ACA And Abortion

[MedPR]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I was just reading that federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in the case where the woman was raped and/or is in a situation where the pregnancy endangers her life.

Does anyone know the logic behind this? I get that if she was raped, then the pregnancy was not due to her choices or actions, therefore she shouldn't have to pay for the abortion. But if some criminal shoots me and I have to go to the hospital, the government isn't going to cover my medical bill.. So what's the difference?

I'm not saying that all "not my fault" medical expenses should be covered by federal funds, but that seems to be the logic behind this abortion exception, so I'm wondering what makes it special.

Edit: Here's my source btw: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001532

 

[TxResident]

FREE HEALTHCARE, FREE HEALTHCARE TO EVERYBODY. Thats you, you, you, and, woah derr, not you.

 

[Sephiroth]

So I was just reading that federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in the case where the woman was raped and/or is in a situation where the pregnancy endangers her life.

Does anyone know the logic behind this? I get that if she was raped, then the pregnancy was not due to her choices or actions, therefore she shouldn't have to pay for the abortion. But if some criminal shoots me and I have to go to the hospital, the government isn't going to cover my medical bill.. So what's the difference?

I'm not saying that all "not my fault" medical expenses should be covered by federal funds, but that seems to be the logic behind this abortion exception, so I'm wondering what makes it special.

The federal government also doesn't pay for anyone who needs it to have a medically necessary abortion. The law is a restriction, not an extension of federal funding to medically necessary or rape-related abortions. So if someone has government health insurance, it can't be used for an abortion.

 

[mehc012]

So I was just reading that federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in the case where the woman was raped and/or is in a situation where the pregnancy endangers her life.

Does anyone know the logic behind this? I get that if she was raped, then the pregnancy was not due to her choices or actions, therefore she shouldn't have to pay for the abortion. But if some criminal shoots me and I have to go to the hospital, the government isn't going to cover my medical bill.. So what's the difference?

I'm not saying that all "not my fault" medical expenses should be covered by federal funds, but that seems to be the logic behind this abortion exception, so I'm wondering what makes it special.

The logic is that women should be punished for having sex, because promiscuous women are sluts.

While pro-life/anti-choice/whatever-spin-you-wanna-put-on-it stances are often based on the "life begins at conception, therefore abortion is akin to murdering a small child" reasoning, "abortion is bad unless you aren't pregnant by choice" is another common stance. While this seems like a compromise with pro-choice/anti-life/wsywpoi views, it is actually somewhat more troublesome, as it is INconsistent with both "life begins at conception" reasoning and "free choice" reasoning.

 

[MedPR]

The logic is that women should be punished for having sex, because promiscuous women are sluts.

While pro-life/anti-choice/whatever-spin-you-wanna-put-on-it stances are often based on the "life begins at conception, therefore abortion is akin to murdering a small child" reasoning, "abortion is bad unless you aren't pregnant by choice" is another common stance. While this seems like a compromise with pro-choice/anti-life/wsywpoi views, it is actually somewhat more troublesome, as it is INconsistent with both "life begins at conception" reasoning and "free choice" reasoning.

What does this have to do with federal funding for rape-pregnancies and not choice-pregnancies?

 

[Dillinjl]

How dare we use government money to pay for an abortion. Instead lets pay for the birth of the kid in addition to all of his future medical expenses...brilliant!

 

[MedPR]

How dare we use government money to pay for an abortion. Instead lets pay for the birth of the kid in addition to all of his future medical expenses...brilliant!

I can tell you read and understood the OP. Congratulations.

 

[mehc012]

What does this have to do with federal funding for rape-pregnancies and not choice-pregnancies?

It's the same phenomenon of providing resources and options for one group of pregnant women and not the other. Laws passed regulating funding on the issue are often attempted workarounds by politicians who cannot directly contradict court rulings which uphold the legality of abortions, yet want to restrict or diminish abortion.

I'm sorry if I made this overly political...however, laws surrounding abortion, birth control, and funding for both of these are inherently motivated by political views. While I didn't mean to go off on a tangent or anything and it seemed relevant to me, I admit that I tend to get rather frustrated with the 'anti-abortion-except-for-rape' stance, as it seems to have by far the biggest potential for detrimentally affecting women.

