My blog has moved! Redirecting...

You should be automatically redirected. If not, visit and update your bookmarks.


Thursday, August 25, 2005

Should the Government Pay for "Military" Abortions?

I just saw this editorial in the Sac Bee. Because I find fault with a lot of it, I will put the editorial in blue and comments of mine in black.

Editorial: Abortion politics
Military families find no leeway in law

The story of a Navy enlisted man and his pregnant wife is not pleasant to talk about.

The couple faced a terrible decision. A routine ultrasound revealed that their baby had a fatal condition called anencephaly. The brain had failed to form during the first 24 days after conception. As a result, the upper part of the brain and the skull cap were missing. The baby would have no chance of survival.

After extensive counseling, the family decided on an abortion - as do 95 percent of women in that situation.
So where is this fact coming from?
The decision, while wrenching, is understandable. Of anencephalic babies born alive, fewer than 2 percent survive more than seven days. Even extraordinary medical intervention would not prolong life more than two months.
So? How does this justify abortion? Because someone has severe development problems and is likely to die, they are not worth the trouble of being born? Where exactly do you draw the line? And abortion would be easier than birth for the baby?
For many civilian families with private health insurance, the decision doesn't create serious financial hardships. But military families aren't so lucky, thanks to the insane politics of abortion.

I would be more worried about the psychological hardships.
In Congress, grim adherence to ideology has taken precedence. The enlisted man and his wife could not get U.S. military health insurance to pay for the medical procedure to end the pregnancy. So why should the Government pay for this? Did the government cause this?Congress decided in 1979 to forbid use of public funds for abortions "except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus is carried to term." Members of Congress could have drafted the law to make exceptions also in cases of severe birth defects, but chose not to. You can see the absolutism at work in this couple's ordeal.
The enlisted man and his wife together earn less than $21,000 a year. Should they be impoverished by paying $3,000 themselves for a recommended medical procedure ONLY THIS MEDICAL PROCEDURE INVOLVES KILLING! (you would think that this would be a reason not to have the government pay, but no.) or force the wife to go through nine months of pregnancy
(actually, it would probably be much less by the time they had figured out that they were even having a baby and then found out that it had a "severe defect") even though the baby has a fatal condition? ABORTION IS A FATAL CONDITION! so having an abortion would not end this differently at all, except to change the cause of death. This is a shameful, heartless way to treat our military families. And this person's opinion is not a shameful, heartless way to view the disabled in general?
Early on, a federal judge ordered U.S. military health insurance to pick up the $3,000 tab. The U.S. Justice Department then sued to force the family to repay the cost - and won. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that it is not the role of courts in this case to "judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices." So they got that straight for once. Good for them. Congress made the law. It is up to Congress to fix it.
But while the judges deferred to congressional judgment, they didn't like having to do it. They noted that their analysis upholding the law may seem "callous and unfeeling" and expressed "deepest sympathy for the families who must face this difficult ordeal." Again, I would like to see some sources here.
Pin this one on Congress. U.S. military health insurance should cover the cost of a legitimate medical procedure recommended by doctors to end a pregnancy (Notice that this is what it is called instead of abortion.) in the case of anencephaly and other fatal birth defects. Congress can make this coverage happen.

Ok, so the result of an abortion (Whoops! I mean, a legitimate medical procedure recommended by doctors to end a pregnancy, of course) is a dead baby, correct? (Please forgive the bluntness.) This would mean that the baby would have to have been alive sometime. So if the baby was alive and then is dead and someone caused this, what would that mean? And how is this unborn baby different than a newly born one? Think about it.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home