Pulling my hair out: federalizing health insurance, then complaining about prochoice issues?

[emilynghiem]

This is what makes me want to pull my hair out with feminists who don't get it.
It's bad enough depending on govt and political party to legitimize abortion rights,
because of members of the public who believe in prolife.

But to support party leaders who FORCED insurance as MANDATORY FOR ALL CITIZENS through federal laws and tax policies,
THEN GO BACK and complain that prochoice and pro-abortion options are CONTESTED
(again by the SAME percentage of the population that NEVER consented and doesn't believe in funding abortion) WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?????

WHY DID YOU APPROVE FORCING INSURANCE UNDER PUBLIC POLICIES AND FEDERAL MANDATES KNOWING HALF THE NATION DOESN'T AGREE, AND PROLIFE BELIEFS ARE ALSO PART OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATION.

WHY THIS FANTASY THAT YOU CAN MAKE PUBLIC POLICY THAT EVERYONE HAS TO PAY FOR,
BUT MAGICALLY EXCLUDE THE BELIEFS OF PROLIFE PEOPLE AND PARTIES, EXPECTING THEM TO PAY ANYWAY? REALLY?

WOULD YOU EXPECT TO MANDATE CATHOLIC OR MUSLIM POLICIES FOR THE NATION.
AND EXPECT EVERYONE TO FOLLOW ALONG AND PAY FOR THAT, TOO?

sorry for yelling in ALL CAPS but I have never understood this about prochoice
and the ACA mandates just made it even worse. To me it opened the door for
prolife to start mandating their beliefs nationally for the sake of "saving lives over choice."

If the liberal Democrats have the right to force national mandates based on right to health care beliefs,
what's to stop Prolife parties from forcing national mandates based on right to life. Both are faith based.
Why is one creed made mandatory to fund and follow by federal laws, and the other discriminated against

===============================

On Wednesday, the Texas House State Affairs Committee will hear testimony on HB 3130, a harmful, anti-choice bill that would ban coverage of abortion under health insurance exchanges.
HB 3130 would disproportionately harm low-income Texans, who are more likely to rely on the health insurance exchange for coverage.
Tell the Texas Legislature: Don't limit Texans' access to reproductive health care!

• Sign the petition today to show your opposition to HB 3130.
• On Wednesday, come to the Texas Capitol and register against the bill.

Remind anti-choice lawmakers - taking away insurance coverage does not reduce the need for abortion, it only makes it harder to access safe and timely medical care. Take action against Texas' insurance coverage ban today.
Let's protect access for all Texans,

Heather Busby
Executive Director
NARAL Pro-Choice Texas

 

[PratchettFan]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

 

[chikenwing]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Abortions right up to the ninth month??

 

[PratchettFan]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Abortions right up to the ninth month??

Yes. I find the prohibition on late terms abortions to be particularly obnoxious. People undergoing those aren't looking to get rid of a pregnancy. They clearly wanted the pregnancy or the abortion would have already happened. Those are situations with parents faced with horrific choices, under tremendous pressure, and some twit in the government decides they will make that decision for them? Without any information about the situation or any concern for the consequences of that decision. That is a decision for the people involved and their doctor. No one else.

 

[chikenwing]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Abortions right up to the ninth month??

Yes. I find the prohibition on late terms abortions to be particularly obnoxious. People undergoing those aren't looking to get rid of a pregnancy. They clearly wanted the pregnancy or the abortion would have already happened. Those are situations with parents faced with horrific choices, under tremendous pressure, and some twit in the government decides they will make that decision for them? Without any information about the situation or any concern for the consequences of that decision. That is a decision for the people involved and their doctor. No one else.

Don't kid yourself to much,so the people involved are important right?
what about the people you are so willing to kill? you know the child,they have no importance to people like yourself?.
The vast majority of early and late term abortions are for convenience,and real selfishness.

 

[chikenwing]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

What in your mind is a good excuse to abort a living person?

 

[emilynghiem]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Hi PratchettFan to respect your beliefs and right to fund them,
I can only see that I'd need to legally respect, include, protect, and defend the representation of OTHER beliefs
and the right to fund those and NOT FUND YOURS.

How would that be fair for govt to endorse and force EVERYONE to fund and support
proabortion policies and NOT FORCE EVERYONE to fund and support prolife policies?

These are both FAITH BASED and "religiously held" beliefs that neither side should be forced to compromise just because someone else in the public disagrees!

Clearly these two should be separate choices and tracks because BELIEFS are involved.
BELIEFS are not subject to govt establishment by majority rule or court ruling. Only CONSENSUS would constitutionally include and represent all beliefs equally, so where we intersect in agreement, THAT'S legal to make laws, but not lawful to impose otherwise, or it violates the First, Fourteenth and Tenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act against discrimination on the basis of CREED.