 

[MedPR]

It's the same phenomenon of providing resources and options for one group of pregnant women and not the other. Laws passed regulating funding on the issue are often attempted workarounds by politicians who cannot directly contradict court rulings which uphold the legality of abortions, yet want to restrict or diminish abortion.

I'm sorry if I made this overly political...however, laws surrounding abortion, birth control, and funding for both of these are inherently motivated by political views. While I didn't mean to go off on a tangent or anything and it seemed relevant to me, I admit that I tend to get rather frustrated with the 'anti-abortion-except-for-rape' stance, as it seems to have by far the biggest potential for detrimentally affecting women.

No need to be sorry, I was just unsure of the connection. I'm politically inept.

I'm pro-choice, but I do believe abortion is elective and therefore shouldn't be federally funded even in the case of rape. The point of this thread was just to get a better understanding of why fed funding could be used for some, but not all abortions.

 

[Dillinjl]

No need to be sorry, I was just unsure of the connection. I'm politically inept.

I'm pro-choice, but I do believe abortion is elective and therefore shouldn't be federally funded even in the case of rape. The point of this thread was just to get a better understanding of why fed funding could be used for some, but not all abortions.

There are a couple different perspectives to that. assuming you are not looking at abortion as a moral issue the idea of not paying for abortion because it is elective seems short sighted. to say: "I don't want my tax dollars to pay for an abortion because the woman doesn't need to have an abortion, it is her choice, so I shouldn't have to pay for it." is overlooking the fact that more tax dollars are going to be spent if the child is born than if it is aborted. These costs could go beyond just medical, including all of the costs that can be associated with bring a life in to this world when a person is not fit to care for that life (social services, correctional, ect.) . I understand the argument of: "If they weren't ready to take care of a child they shouldn't be having sex and I shouldn't have to pay for there mistake." But the bottom line is we are going to be paying for it either way, but we'll be paying less if the child is aborted.

Apologies if this post comes off as immoral or cold. I'm looking at it strictly in terms of tax dollars being spent, and I understand there is more to this issue.

 

[MedPR]

There are a couple different perspectives to that. assuming you are not looking at abortion as a moral issue the idea of not paying for abortion because it is elective seems short sighted. to say: "I don't want my tax dollars to pay for an abortion because the woman doesn't need to have an abortion, it is her choice, so I shouldn't have to pay for it." is overlooking the fact that more tax dollars are going to be spent if the child is born than if it is aborted. These costs could go beyond just medical, including all of the costs that can be associated with bring a life in to this world when a person is not fit to care for that life (social services, correctional, ect.) . I understand the argument of: "If they weren't ready to take care of a child they shouldn't be having sex and I shouldn't have to pay for there mistake." But the bottom line is we are going to be paying for it either way, but we'll be paying less if the child is aborted.

Apologies if this post comes off as immoral or cold. I'm looking at it strictly in terms of tax dollars being spent, and I understand there is more to this issue.

Yea I understand what you're saying, but that idea assumes that women who want an abortion will only get an abortion if the government pays for it. In most cases, I don't think a woman who wants an abortion would choose to go through with the pregnancy just because she can't get federal funding for the abortion. My opinion isn't based on any statistics, studies, or anything like that. It's based solely on my view of how people think so if I'm completely wrong, please point it out.

 

[Long Way to Go]

Yea I understand what you're saying, but that idea assumes that women who want an abortion will only get an abortion if the government pays for it. In most cases, I don't think a woman who wants an abortion would choose to go through with the pregnancy just because she can't get federal funding for the abortion. My opinion isn't based on any statistics, studies, or anything like that. It's based solely on my view of how people think so if I'm completely wrong, please point it out.

Congress doesn't pay for clean needle exchanges either I don't think, despite clear evidence that the programs help drug users and are more cost-effective than treating the resulting AIDS/Hep C/etc. Not that the two situations are identical, but they are at least comparable.

 

[Dillinjl]

Yea I understand what you're saying, but that idea assumes that women who want an abortion will only get an abortion if the government pays for it. In most cases, I don't think a woman who wants an abortion would choose to go through with the pregnancy just because she can't get federal funding for the abortion. My opinion isn't based on any statistics, studies, or anything like that. It's based solely on my view of how people think so if I'm completely wrong, please point it out.

