Quote:
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
I hate to get into that, but I hope it's still the bullsh!t option you complained of. Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure. There's no legitimate role for the federal government to deny coverage for one legal procedure over another, simply because some people object to it. It's legal. That would be like people objecting to tobacco crops being included in a farm subsidy plan.
|
To play a bit of devil's advocate, and because I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue, there is the question of elective vs. necessary.
I don't think anyone is outraged that the proposed insurance plans do not cover cosmetic surgeries, yet those are perfectly legal.
At what point is an abortion considered elective? Is "a child would be inconvenient" enough of to consider it necessary? Where is the line drawn that says, "On this side an abortion is medically necessary, and on this side it is an elective procedure."
I'm personally having difficulty deciding where I'd draw the line. I'm pretty okay with Hyde as currently written. And the cries from opponents of this reform that this will lead to rampant elective abortions are absurd. But there are people who are arguing that even Hyde is too restrictive, that there should essentially all abortions should be covered, and that I can't agree with.