Daily Kos

View Story | 301 comments

  •  But the State is not paying the child (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    moiv, Beket

    technically or otherwise.  It is paying for pre-natal and birth services for the woman.  If no one else pays for them, the woman is the one responsible, not the baby.  And when the payment is made, it is made to the provider of services, not to the baby.  When the baby is born, it then gets services in its own right.  The mother continues to get health services.

    This is not hands off.  It is not walking down the street.  It is an action that says, "If you make the decision to stay pregnant, the State will pay for it.  If you make the decision to not stay pregnant, pay for it yourself."   btw, several states do fund abortion.

    •  I am aware that some states do fund (0+ / 0-)

      abortion. E.g., California, New York, Illinois, and a number of others.  My point is that by not funding it, they are not coercing anyone, and therefore are not "forcing" anyone into anything.

      •  Oh, so its semantics! (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        moiv, Jain, Readrock

        Refusing to fund safe abortion care for women (much less costly than pre-natal, delivery and health care till the child is 'of age') is not coercing or forcing?
        Withholding public funding (of which women pay at least 1/2) for legal and constitutionally protected health care is of course forcing women who don't have the resources to obtain safe abortion to continue their pregnancies (sometimes at their own peril) and give birth - if they survive!
        To pretend otherwise is like saying omitting the truth isn't the same as lying.

View Story | 301 comments