I see what you're saying. I was thinking about it as these woman who are having abortions funded by the government are on public assistance and don't have the resources to pay for their own abortion. So if the abortion wasn't funded by her federal assistance (medicaid) She would have the option of going through with the pregnancy (but I agree with you, that probably doesn't happen very often) or finding some other less than desirable and less than legal way of aborting the fetus which could quite possibly lead to infection or other medical complication which would end up being paid for by medicaid anyway.

 

[mehc012]

Congress doesn't pay for clean needle exchanges either I don't think, despite clear evidence that the programs help drug users and are more cost-effective than treating the resulting AIDS/Hep C/etc. Not that the two situations are identical, but they are at least comparable.

No, that's a very good point.

I feel that politics too often falls into the trap of going "We don't support decisions xyz, and therefore it's more important to demonstrate our disgust for those people than it is to save money or fix the situation". It's one of the downsides to our current method of campaigning (where we focus more on personality and smear campaigns than debating the effectiveness of different platforms.)

 

[MedPR]

I see what you're saying. I was thinking about it as these woman who are having abortions funded by the government are on public assistance and don't have the resources to pay for their own abortion. So if the abortion wasn't funded by her federal assistance (medicaid) She would have the option of going through with the pregnancy (but I agree with you, that probably doesn't happen very often) or finding some other less than desirable and less than legal way of aborting the fetus which could quite possibly lead to infection or other medical complication which would end up being paid for by medicaid anyway.

No, that's a very good point.

I feel that politics too often falls into the trap of going "We don't support decisions xyz, and therefore it's more important to demonstrate our disgust for those people than it is to save money or fix the situation". It's one of the downsides to our current method of campaigning (where we focus more on personality and smear campaigns than debating the effectiveness of different platforms.)

+1.

Terrible, overly complicated (i.e political) country we live in.

 

[Dillinjl]

No, that's a very good point.

I feel that politics too often falls into the trap of going "We don't support decisions xyz, and therefore it's more important to demonstrate our disgust for those people than it is to save money or fix the situation".

My thoughts, exactly!

 

[TipToad]

I think the difference is mostly political. While abortion is an elective procedure (unless the fetus is an endangerment to the mother's health), the rape clause is present because people in general don't want the mother to face consequences that did not arise from her own choices. These consequences can be severe --raising a child born from rape, being reminded of the rape every time you see the child, etc.

I get that if she was raped, then the pregnancy was not due to her choices or actions, therefore she shouldn't have to pay for the abortion. But if some criminal shoots me and I have to go to the hospital, the government isn't going to cover my medical bill.. So what's the difference?

The link that you gave focuses on the Hyde Amendment, which primarily affects Medicaid. I don't think your comparison of getting shot is really fair. If you are on Medicaid and get shot, Medicaid should cover this tragic accident. So there isn't really much of a difference.

 

[MedPR]

I think the difference is mostly political. While abortion is an elective procedure (unless the fetus is an endangerment to the mother's health), the rape clause is present because people in general don't want the mother to face consequences that did not arise from her own choices. These consequences can be severe --raising a child born from rape, being reminded of the rape every time you see the child, etc.



The link that you gave focuses on the Hyde Amendment, which primarily affects Medicaid. I don't think your comparison of getting shot is really fair. If you are on Medicaid and get shot, Medicaid should cover this tragic accident. So there isn't really much of a difference.

Oh I see. Someone else mentioned what you're saying already, but it didn't make sense to me at the time. So this "covered by federal funding" is only for those people already on federal funded programs.

I still disagree with the special circumstances for rape though. I mean, there's no way the guy get convicted of rape before the abortion happens. And, according to our justice system, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the rape victim legally isn't really a rape victim until they prove the rapist guilty. So the feds are funding abortions for alleged rape victims.

 

[felix2929]

i agree. either fund them or don't, who is to say you were raped or not? i think this should not apply to children on medicaid though. this happened right in our hometown
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/09/05/former-teacher-charged-with-rape-of-student/

 

[Dillinjl]

I still disagree with the special circumstances for rape though. I mean, there's no way the guy get convicted of rape before the abortion happens. And, according to our justice system, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the rape victim legally isn't really a rape victim until they prove the rapist guilty. So the feds are funding abortions for alleged rape victims.

There need not be a conviction in order for it to be considered rape. A police investigation along with and exam by a physician (SAFE kit) in the emergency room can aid in determining whether someone has been raped. This will happen before the victim discovers she is pregnant. The conviction only determines the guilty party, not whether or not the crime happened. If the perpetrator is never found, there is no conviction, but that doesn't mean the woman was never raped.

 

[felix2929]

right but not all women come to an ER when they are raped and there is also statutory rape to consider...i believe the women coming to the ER are offered Plan B so I would imagine most of those cases (i think it is 85% effective?) do not result in a pregnancy.

 

[MedPR]

There need not be a conviction in order for it to be considered rape. A police investigation along with and exam by a physician (SAFE kit) in the emergency room can aid in determining whether someone has been raped. This will happen before the victim discovers she is pregnant. The conviction only determines the guilty party, not whether or not the crime happened. If the perpetrator is never found, there is no conviction, but that doesn't mean the woman was never raped.

Agreed, but if no perp is found how can they ever be sure that the fetus is a product of the rape?

 

[mehc012]

There need not be a conviction in order for it to be considered rape. A police investigation along with and exam by a physician (SAFE kit) in the emergency room can aid in determining whether someone has been raped. This will happen before the victim discovers she is pregnant. The conviction only determines the guilty party, not whether or not the crime happened. If the perpetrator is never found, there is no conviction, but that doesn't mean the woman was never raped.

This is one of the primary reasons that I am so opposed to the 'abortion-except-for-rape-victims' option. It puts the onus on the woman to prove beyond a doubt that her wishes were violated, or she will lose her ability to make a choice. Rape reporting and conviction statistics are already problematic; adding this in just adds more fuel to the fire when it comes to victim-blaming and minimization of date-rape scenarios.

Imagine a juror in a rape trial who views abortion = murder. In their mind, they are choosing between enabling the murder of an innocent child or letting a potential rapist go free. If it's a date-rape trial, it becomes even more unbalanced. The defense lawyer claims "she wasn't raped...she's just a slut who got pregnant and is now trying to avoid the consequences by claiming rape so she can kill her unborn child!" and it would instantly become the woman on trial, not the alleged rapist.

Politicians are already attempting to redefine 'rape' to fit in with their views on birth control and abortion. Phrases like 'forcible rape' are thrown around with terrifying frequency. If there were a nationwide policy allowing abortion only in rape cases, I'd fear that date rape, spousal rape, and all of the numerous forms other than 'stranger with a weapon rape' will be redefined, minimized, or ignored.

 

[Perrotfish]

So I was just reading that federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in the case where the woman was raped and/or is in a situation where the pregnancy endangers her life.

Does anyone know the logic behind this? I get that if she was raped, then the pregnancy was not due to her choices or actions, therefore she shouldn't have to pay for the abortion. But if some criminal shoots me and I have to go to the hospital, the government isn't going to cover my medical bill.. So what's the difference?

It's not different. The law doesn't say that federal funds WILL pay for an abortion caused by rape or incest, its saying they CAN'T pay for an abortion NOT caused by rape or incest.

Like, for example, I have Tricare, the military insurance. It's full service health insurance. It's also not an entitlement, its part of my pay and benifits package. As it is full coverage insurance it covers a lot of elective things, from teeth cleaning to outpatient mental health to significant discounts on some kinds of elective plastic surgery. However it is still federally funded, and therefore it can't cover elective abortion. Not ever. Neither can federally sponsored free clinics. Neither can medicaid. Any one of those programs, though, could cover abortion in the case of rape or incest if their various managing bodies decided to allow them do to do. They don't have to cover it, and not every woman has access to federal dollars for her abortion, they just can cover it if the subset of the government responsible for managing those programs allows them to and the woman has access to one of those programs.

The uninsured are just uninsured. If they're raped nothing is covered because they don't have any coverage.

 

[MedPR]

It's not different. The law doesn't say that federal funds WILL pay for an abortion caused by rape or incest, its saying they CAN'T pay for an abortion NOT caused by rape or incest.