In the meantime, only laws that both sides AGREE are fair and written and enforced consistently should be endorsed as public policy. Anything else needs to be resolved and/or separated privately. To stop this political bullying and discrimination against one belief or another!

Similar to funding religious education and programs
SEPARATE from what is agreed upon as public policy and curricula.

If people DON'T AGREE then that part should be reverted to private funding and kept out of public policy.

By Public, it makes sense this must reflect and represent a CONSENSUS of ALL public interests and not just the beliefs of one group over another. the bullying, exclusion and unequal treatment/discrimination has to stop.
it is equally wrongful to push the beliefs you and I agree with but others don't, as the beliefs others have which we don't support!

 

[emilynghiem]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

What in your mind is a good excuse to abort a living person?

chikenwing just like the death penalty, you can be completely against executions and abortions,
and still keep the choice legal on the books instead of banning or punishing that choice.

We can still prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion without "banning the choice of abortion,"
similar to preventing murder and capital crimes to prevent capital punishment without "banning this option" on the books.

 

[PratchettFan]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Abortions right up to the ninth month??

Yes. I find the prohibition on late terms abortions to be particularly obnoxious. People undergoing those aren't looking to get rid of a pregnancy. They clearly wanted the pregnancy or the abortion would have already happened. Those are situations with parents faced with horrific choices, under tremendous pressure, and some twit in the government decides they will make that decision for them? Without any information about the situation or any concern for the consequences of that decision. That is a decision for the people involved and their doctor. No one else.

Don't kid yourself to much,so the people involved are important right?
what about the people you are so willing to kill? you know the child,they have no importance to people like yourself?.
The vast majority of early and late term abortions are for convenience,and real selfishness.

Not for you to decide. To impose your position on people in that position based only upon raw prejudice is,... I try not to use that kind of language.

 

[PratchettFan]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

What in your mind is a good excuse to abort a living person?

That is for the people involved to decide.

 

[PratchettFan]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Hi PratchettFan to respect your beliefs and right to fund them,
I can only see that I'd need to legally respect, include, protect, and defend the representation of OTHER beliefs
and the right to fund those and NOT FUND YOURS.

How would that be fair for govt to endorse and force EVERYONE to fund and support
proabortion policies and NOT FORCE EVERYONE to fund and support prolife policies?

These are both FAITH BASED and "religiously held" beliefs that neither side should be forced to compromise just because someone else in the public disagrees!

Clearly these two should be separate choices and tracks because BELIEFS are involved.
BELIEFS are not subject to govt establishment by majority rule or court ruling. Only CONSENSUS would constitutionally include and represent all beliefs equally, so where we intersect in agreement, THAT'S legal to make laws, but not lawful to impose otherwise, or it violates the First, Fourteenth and Tenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act against discrimination on the basis of CREED.

In the meantime, only laws that both sides AGREE are fair and written and enforced consistently should be endorsed as public policy. Anything else needs to be resolved and/or separated privately. To stop this political bullying and discrimination against one belief or another!

Similar to funding religious education and programs
SEPARATE from what is agreed upon as public policy and curricula.

If people DON'T AGREE then that part should be reverted to private funding and kept out of public policy.

By Public, it makes sense this must reflect and represent a CONSENSUS of ALL public interests and not just the beliefs of one group over another. the bullying, exclusion and unequal treatment/discrimination has to stop.
it is equally wrongful to push the beliefs you and I agree with but others don't, as the beliefs others have which we don't support!

Telling a woman she does not control her own body is bullying, exclusion, unequal treatment and discrimination. Other people are free to exercise their beliefs all they like, but I draw the line at allowing them to impose those beliefs. That is wrong and I will always oppose it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Remind anti-choice lawmakers - taking away insurance coverage does not reduce the need for abortion, it only makes it harder to access safe and timely medical care."

Exactly.

This is the sort of tactic typical of those hostile to privacy rights, and who seek to increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

The right to privacy is fundamental and paramount, where the state may not compel a woman to give birth against her will.

This sort of cowardly measure exhibits contempt for the right of the individual to make personal, private decisions absent unwarranted interference from the state – including the state interfering with a woman's access to health insurance.

 

[emilynghiem]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Hi PratchettFan to respect your beliefs and right to fund them,
I can only see that I'd need to legally respect, include, protect, and defend the representation of OTHER beliefs
and the right to fund those and NOT FUND YOURS.

How would that be fair for govt to endorse and force EVERYONE to fund and support
proabortion policies and NOT FORCE EVERYONE to fund and support prolife policies?

These are both FAITH BASED and "religiously held" beliefs that neither side should be forced to compromise just because someone else in the public disagrees!

