Today marks a very important day, when the long-awaited health care bill from the House travels to the Senate for a possible vote. Democrats have conceded almost every point imaginable to get votes from the Republicans, and yet, no Republican will vote for such a bill? It’s been said that this is the same bill that was being kicked around in August, so why should people who opposed it then support it now? (Sorry for the lack of links.)
Forget all that. The real sticking point is that clause on abortion, and whether federal dollars should pay for it. OK, I understand that you don’t want to pay for a practice that you find morally reprehensible. That’s why the law states that no federal dollars will go to programs providing abortions. But did you really think you weren’t paying for them? Like it or not, our tax dollars are helping pay for practices associated with abortions and children. The other big issue is that the language doesn’t go far enough, since creative bookkeeping can make public funds look like private funds.
A woman without health care goes to the emergency room because of complications following a “back alley” abortion. Guess who’s paying for that?
An unwanted baby is abandoned to the foster care system. Until that child gets adopted, who do you think pays for that?
And your opposition to that language? If you don’t think companies in general are using public funds as private funds, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Unless you’re a psychopath, no one wants more abortions. That’s ridiculous. Of course, a lot of the same people who oppose abortions also oppose sex education, but that’s another can of worms. We need to insure as many people as possible, and insure them fully. Either that means making sure the home life of all is as good as those in Congress (which will make it cost prohibitive,) or including things you don’t particularly like. Otherwise, we as an economic power are going to cease to exist because we’re spending our money in all the wrong places.