Should Taxpayers Pay For Abortions?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

Should Taxpayers Pay For Abortions?
(posted with permission from http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com)

There are times in which abortions are necessary, such as from rape, from incest or to save the mother's life and the prospective mother can’t raise the money, leaving government as the last resort.

I respect those with moral convictions who oppose abortions. But the cost of abortions issue as something taxpayers can't afford is usually about the imposition of religious values, with the intent of ridding the U.S. of any abortions.

Yet some of those same people who oppose taxpayer paid abortions, then turn their backs on those who are born. They insist taxpayers can't afford post natal health care for the poor, nor operation head start for poor children, nor public school lunch programs for those who have no money to pay for lunch, nor even public schools, whose budgets are slashed and teachers laid off.

But some who oppose taxpayer paid abortions support the wars which kill or orphan children overseas for they view war as protecting America's "National Security" and this is an acceptable price. To them there is no end to the dollars taxpayers can afford to shower on the U.S. Military and its complex of corporate contractors.

The loss of human life to wars, hunger and disease makes my heartache. I wish we cared more about the lives of the people who have been born, such as the Iraqis and Afghans and the U.S. soldiers, and for that matter, the vast mass of people in America and elsewhere that live in poverty. Respecting and improving their lives instead of killing them or ignoring their deaths, would be an excellent use of our financial resources.

[jtown1123]

1. It costs less than forcing women to carry them to term who need public assistance

I realize that is an unpopular stance, but from a pure economic standpoint it makes sense. However, I would actually prefer birth control and comprehensive sex ed to be taxpayer funded, thus decreasing the need for abortions except in rare cases where contraception fails.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

4. Stop making so much damn sense!

:hi:

[jtown1123]

13. It's just so hard not to sometimes :)

[Still Blue in PDX]

19. Good points, all. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

81. Unpopular?

:shrug:

[Carolina]

93. agree 100%

[Lucian]

130. + a jillion

[Lance_Boyle]

2. Absolutely.

However this should be as part of a single-payer health care system and not a standalone funding mechanism for abortion only.

[geardaddy]

68. Bingo.

[MineralMan]

3. Personally, I think taxpayer should pay for all health care.

Single payer, tax-funded healthcare should be our goal. Abortions are health care.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

11. And we could afford it, if we stopped paying for wars and weapon systems..

we don't need.

[MineralMan]

22. We could afford it anyhow. Just the administrative cost savings

of a single-payer plan would cover care for those who couldn't afford care. And that doesn't even count control over how much is paid for a given procedure. Medicare has pointed the way on that issue.

[MedicalAdmin]

43. Actually we could afford it...

... if we just shifted the money from our current "pay the middle man" system to a single payer system. We could cover every person in the country and have money left over. And we could do it without putting any insurance company out of business. There are plenty of secondary insurance companies in Canada offering extended or supplementary coverage.

They'd just have to stop gouging.


Here's the figure from a few years ago. The USA spends about $7200 a year per person and covers only part of it's people. Canada, the next highest per capita expenses world wide spends about $3600 per year. So we could reform the system, cover everyone and save money.

Of course the medical system would have to relearn how to practice medicine. Our current model is completely subverted to the needs of the insurance companies that our provider systems would need to relearn how to treat patients as people rather than policies.

[RC]

17. Absolutely - I agree.

[hamsterjill]

35. +1

Well said!

[Broken_Hero]

36. +1, nt

[and-justice-for-all]

99. I would gladly do so...

abortions are at time a medical necessity.

[gratuitous]

5. Thanks to the Hyde Amendment, taxpayers don't pay for abortions

But that's apparently not enough for the uterus police, who are willing to go to great lengths to find ways that taxpayers "pay" for abortions. Evidently, for these tiny, preoccupied minds, any dollar that comes within six degrees of a dollar spent paying for an abortion taints that dollar. Therefore, anyone who carries employer-paid health insurance who purchases a separate rider for abortion is spending taxpayer dollars on abortion. Any clinic that provides abortion services that accepts Medicare or Medicaid patients is spending taxpayer dollars on abortion. And so forth.

[vim876]

6. If I....

have to pay for war in Iraq, they should have to pay for abortions. They are a legal procedure that should be treated like any other legal procedure.

[speltwon]

31. Not that simple

Not all legal procedures should be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Should taxpayer dollars pay for breast implants? Liposuction (in most cases), cosmetic surgery in general? No. Yet, they are legal

Otoh, abortion imo should be paid for. But don't say they should be treated like ANY other legal procedure. Just because a procedure is legal does not mean it should be subject to taxpayer dollars.

[Chemical Bill]

98. Taxpayer $$$ for breast implants?

Who cares! Most of my tax dollar goes for interest on the national (repuke raised) debt. The pittance for cosmetic surgery is not at the forefront of my concerns. Just like the few bucks spent on ER care for undocumented people.

Bill

[speltwon]

118. The pittance would likely be higher

if it was paid for by taxpayers and not by individuals. It is not in my concerns AT ALL, because it's a private matter between a patient and a doctor. Ditto for most cosmetic surgery. Abortion, otoh is not that type of concern and as a matter of public health and concern is open for funding

[REP]

106. Cosmetic surgery isn't really healthcare; plastic surgery is

A "boob job" because a woman would like a different size breats is cosmetic. A breast reduction/reconstruction is plastic surgery. Plastic surgery corrects a problem, like the results of a mastectomy or breats that are so large they cause neck and back damage. Even rhinoplasties can be plastic - for concha bulliosa, severely deviated septum, sequelae to accidents, etc.

[speltwon]

119. Cosmetic surgery is healthcare

if one takes mental health into account. It can significantly affect one's sense of self esteem, worth, etc. That may sound silly, but it's true. And like I said, I was differentiating cosmetic surgery and the plastic surgery that is not so cosmetic. For example, if a woman has a breast removed due to cancer, should the reconstruction be looked at differently than a woman who simply says "my breasts are too small/saggy/whatever and I want to improve them?"

Regardless, the point remains. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be funded by govt. Imo, abortion should be, such as through funding for planned parenthood etc.

[REP]

120. Did you read what I wrote? Please do.

[speltwon]

128. I did

I am saying it's a somewhat artificial distinction.

[VoteProgressive]

7. kick

[madinmaryland]

8. Should taxpayers pay for illegal and immoral wars?`

As to your question --> Yes. Under the situations you listed.

[tavalon]

9. I mostly don't care but when I think about it, yes, we should

or we should be willing to take care of the children who aren't aborted and since we have no intent to do so it makes our anger about our tax dollars just another strawman.

How about this question? Should Taxpayers pay for illegal and immoral wars not declared but conducted nonetheless?

[Marr]

10. If I can pay for waterboarding and illegal invasions, these people can

pay for things they don't support.

[TheKentuckian]

12. Pays for knee surgeries, flu shots, and anything else so sure.

[WinkyDink]

14. Citizens pay taxes and elect REPRESENTATIVES to spend or save said taxes. "Pick and choose" should

not be an option, except at the polls.

[kctim]

15. No. Providing abortions is not a function of our government.

[RC]

18. Abortion is a needed part of woman's health care.

As mentioned before, Single Payer, Universal Health Care needs to be the law of the land.

[HappyMe]

25. I agree. No, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for abortions.

As soon as taxpayers are made to pay -- poof! goes legal, safe abortions.

If you want the right to choose, you can't make someone pay that doesn't share your 'when life begins' belief.

[MedicalAdmin]

45. I admit that as a clinic admin I am a dumbass...

but you are going to have to connect the dots for me.

"As soon as taxpayers are made to pay -- poof! goes legal, safe abortions." How exactly will providing coverage for abortions lead to them being illegal or unsafe?

[HappyMe]

124. They have already cut Planned Parenthood funding.

Wrongly assuming that that's all Planned Parenthood does is abortions.

I'm thinking that if that there is a whiff of abortion in a health care plan that taxpayers pay for, out goes the health care plan and/or legal abortions.

Abortion is a super hot button these days. They are itching to find ways to get rid of it.

[uppityperson]

134. "As soon as taxpayers are made to pay -- poof! goes legal, safe abortions." Please explain

I do not understand what you mean, doesn't make sense. Thank you.

[MedicalAdmin]

44. Show me a single government employee whose job is abortion.

Can they get reimbursed for their work through the patients insurance or other coverage, including government coverage? Yes, but not government employee provides abortions (outside the military which is kinda it's own world...).

Given that abortions are a medical proceedure, do you then also say that the government not function in any form of medical care or coverage?

[Warren Stupidity]

76. providing health insurance is, as in medicare and medicaid

and reproductive health services are obviously an important part of coverage.

[Lucian]

132. So...

Just make the woman carry it to full term then and go on public assistance to be able to pay for the kid, which will cost a lot more, btw.

:eyes:

[bluestateguy]

16. I've always liked the idea of every taxpayer getting a checkoff sheet with their taxes

Such that you could direct your taxes to the programs of your choice. Then the conservatives could pay for all of the wars that they support and progressives could direct their money to the National Endowment for the Arts and Pell Grants.

[RC]

20. What a wonderful idea.

I'm sure someone will be along to tear it apart though.

[HappyMe]

28. That's a great idea.

:thumbsup:

I doubt that it would happen. The government probably prefers to write checks to whomever THEY want.

[MedicalAdmin]

47. Is it a good idea.

It depends on whether or not you think you are a citizen or a consumer.

[rdking647]

21. govt financed abortions

if the abortion is from rape,incest,or to save the mothers life and she cant afford it,the government should pay. itf its beacuse she just doesnt want the child then the government shouldnt pay

[hamsterjill]

37. I disagree

The choice to have an abortion should be the woman's. End of story. Pregnancy is not supposed to be about punishment.

[rdking647]

40. a woman still has the right to an abortion

but if its her choice she should also have to pay for what is an elective procedure.. the government shouldnt have to pay for an elective,non medically needed abortion anymore than it should have to pay for a face lift

[hamsterjill]

53. Abortion should be part of her healthcare.

And it should be no one else's business.

[rdking647]

56. should cosmetic surgery

they are both elective procedures if teh abortion is not medically needed

[REP]

66. Looks like someone doesn't know that "elective" means something else to doctors

Here's a hint: life-saving surgery may be elective or emergent.

Interesting that you think abortion and cosmetic surgery are about the same. Fascinating, in fact.

[donheld]

116. What kind of Cosmetic Surgery?

If it's to repare someones face/body after an accident or other injury i have no problem helping to pay.

[uppityperson]

48. Should taxpayers pay for things like diabetes, cholesterol or hypertension meds?

Since all of those are frequently based on diet and lifestyle choices, they shouldn't be paid for with my tax dollars. If it is because he/she doesn't want to eat healthily, then the government shouldn't pay. Right?

[geardaddy]

85. Or lung cancer?

Excellent point.

[MedicalAdmin]

49. Slut! For shame! Hussy! Jezebel! Unclean woman! Infidel!

After all we need to be basing medical decisions about medical issues based on our moral outrage.

[hamsterjill]

84. Scarlett Letter

Oh, yes, and let's make her wear a big red letter so that the world will know her sins!!! (Sarcasm of course).

Your post is spot on!

[Warren Stupidity]

77. should government pay if she just does want the child?

[randr]

23. This tax payer does not want to pay for wars as a moral conviction

When ever I bring this up to a right to lifer I get stares.
They deny the use of their tax dollars on a moral ground, why can't I?

[Lyric]

24. Yes. If we have to help pay for the bombs that kill *wanted* Iraqi fetuses

then anti-choicers should have to help pay for the surgery to remove unwanted American ones.

Why should they have the "special right" to have their morality honored and coddled, while ours is ignored?

:shrug:

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

26. Excellent comment.

Bravo!

[Lars39]

27. Abortions are •always• necessary.

A woman's decision may be based on many things, but the decision is hers. Anything else is forcing her to risk her life, health and psychological well being.

[CTyankee]

33. They're not something that women just take into their silly little heads to do,

after they get their manicures?

[Lars39]

46. *Insert gratuitous dumb blond joke here*

:hi:

[CTyankee]

51. I actually heard that argument being made by some anti choicer.

It was a guy. I was almost trembling with rage when I heard it...still steams me up!

[Lars39]

57. I don't blame you....them thar's fightin' words!

[Horse with no Name]

29. Because of HIPAA, taxpayers shouldn't have the RIGHT

to know the medical condition that are paying for. Abortion is a legal medical procedure.
THAT should be the end of the discussion.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

32. That's a great point!

Thank you for making it.

[riderinthestorm]

39. You beat me to it. This is a medical decision that's between a doctor and the patient

Beyond that, it's nobody else's decision. If the woman gets Medicare or Medicaid (or their states version thereof), then it's a medical procedure that's nobody else's business.

[rdking647]

41. so are face lifts

and I dont see the government paying for those

[Horse with no Name]

103. Actually you would be incorrect here

Cosmetic surgery isn't FORBIDDEN to be covered--if the employer/insurer chooses to cover it, it can be covered at a much higher premium, undoubtedly. It is generally excluded--but if those that pay the premiums are willing to foot the bill, it can be covered.

[grahamhgreen]

30. Yes. If not, they should pay for the childs education through PHD, healthcare,

housing, food, and unemployment is ever unemployed.

[rdking647]

42. no she should put the child up for adoption

[Lars39]

50. And if the pregnancy or delivery kills her?

You are risking your life and health...it's not a cut and dried situation.

[rdking647]

55. hence medically neeeded

if teh abortion is for medical reasons the gov should pay for it.. if not then no.

[Lars39]

58. Severe anxiety and depression resulting from an unwanted pregnancy

is a medical reason, too.

[uppityperson]

52. Poor women should put their children up for adoption? Seriously?

Rather than giving any help, the kids should be adopted out?

Did you go to a public school? Did you drive on public roads? etc.

[ceile]

59. Then would it be ok to pay for the counseling

she'll need after suffering through a pregnancy and giving the child up? Or is that not medically necessary either?

[REP]

69. Surrendering a child for adoption has long-lasting negative effects for the woman, unlike abortion

Why do you want to hurt women this way?

[CTyankee]

73. Well, women who don't want to be a mother can just be a brood mare for women

who can't have a child...right?

[REP]

82. It is the duty of young, poor women to breed for older, wealthier ones, no matter the cost

[CTyankee]

89. as long as they are (ahem) ...white...

[REP]

92. ...or white-ish, but most important, the baby *isn't* a black male

Those just aren't trendy, and there are plenty of black male children who need homes, but can't find them.

[CTyankee]

104. Well, you can't have "them". Right?

This makes me sick...

[REP]

107. "They" are just so much trouble - unless they're imported from the developing country du jour

Then they're hot!

:barf:

[hamsterjill]

88. Of course a single mother couldn't raise a child, right?

Is that what you're saying with this comment????

The choice to terminate a pregnancy is the woman's choice. Alone. Privately. End of story.

The choice to continue a pregnancy is the woman's choice. And if she chooses to have the child, the choice to raise that child or to give it up for adoption should be hers.

[REP]

110. The question isn't if she can but if she should ... wealthy couples want babies, and now!

(offer applies mostly to light-skinned poor women; darker-skinned poor women expecting male children may experience no offers. This is not an offer to buy your baby; the $100K+ will be collected by well-meaning lawyers who have their your best interests at heart. You will receive a token monthly stipend and no counseling to deal with the crushing depression following the surrender of your helpless newborn.)

[grahamhgreen]

140. Disagree: Twins Tortured to Death by Adoptive Parents - March 07, 2011 10:25 PM EST

Earlier this week the body of a 10-year-old girl was discovered in the truck of her adopted father. The young child was bound in a garbage bag, doused with corrosive chemicals, and was badly decomposed. Ten-year-old Nubia Doctor-Barahona didn't survive the abuse her adoptive parents had dealt out to her and her twin brother Victor. This week when she and her brother, who is alive, were discovered, it was unclear as to why this horrendous act occurred and their adoptive father, Jorge Barahona, was immediately charged for murder."


http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979123775

[AngryOldDem]

65. Exactly,

Seems that most pro-lifers are strangely silent when it comes to the cold, hard fact of life outside the delivery room.

[Omaha Steve]

34. Yes

Need I say more?

[dawg]

38. Only when medically necessary.

Otherwise, it is an elective procedure. (And one that many voters have moral qualms about)

I think we are right to demand the right to make our own choices in such matters. I think we overstep when we demand that others pay.

[Lars39]

54. Last I heard women do have brains that are part of the human body.

You do women a disservice by discounting the psychological impact of an unwanted pregnancy.

[dawg]

60. I'm not saying they shoudn't have abortions.

I just don't think they should be taxpayer-funded. I would imagine an unwanted pregnancy would involve lots of psychological trauma whether or not an abortion was involved.

The question is whether abortions should be taxpayer-funded. I think there are situations when taxpayer-funding is appropriate, but not when it is clearly an elective procedure. I'm not unsympathetic to their plight; I just think it's poor public policy, in a country that is so divided over this issue, to provide blanket funding for elective abortions.

[Lars39]

62. Poor public policy is not providing important gynecological care to women.

And yet Medicare will generally cover penile implants.

[dawg]

70. Well, I'll admit you've got a point with that one.

A penile implant sounds like an elective surgery, too. :)

Really, if the world were a more sane place, this wouldn't be an issue. There would better sex education and access to good birth control. There would be fewer unplanned pregnancies, and people would be more understanding and supportive of a woman's choices when they did occur. But that isn't the world we live in.

I just think that any attempt to cover routine abortions would be met with a level of lunacy that would make the health-care townhall meetings look sane. I know that doesn't necessarily make it right, but I can't ignore the consequences of what I know would happen.

[Lars39]

74. You're giving up important ground.

Women should always have full health care, no matter what their income, regardless of someone's religious beliefs.

[jp11]

96. Everyone should always have full health care, no matter thier income or other people's beliefs.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

101. Nicely put..

Thank you
:hi:

[dawg]

123. What I would really like is what an earlier poster mentioned ...

a check-the-box option on my tax return. We could all opt to give $10 or so of our tax refunds to pay for a women's reproductive choices fund that would help low-income women afford the services they need.

[Lars39]

129. And you think that would raise enough money for needed services?

Too chancy.

[HappyMe]

127. Agreed.

In a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue.


The creepy, narrow minded morals police are going to be out in force (I saw Newt et al on msnbc last night).

I'm worried that it will come down to health care for all vs. health care for all with paid abortions vs. roe v wade.

It might sound far-fetched, but the morals police are cooking something up.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. so is carrying a child to term.

Those are both 'choices' and thus 'elective procedures'. In fact the condition being 'treated' is pregnancy, and there are a range of choices regarding how to 'treat' the pregnancy. The only one you seem to want to pay for is the 'carry to term' choice. Too bad for you. May you never get pregnant :-)

[Horse with no Name]

105. Okay. Let's say YOU have an incurable cancer.

But yet you choose very expensive treatment to fight this cancer.

My beliefs are that quality of life is much better than quantity of life and the treatment that you have chosen clearly won't result in a better outcome for you, but it gives you and your loved ones the peace of mind that you tried everything you could.

Should I have the RIGHT to interfere with your decision since it is going to cost me money? OR by your own standards not interfere with your choice but DEMAND that you pay for it out of pocket so it doesn't offend my beliefs?

[dawg]

122. You know, depending on the circumstances ...

I think there does come a point where extraordinary procedures cross the line into being "elective" and something that possibly should not be covered by public benefits. Naturally, I would want as much to be covered as possible. But there isn't enough money in the world to pay for everything that some people would be willing to try under such circumstances.

I would want the government to do as much as is reasonably possible, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because we wish it were not so, does not change that.

[Horse with no Name]

126. Yet....

Nobody is trying to challenge this.

Whereas your cancer treatment could cost in the neighborhood of hundreds of thousands of dollars...an abortion costs around $500, give or take.

So, I have to ask...do you REALLY think this is just about the money?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Yes. The government should pay for medical care (including abortions) period.

[AngryOldDem]

63. Why should the poor get any less coverage or services than the rest of the population?

And as for the argument that "I don't want my tax dollars going for something like that," there are a hell of a lot of things that I don't like my tax dollars paying for, either, but I live with it.

When the "pro-life" folks actually start giving a damn about people who are ALREADY HERE, maybe I'll listen. Until then, they can STFU.

[catzies]

94. That is the crux of the matter to me. No funding for services = no access, ergo no "choice."

I'm putting choice in quotes for emphasis on this particular definition instead of as a synonym for "options."

[devilgrrl]

64. Yes, they should. And Executions.

:popcorn:

[WatsonT]

67. Yeah

it's a net savings in the long term.

[fascisthunter]

71. why yes, yes I do... and all other healthcare issues

[handmade34]

72. Yes

I am shocked that this is even still a question...

[spanone]

75. they DON'T.

[Control-Z]

78. YES.

Birth control should also be paid for.

Edit: And sex education. And pretty much all reproductive needs.

Let just say all medical needs should be paid for.

[SidDithers]

80. Should tax payers pay for a kidney transplant?...

Yes.

Sid

[Fire1]

83. I do indeed. Single Payer. n/t

[fittosurvive]

86. Of course not, abortion is not a costly procedure.

[Lars39]

95. What a specious argument.

It might as well cost a million if you're too broke to come up with the money.

[tabasco]

87. Fuck yeah.

Too many goddamn poor people in the world already without forcing them to have babies.

[Bandit]

90. Tax payers should only pay for bombs and bullets so we can kill people.

:shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

91. Yes - nt

[w8liftinglady]

97. universal health care would make this a non-issue

Pregnancy termination is a medical procedure.
end of statement.

[etherealtruth]

100. Tax payers should pay for medical care

The particular procedures are between a physician and her patient

[joshcryer]

102. +1

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

136. I agree too. nt

[WillyT]

108. Yes... Otherwise, Only The Rich Will Be Able To Afford Abortions

And boy... when Buffy gets pregnant, she and her parents WILL HAVE an abortion, if the pregnancy is unwanted.

Heirs to the will, and all that...

:shrug:

[backscatter712]

109. YES!!! The fetus-fetishists can go fuck themselves. n/t

[krispos42]

111. Yeah.

Let's face it, if the woman doesn't want the baby and is forced to bring it up anyway, odds are it won't turn out nearly as cheery as it could. Women generally know when they're not capable of properly raising a child, either due to personal temperament, personal health, living situation, income, neighborhood, etc. Not always, but usually.

Let them make that choice. It does women and society better than the alternative.

[quaker bill]

112. With exceptions

for rape, incest, and imminent threat to the health of the mother, I would say not. I would also be ok with some form of support / subsidy for those economically incpable of affording the procedure. Abortions are an expensive and somewhat dangerous form of birth control. There should be some financial incentive to use safer and less invasive methods, which I think should be available to all at very low cost or free.

[EstimatedProphet]

113. Wrong question

The question really should be "Should rightwingers look at pregnancy and children as a burden and a punishment for immoral behavior?"

[geardaddy]

115. Well-played, old bean! n/t

[ShadowLiberal]

114. If antiwar activists and Quakers have to pay for many expensive wars then why not?

The whole reason I think the 'tax payers shouldn't have to pay for abortions' argument is complete bolony is because no one is willing to apply that logic elsewhere, like to war spending.

Quakers believe it's sinful to have wars for any reasons, same with killing people. Yet you don't hear them complaining about their tax payer money funding wars in the middle east that kill hundreds of thousands, both innocents and foes and our own people. And why should others besides Quakers who believe that all wars are morally wrong have to pay for all our wars either? In fact why should we have to pay for an army, let alone keeping troops deployed in so many nations throughout the world.

[donheld]

117. Yes, no exceptions

Morning after pill should be sold like lifesavers and gum.

[JCMach1]

121. Since it seems to lower rates of imprisonment and the crime rate, it is actually cost effective

... Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

The authors argue that states that had abortion legalized earlier and more widespread should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.<3> Finally, studies in Canada and Australia purport to have established a correlation between legalized abortion and overall crime reduction.<3> One also should consider the "Cosmorwellian" cell phone cultures, and gun ban, with types of crime.<4>... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

It is also the right thing to do for many other reasons.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

133. That's an interesting study, but lets not fight crime using abortions as a tool...

The cost of those who need an abortion is really nit the issue. I think the point has been many times on this thread, that when it is a medical procedure that is needed, it should be paid for by taxpayers like any other legal necessary procedure that a doctor orders.

[JCMach1]

142. The right-wing is always saying they want to fight crime-- just equipping you to blow their mind

[Bettie]

125. Yes

Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Of course it should be paid for.

[ieoeja]

131. Yes. But since some people get weird about abortion, I am willing to compromise.

My compromise is:

1. Government does not make direct payments for abortions.
2. You stop talking about abortions. Ever again. Just shut the fuck up already.

[JuniperLea]

135. It has been illegal to use tax money for abortions since abortions were made legal...

This is a red herring the RW throws out every time they try to put the kibosh on abortions. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion... disingenuous at best to include it in abortion discussions.

[Iggo]

143. Even so....Yes.

[Iggo]

137. