The abortion restriction does not apply in cases of Rape, Incest, or if the mother's life is in danger....so some abortions will still be covered

No, I don't think they did the right thing. One step forward, two steps back.

Instead of making abortion virtually impossible to get, why are we not preaching as hard for pregnancy prevention since studies show abstinence only education isn't particularly effective?

http://aidemocracy.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/abstinence-only-education-ju...

I think there are two issues here. One is the pro-life vs. pro-choice question, another is who should pay for it.
Here is my spin. If you are on the "pro-choice" side, I would think that you want the individual person to make a decision, however wrong or harmful it may be. You believe that a woman can make this choice on her own, without the need of legislature or government official. It is her right! If you take this side, it would be reasonable to bear the cost of their choice. We have a right to travel, yet nobody (except politicians,airline workers and military) says it should be free or paid by the rest of the taxpayers. This position clearly gives the rights AND responsibilities to the individual.
If you are pro-life, you might be saying that in some instances we(government) should stop an individual from making a harmful/wrong decision. Can the Government "protect" us from other harmful actions? Where do we stop? Do we really want laws controlling what we can or can not do? And if the Government does take control, shouldn't it pay for childcare, medical care or education of the unwanted children?
I think one needs to be consistent.

I wouldn't want my government to pay for abortions, because I don't think my taxes should be going towards non-essential medical procedures. Obviously it's a different case when it comes to incest and rape, though I personally am pro-life. Unfortunately there is then the risk of people having unsafe "backyard" abortions, so it's a tricky issue.

I don't think this is about pro-life or pro-choice. I think it's about using women's health care rights as a political tool to foil health care reform for these congressman's true corporate masters.

I used to work for the Senate, for the Republicans actually. I was so young and idealistic back then. It was really shocking to see Exxon sponsoring wine-tasting parties, to see the lobbyist's lawyers meeting with our staff lawyers over language of certain bills. Anyone who doesn't think campaign donations have a corruptive influence is living in a fantasy multiplex.

This is so sleazy of the Democrats. It's why I think that often we have two versions of the same party, the corporate party.

good I dont want my tax dollars going towards something I cannot stand behind.

If you are on the "pro-choice" side, I would think that you want the individual person to make a decision, however wrong or harmful it may be. You believe that a woman can make this choice on her own, without the need of legislature or government official. It is her right! If you take this side, it would be reasonable to bear the cost of their choice.

I believe that people choose to smoke, and I don't want to pay for their health insurance, but I do.

And I think the "different for incest and rape" is hypocricial. If you believe that killing a few cells is murder, than why does it matter HOW that precious fetus was concieved?

I don't think it will necessarily prohibit or slow down the number of abortions. People will pay out of pocket instead.

I'm all for abortion rights and for people to have coverage for abortions. For the private health companies, who only look at the bottom line, you'd think they'd rather cover a $600 abortion rather than the $1,000 in medical coverage they'll pay each year for a child to be born.

I think it's wrong to force people receiving tax credits into choosing a health care plan that does not cover abortion. Those people pay taxes too - not just the pro-life movement. If that's the case, I want to make smokers only choose from health plans that do not cover smoking related illnesses such as asthma, COPD, lung cancer and the various other cancers that result from smoking.

meant thousands not $1,000.

I am pro life so I don't agree with abortions at all. And I definitely don't want my money paying for someones choice to abort a baby.

I understand it's a sensitive subject on both sides but I really don't think health care for all Americans should come down to abortion. Let's just get us all covered, please.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't think tax money should go to pay for abortions out of respect for those who do believe that it's murder. It's one thing to allow those who believe it's not murder to have abortions, it's another to force those who believe it is murder to fund them.

"And I think the 'different for incest and rape' is hypocricial. If you believe that killing a few cells is murder, than why does it matter HOW that precious fetus was concieved?"
Because this is the government talking, not the pro-life people. They may not personally believe it's murder, but they have to protect those who do and those who are victims of horrible circumstances.

Why do we have to pay for someone who smokes? Because we all engage in activities that are bad for our health. Where do you draw the line? It's a completely different story.

if exceptions are made for rape, it would help little. only an infinitesimal number of rapes are reported. if it's incest, do you think circumstances that would allow for that crime to be committed would also allow for the autonomy (bodily and financially) for a child or women to step forward, go through the process and successfully undergo the procedure?

and what of the thousands of individuals who cannot afford the procedure? either you allow access to this legal medical surgery or you allow for the deaths of women who seek back alley or worse abortions.

you're still allowing access, just the government isn't paying for it.

right. and without the financial capacity to pay for the procedure, there is no access...

Lissy - if you feel that the government should cover things that are the result of activities that are bad for our health, why not cover abortion?

I don't understand why the government would choose not to cover it. I think it's wrong for the government to deny tax credits to people who want that as an option in their health coverage, especially since having an abortion is fiscally more responsible than having a child. Think of how much it costs to raise a child - for all those politicians crying about fiscal responsibility, you'd think they'd want to give people the option to have an abortion.

I don't understand how smoking can be compared to abortion. One's a bad habit, one is erasing potential life. It's not about removing coverage for things we don't like or about saving money. It's about forcing those who believe it's murder to be a part of it. That just seems wrong to me.

Some insurance companies pay for all kinds of elective procedures. Do we want our tax dollars going to fund births and then 18 years of welfare for people who can ill afford supporting a child?

This is GROSS. Just when I think the Dems have located their spines, they pull this sh*t.

i agree 100% that you can't compare smoking to abortion.

what i'm struggling with is that it isn't black or white. it is dangerously simplistic to declare that there is access but it will have to be personally financed etc: seriously, what if an impoverished woman is beaten, raped by a family member or friend and is has zero finances of her own. how will she a. be able to afford travel to a clinic or hospital b. afford the procedure c. begin on her own, presuming she cannot return to her prior circumstances

situations are complex, abuse/assault is far more common than we'd like to think and i am disgusted and shocked that this bill effectively does not protect the abused and mistreated - let alone the most basic right: the autonomy of one's own body.

Well, I still see a lot of confusion about who the " pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" people are. Pro-choice are the ones that believe in the INDIVIDUAL right or self-reliance. They make decisions and they are responsible for the consequences.
The "pro-life" folks are the ones that believe that somebody like the Government should make the "right" decision for other folks (based on their point of view)
However there is a large group that has some qualities of both of these groups. One gave the Government right to choose when they can retire, how much will their pension be or to which school would their children go. The abortion seems to be the only right that they still cling on! Why? You already gave the Master everything else to control your life.
The other group, believes in small Government but tries to instill all their values on others, even if it meant using Government to accomplish that purpose. Who gave you the right to judge others? Why aren't you trusting individual to make however wrong the decision (in your eyes) by himself?
The first mixed group is called the "looters"! They want their way, but want somebody else to pay for it!
The second, mixed group is religious biased conservatives. Who are you?

Smoking and abortion. Both are individual choices! Both carry health, moral and financial consequences. Both are expensive and devastating. Yet, both are part of our freedom. Freedom to choose! We shouldn't ban smoking in towns or restaurants. People can vote by selecting to go somewhere else. The same should be with with abortion. Don't you see that in the end it is about who you want to make the decision? It is about control! There is NO programme that Government can run efficiently: Social Security (bankrupt), budget spending ($300K per person deficit) or even Veterans health system or motor vehicle. All poorly and wastefully run. Why would you think that health care would be any different? The best way to predict the future is to look at the past.

i think the comparison between smoking and abortion is that they are choices we make with our bodies. other than that though, of course they are two completely different things. i havent read any speculation on how this will turn out, but it doesnt look good...denying a procedure to be covered which only affects one gender, but only if she decided to have sex, vs being coerced...hmm

To Spacekatgal! I like your observation but here is the point I see. Both sides are representing interests of their "donors" rather than yours or mine. The time has come when man/woman has to take a stand and say "enough"! I don't want anybody to tell me how to live my life because their interest group/lobbyist is asking them to do it! Do you?

