for $7.25.

how is the left telling people how to live? - by supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not she carries a pregnancy to term? - that is so funny i forgot to laugh

by making me be a part of the funding.

rtg,

If she doesn't want the child, she goes to a doctor, gets an abortion and he pays for it.

that is my point why him aren't they both at fault? why is he to take full responsibility, that is what LILITH would or could NOT answer in her statement...

amazedtexan - i hate to tell you this but if you have health insurance for yourself & pay premiums you already fund abortions or do as a business person think they take your premium and put it into an account with your name on it?

So if the logic is it is the man's fault and should have to pay. Then anytime a store sells alcohol to a legal adult and that adult goes home and drinks all of it and die or drives a car and kills someone that store is responsible for that person's actions.

So because 2 consenting adults have sex only the man is at fault even though the woman's body has to have the perfect conditions at the right time of the month for a pregnancy to occur.

With your logic it seems to me the woman is more at fault.

Also if you want the man to have more responsibility then he should get a choice in the decision.

If the man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not, but that man will pay for everything, does he not have a right to the baby?

my employees have health insurance, i don't. we sacrificed ourselves to be able to pay our employees enough to have health care.

rtg,

If she doesn't want the child, she goes to a doctor, gets an abortion and he pays for it.
that is my point why him aren't they both at fault? why is he to take full responsibility, that is what LILITH would or could NOT answer in her statement...

I am American: What I meant is simply that the man will usually choose to pay for the abortion rather than be hit with 18 years of child support. It's not a law, nor a rule, just how things generally end up. Child support amounts differ state to state and case by case, usually going by the income, custody, etc., but from what I've seen an abortion is less expensive than 1 month of child support. So, like I said, its not that he's the only one responsible, but if he wants out of a lifetime of payments for a child he didn't want to a woman he didn't love, he'd much rather pay for that abortion. It's a choice of pay one time now, or pay continually.

Should Government pay for Medical procedures Yes

wow what are we going to take responsibility for in "our" own lives? nothing?

When are we going to have a responsible government that provides affordable healthcare to all its citizens like every other civilized country in the western world?

hopefully never. it isn't a government responsibilty. government should have a very small role in individual rights. if you want something bad enough, get out and work for it. that is the american way.

get out and work for it. that is the american way

That use to be true but now it me me me free free free, thank you mr government...

so if this healthcare bill passes ( i hope it won't) every small business owner will be out of business. the increase in minimum wage has already cost tons of jobs and this will cause more lay offs. soon there will be more people unemployed than employed. who will be paying the taxes to support this program then?

amazedtexan - beautiful leap - i won't even ask where you came up with that - most small businesses would LOVE to have the health insurance burden lifted from their shoulders - your scare tactics are working on alot of people - so you are against a minimum wage? - so a $1.00 an hour seems fair to you - and you would feed your family on $40 a week? - because we all know prices rarely come down - so that leaves not only luxuries and health care but necessities for the wealthy alone - great country you want to live in

amazed.....if the small business has a payroll of less than $500,000 they will NOT be required. And a lot of small business owners do not have health insurance for themselves or employees, so this would be to their benefit.

nica, i came up with that because i am a small business owner and am living it. do you own a small business? as far as minimum wage, i would never pay my employees a dollar an hour. they would go elsewhere and i would not be able to keep employees. most of my employees were making the current minimum wage before it ever changed. but i do believe in rewarding loyal and hard working employees, so most of them are paid well as long as i am making a profit and can afford it. i offer workmans compensation, which i am not required by law to do, but by concience. i don't however offer healthcare, but pay well enough for them to afford it on their own. why don't you start a poll about small businesses and see how many will be able to survive with this healthcare reform, i am sure you will be surprised. and don't forget the cap and trade that is next. that will wipe out anyone who survived the healthcare fiasco. small businesses supply tons of jobs and this will have devastating effects.

your statement - you do the research & provide VALID statistics regarding small businesses that will benefit or not benefit - my husband works for a small buisness & believe me they would prefer NOT to supply health insurance

yes YOU wouldn't pay them a dollar an hour - but do you really think people can survive on $5 an hour or $200 a week - my grocey bill is half that & i don't buy very much - & if i have to pay taxes from that - how much do i take home - lets take the current min. wage in my state $8 an hour - or between $280 & $320 a week depending on how many hours the business considers full time - take out taxes & health ins costs how much are they taking home to pay living expenses? i would think if that is what you are paying your employess most of them are scraping by - how can you say if you pay min wage that they can afford health ins.? - that is absurd

most of my employees make quite a bit more than minimum wage and if they couldn't afford healthcare on their own, we would pay them more. i just meant that we weren't paying them poorly before the change. i have no problem with the state minimum wage, just the federal one.

as far as doing the research, i am just going by my area and other small businesses that i trade with. it would be a great poll to see though.

wow what are we going to take responsibility for in "our" own lives? nothing?

Having government pay for Medical procedure does Not automatically remove people's ability to take responsibility for their actions. It has been proven sufficiently that the current for profit system of Health Care does Not work.

hopefully never. it isn't a government responsibilty.

When private Insurance companies have proven that they are incapable of providing the services they claim they provide, and when it concerns the Health Care of the People IT IS the Government Responsibility.

government should have a very small role in individual rights.

Government should protect all individuals rights and not limit them by deciding what Medical Procedures they should cover.

if you want something bad enough, get out and work for it. that is the american way.

You are assuming that the people that need the Government's help do not work, that is a delusion perpetuated by people who are selfish and are looking for a reason not to help their fellow man.

so if this healthcare bill passes ( i hope it won't) every small business owner will be out of business.

There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

the increase in minimum wage has already cost tons of jobs and this will cause more lay offs.

So, is it your belief that companies should be able to exploit their workers, by paying them substandard salaries?

soon there will be more people unemployed than employed. who will be paying the taxes to support this program then?

The proposed Public OPTION will funded by premiums just like any other Health Insurance plan.

i have no problem with the state minimum wage, just the federal one.

You do realize that in Nica's state the minimum wage is HIGHER than the federal one right?

Nica's state's minimum wage = $8

Federal minimum wage = $7.25

I don't see any logical reason for someone to have a problem with the Federal minimum wage but not with the State minimum wage, when some States have higher minimum wages than what is required by Federal law.

let each state determine the minimum wage that is appropriate for their area. you are correct, nicas state is higher than the federal. that is true for many states and employers are required to pay the higher of the two (fed or state). so in a state where the minimum wage is lower than the federal the employer must pay the federal rate instead of the rate that is appropriate for their area. if we already have state minimum wage, why does the federal govt. need to supercede that?

So, you're saying a woman has a right to do with her body whatever she wants, even if that right means denying the right for a baby to live? So the only one here who doesn't have any rights is the baby, and of course, the American people, who would get to pay for abortions for people who can't be bothtered taking precautions? Seems to me the government is expected to pay (I mean the people of the US of course) the price for common sense we feel we're not required to use. That's become so common in this country, making everyone else pay for our mistakes, hence we don't learn anything, just keep making the same old mistakes over and over again and never face any consequences.

an embryo is not a baby - does it breathe? - does it survive without being attached? - babies breathe, cry - you have no idea why someone ends up with an unplanned pregnancy - you just use the broad brush & say they are all irresponsible - i above stated the case in which different drugs counteract BC pills & women were not informed of such by their doctor - who is responsible for the pregnancy - happened to my goddaughter & it was a military doctor - she is in the service & so is her husband - so who is responsible for that pregnancy - or should they (a married couple) not have has sex until they wanted kids - even though she was on the BC pill

so in a state where the minimum wage is lower than the federal the employer must pay the federal rate instead of the rate that is appropriate for their area. if we already have state minimum wage, why does the federal govt. need to supercede that?

While it may seem unfair to employers to be required to pay a higher wage then that of their state I doubt that any Employee complains. The Federal Government needs to supercede the minimum wage of the States in order to protect the Employee, if there were no federal minimum wage some States would not raise their wages and the Employees would have little recourse to change it.

if the state didn't take care of it's citizens by keeping a livable minimum wage then people would not stay in that state. so why does the state even bother to have a minimum wage if the federal govt. can override it? let the states dictate their own laws. the federal govt. should be in charge of national security and and things that pertain to the country as a whole. not individual state issues.

The livelihood of the Citizens Does pertain to the country as a whole. Depending on what state you are talking about their minimum wage increase predates that of the Federal Government. The Federal minimum wage only took affect in July 24 2007 some States had raised their minimum wage before Congress increased it on a Federal level.

amazedtexan - so the health and welfare of people in this country does not pertain to the country as a whole? - you pay taxes that fund aid to other countries - but do not want to pay taxes to help aid people in this country - if you are really worried about your employees making a decent livable wage why the issue of a fed minimum wage?

The Federal minimum wage only took affect in July 24 2007 some States had raised their minimum wage before Congress increased it on a Federal level.

exactly, so why the need for a federal change?

but do not want to pay taxes to help aid people in this country - if you are really worried about your employees making a decent livable wage why the issue of a fed minimum wage?

i already pay taxes to help people in this country and have no problem with that. as far as the federal minimum wage, i don't see the need for it, i should be on a state to state basis. in fact my business tax will go up at least 2% this year to pay for the increase in unemployment.

exactly, so why the need for a federal change?

Because SOME does not mean ALL. SOME States had raise their minimum wage while others kept their minimum wage at $5.25, that is why it the change was needed.

if it couldn't be superceded by the federal wage i am sure the state would be more apt to keep it livable, but why bother if the feds are going to change it.