Like, for example, I have Tricare, the military insurance. It's full service health insurance. It's also not an entitlement, its part of my pay and benifits package. As it is full coverage insurance it covers a lot of elective things, from teeth cleaning to outpatient mental health to significant discounts on some kinds of elective plastic surgery. However it is still federally funded, and therefore it can't cover elective abortion. Not ever. Neither can federally sponsored free clinics. Neither can medicaid. Any one of those programs, though, could cover abortion in the case of rape or incest if their various managing bodies decided to allow them do to do. They don't have to cover it, and not every woman has access to federal dollars for her abortion, they just can cover it if the subset of the government responsible for managing those programs allows them to and the woman has access to one of those programs.

The uninsured are just uninsured. If they're raped nothing is covered because they don't have any coverage.

Thanks, this clears up a lot!

 

[deleted439911]

Ideally, we want all victimized people to be able to receive the required medical attention. But realistically funds are limited, not only are there victims needing medical attention, but also senior citizen and people with disabilities requiring continuous care. That being said, the it is not so clean and cut where and how much we should allocate these funds, esp. if we want to argue that to fund rape victims medical care, then we should fund all victims of crime etc. Since that would mean that some funding somewhere would need to be left out.

 

[Dianyla]

Agreed, but if no perp is found how can they ever be sure that the fetus is a product of the rape?

Well, for starters, genital injuries experienced by the rape victim would be a pretty big clue.

Your statement is about as ridiculous as saying "If the gun is never found, how can we be really sure this person got shot?"

 

[couldabeenadoc]

Since the bill stipulates there is no preemption of State laws regarding abortion coverage,
it gets even more complicated when you consider individual State Abortion Policies. 😱

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf


HIGHLIGHTS:
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Physician and Hospital Requirements..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 39 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 21 states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 20 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point. .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Gestational Limits..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 41 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability. .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"Partial-Birth" Abortion..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 18 states have laws in effect that prohibit "partial-birth" abortion. 3 of these laws apply only to postviability abortions. .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Public Funding..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid enrollees in the state. 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only. .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Coverage by Private Insurance..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 8 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans, most often limiting coverage only to when the woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Most states allow the purchase of additional abortion coverage at an additional cost. .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Refusal..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 43 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions. .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]State-Mandated Counseling..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (5 states), the ability of a fetus to feel pain (11 states) or long-term mental health consequences for the woman (8 states). .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Waiting Periods..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 26 states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between when she receives counseling and the procedure is performed. 9 of these states have laws that effectively require the woman make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure. .
.[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings] ..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Parental Involvement..[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: 37 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 22 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 11 require that one or both parents be notified and 4 states require both parental consent and notification. .
.

 

[Dillinjl]

Well, for starters, genital injuries experienced by the rape victim would be a pretty big clue.

Your statement is about as ridiculous as saying "If the gun is never found, how can we be really sure this person got shot?"

Dianyla,

I think what he meant was how do we know the pregnancy was caused by the rape as opposed to a separate instance of consensual sex. This seems like a valid question if we are going to have legislation that only allows rape victims (on medicaid) federal funds for abortion. If there is no DNA evidence to prove the fetus was a product of the rape (as opposed to a separate instance of consensual sex) then how can we know for sure when to allow federal funds to pay for the abortion. There seems to be too much space for manipulation in this policy. I think you either have to allow medicaid to pay for all abortions or no abortions.

 

[mehc012]

Dianyla,

I think what he meant was how do we know the pregnancy was caused by the rape as opposed to a separate instance of consensual sex. This seems like a valid question if we are going to have legislation that only allows rape victims (on medicaid) federal funds for abortion. If there is no DNA evidence to prove the fetus was a product of the rape (as opposed to a separate instance of consensual sex) then how can we know for sure when to allow federal funds to pay for the abortion. There seems to be too much space for manipulation in this policy. I think you either have to allow medicaid to pay for all abortions or no abortions.

No. I mean that if a woman claims that she was raped by a friend, or her boyfriend, or her husband, or some guy she met at a party but she was pretty drunk and he didn't listen...how does she prove it's rape so that she qualifies for an abortion? If there happens to be trauma, great...but there isn't always conclusive physical evidence that a particular sexual encounter was nonconsensual (rape trials would be a lot easier if there was). Furthermore, not all victims report rape, especially date rape, immediately or at all. In fact, as contraceptives are usually provided upon rape reporting, I would be unsurprised if the majority of pregnant rape victims did not go to the hospital for an immediate physical exam.

Once she finds out she's pregnant, if she then wants to consider an abortion, how would she prove that she 'deserves' one?

 

[MiracleforMD]

No. I mean that if a woman claims that she was raped by a friend, or her boyfriend, or her husband, or some guy she met at a party but she was pretty drunk and he didn't listen...how does she prove it's rape so that she qualifies for an abortion? If there happens to be trauma, great...but there isn't always conclusive physical evidence that a particular sexual encounter was nonconsensual (rape trials would be a lot easier if there was). Furthermore, not all victims report rape, especially date rape, immediately or at all. In fact, as contraceptives are usually provided upon rape reporting, I would be unsurprised if the majority of pregnant rape victims did not go to the hospital for an immediate physical exam.

Once she finds out she's pregnant, if she then wants to consider an abortion, how would she prove that she 'deserves' one?

It kills me that this point had to be explained like 3 times to some people in this thread.

 

[DrBarbie08]

This is a very interesting thread, thank you all for the information. I am typically a very, very anti-abortionist due to moral reasons, however y'all have raised some very interesting points regarding funding post birth and the effects that has on society. I am not changing my mind that abortion is ethically wrong, but I do see how it offers a certain benefit to society.

 

[Sephiroth]

This is a very interesting thread, thank you all for the information. I am typically a very, very anti-abortionist due to moral reasons, however y'all have raised some very interesting points regarding funding post birth and the effects that has on society. I am not changing my mind that abortion is ethically wrong, but I do see how it offers a certain benefit to society.

You may find this an interesting read then:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

She changed her position regarding a zygote being considered a person, but that issue isn't what she focuses on, so even if you don't agree with that stance, it would still be worth reading.

 

[DrBarbie08]

You may find this an interesting read then:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

She changed her position regarding a zygote being considered a person, but that issue isn't what she focuses on, so even if you don't agree with that stance, it would still be worth reading.

That article in no way pertains to my previous comment about it being a possible benefit to society financially. She is saying she completely changed her view of right and wrong. I will always believe an implanted fetus, note: not a zygote, is a child, and that it is morally wrong to terminate their lives. Her whole point is that the answer is more "access" to contraception. As a woman I can tell you contraception is perfectly accessible, the problem is whether or not we chose to make the responsible decision to budget for and use it. Planned parenthood has bowls of free condoms available for anyone who wants them. What she fails to recognize is that passing out free birth control is great, but birth control won't protect you from STD's. Also the people choosing to make unhealthy decisions now probably aren't going to make the commitment to taking a pill every day. She changed her decision because she went to college and decided to rebel against her parents, not because she actually analyzed the social and financial outcomes.

 

[whatbout2morrow]

No. I mean that if a woman claims that she was raped by a friend, or her boyfriend, or her husband, or some guy she met at a party but she was pretty drunk and he didn't listen...how does she prove it's rape so that she qualifies for an abortion? If there happens to be trauma, great...but there isn't always conclusive physical evidence that a particular sexual encounter was nonconsensual (rape trials would be a lot easier if there was). Furthermore, not all victims report rape, especially date rape, immediately or at all. In fact, as contraceptives are usually provided upon rape reporting, I would be unsurprised if the majority of pregnant rape victims did not go to the hospital for an immediate physical exam.

Once she finds out she's pregnant, if she then wants to consider an abortion, how would she prove that she 'deserves' one?

Worse comes to worse, if the police report's been filed and her federally-sponsored insurance still won't cover it, she should contact the local abortion fund, or try to borrow the money.

 

[skais595]

This is a very interesting thread, thank you all for the information. I am typically a very, very anti-abortionist due to moral reasons, however y'all have raised some very interesting points regarding funding post birth and the effects that has on society. I am not changing my mind that abortion is ethically wrong, but I do see how it offers a certain benefit to society.

This is a perfect example of someone who could (without assuming I know your position) be personally anti-abortion and still recognize the need for abortion rights. If a person is anti-abortion for moral reasons, then the obvious solution is that person shouldn't get an abortion. But it's important even those people recognize that abortion can prevent a child being born into terrible poverty, to a drug-using family, to a woman who was pregnant because of rape, and then is a beneficial right to have in our society. As with almost everything, one person or group's moral judgements shouldn't define our country's laws.