Finally! Abortion and smoking are OUR CHOICES! (most of the time) Since they boht carry risks they should be assesed insurance premiums. Smokers already pay extra! I think women should have an option for abortion in their health plan and pay a premium if they choose it. It is all about choices remember!

Some abortions will be covered (e.g. rape, incest, health dangers - rightfully so). Elective ones will not nor should they be. If a woman's health is not endanger, she should cover the cost.

Having a choice to obtain an abortion is good enough for me. If someone gets knocked up by being irresponsible they should be prepared to spend some money on an abortion. Making them too accessible will just make the rate at which they are obtained sky rocket. "Hey if I get knocked up, my insurance will cover it anyway" this can be a dangerous mentality

All abortions are elective.

I'm torn on this one. I'm absolutely pro-choice, I'm just not sure if I want the government saying who should or should not pay for them.

I like the idea of an option in their health plan and have to pay a premium accordingly.

I agree with dfserine for the most part. If you were irresponsibly having sex (with no intention of getting pregnant, just not using birth control methods), then I feel you should pay for the consequences, not me. Abortion is not a form of birth control in my mind.

Great comment about abortion not being a ..." form of birth control"! There is also a danger that if abortion were paid by the Government, it could also made restrictions on who can get it or not, based on income, socio-economic status etc. Have you heard of eugenics? It would sure look like another attempt of Government to control the gene pool. Poor or rich, pro-life or pro-choice make sure you have the right to decide what to do. Respect other choices even if you personally don't approve of them for this very reason!

runningesq - uh, generally it is killing a fetus, not just "a few cells". And the "different for incest and rape" thing is about the protection of the victim. An unwanted pregnancy by someone who chose to take the risk is completely different to that of someone who has been raped.

On somewhat of a side note to all respected sides of the abortion/health care issue, I can't help but wonder if the government plan, like most insurers, will cover boner-enabling drugs such as Viagra....

Probably! Even though it is more of a "life style" drug and condition results from underlying problems like diabeties, obesity or coronary artery disease. The AARP voters make sure of that! : )

I would support paying a higher premium for having the option to have abortion covered, just like smokers pay a higher premium. (I've yet to meet smokers who say the higher premium deters them from smoking.) At least that way, the government is not completely eliminating abortions as an option in the health care plan.

I just see choosing to have an abortion as no different than choosing to smoke. They both are choices. For everyone who is saying that someone who chose to take the risk and have unprotected sex shouldn't be covered, why cover the smokers who chose to take the risk and developed cancer or other illnesses? I just don't see abortion as any worse than what other people can choose to do and yet the other people can continue having health insurance that covers the consequences of those actions.

I have had an abortion. It was the worst day of my life. I sat in the waiting room shaking with fear and shame and a whole lot of other emotions I can't even put into words. And this abortion was at the advice of a doctor. My problem is this: There were other women in that waiting room, awaiting the same procedure. They were laughing, chatting, flipping through Cosmo, and just generally passing the time. I even heard one of the girls joking about how "this is not my first rodeo". This is my problem with allowing this to be an individual choice--some individuals understand the seriousness of the procedure and what it means, and others use it as birth control. What's the solution for this?

Thank you so much for sharing your personal insight! You brought a great point about "cosmo girls". I absolutely believe that subsequent procedures should be priced much higher than the first time. Some people can only learn when it hits them in the pocket!

Final comment. Majority of the folks mentioned that they were for "individual choice" as far as abortion goes. I challenge you then to ask yourself why would you then vote for the government run health system? How much choice will you have? Are you ready to let a bureaucrat tell you what you can or can not do? The true question should have been, how to insure the part of our society that is currently un-insured rather than wreck the whole system and create another form of entitlement. Abortion is just a smoke screen to take your eyes of the main goal: national health system.