Clearly these two should be separate choices and tracks because BELIEFS are involved.
BELIEFS are not subject to govt establishment by majority rule or court ruling. Only CONSENSUS would constitutionally include and represent all beliefs equally, so where we intersect in agreement, THAT'S legal to make laws, but not lawful to impose otherwise, or it violates the First, Fourteenth and Tenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act against discrimination on the basis of CREED.

In the meantime, only laws that both sides AGREE are fair and written and enforced consistently should be endorsed as public policy. Anything else needs to be resolved and/or separated privately. To stop this political bullying and discrimination against one belief or another!

Similar to funding religious education and programs
SEPARATE from what is agreed upon as public policy and curricula.

If people DON'T AGREE then that part should be reverted to private funding and kept out of public policy.

By Public, it makes sense this must reflect and represent a CONSENSUS of ALL public interests and not just the beliefs of one group over another. the bullying, exclusion and unequal treatment/discrimination has to stop.
it is equally wrongful to push the beliefs you and I agree with but others don't, as the beliefs others have which we don't support!

Telling a woman she does not control her own body is bullying, exclusion, unequal treatment and discrimination. Other people are free to exercise their beliefs all they like, but I draw the line at allowing them to impose those beliefs. That is wrong and I will always oppose it.

yes PratchettFan
so why is it okay to tell ALL citizens that we must go through federal insurance mandates
and regulations to manage health care?

 

[emilynghiem]

"Remind anti-choice lawmakers - taking away insurance coverage does not reduce the need for abortion, it only makes it harder to access safe and timely medical care."

Exactly.

This is the sort of tactic typical of those hostile to privacy rights, and who seek to increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

The right to privacy is fundamental and paramount, where the state may not compel a woman to give birth against her will.

This sort of cowardly measure exhibits contempt for the right of the individual to make personal, private decisions absent unwarranted interference from the state – including the state interfering with a woman's access to health insurance.

C_Clayton_Jones
if you already know that people disagree religiously about prolife/prochoice
and private sector/education/charity/business for health care vs. federal govt
THEN WHY FORCE ALL POLICY AND FUNDING TO GO THROUGH THAT ROUTE

This is insane to force marriage, health care, and all kinds of issues we KNOW people
disagree with socially, spiritually, religiously and politically, THROUGH GOVT
and then go back and FIGHT over these very issues you already know require SEPARATION!

That's as self-defeating as mandating Christian practices through the Govt
then going back and trying to regulate all those practices back OUT of GOVT
because people don't agree and don't want Christianity forced on them through Govt! Well, DUH!!!

 

[PratchettFan]

I completely understand their position. My only problem is they don't go far enough. Health care should be under national coverage and there should be no limitations of any kind on abortions.

Hi PratchettFan to respect your beliefs and right to fund them,
I can only see that I'd need to legally respect, include, protect, and defend the representation of OTHER beliefs
and the right to fund those and NOT FUND YOURS.

How would that be fair for govt to endorse and force EVERYONE to fund and support
proabortion policies and NOT FORCE EVERYONE to fund and support prolife policies?

These are both FAITH BASED and "religiously held" beliefs that neither side should be forced to compromise just because someone else in the public disagrees!

Clearly these two should be separate choices and tracks because BELIEFS are involved.
BELIEFS are not subject to govt establishment by majority rule or court ruling. Only CONSENSUS would constitutionally include and represent all beliefs equally, so where we intersect in agreement, THAT'S legal to make laws, but not lawful to impose otherwise, or it violates the First, Fourteenth and Tenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act against discrimination on the basis of CREED.

In the meantime, only laws that both sides AGREE are fair and written and enforced consistently should be endorsed as public policy. Anything else needs to be resolved and/or separated privately. To stop this political bullying and discrimination against one belief or another!

Similar to funding religious education and programs
SEPARATE from what is agreed upon as public policy and curricula.

If people DON'T AGREE then that part should be reverted to private funding and kept out of public policy.

By Public, it makes sense this must reflect and represent a CONSENSUS of ALL public interests and not just the beliefs of one group over another. the bullying, exclusion and unequal treatment/discrimination has to stop.
it is equally wrongful to push the beliefs you and I agree with but others don't, as the beliefs others have which we don't support!

Telling a woman she does not control her own body is bullying, exclusion, unequal treatment and discrimination. Other people are free to exercise their beliefs all they like, but I draw the line at allowing them to impose those beliefs. That is wrong and I will always oppose it.

yes PratchettFan
so why is it okay to tell ALL citizens that we must go through federal insurance mandates
and regulations to manage health care?

Because health is a public concern. A pandemic hits everyone, not just those people who have insurance or just the people who don't have insurance. It is the fact that we don't tell ALL citizens they have to go through federal insurance mandates that is the problem. We approached this in a half-assed manner. We need a national health system that covers everyone.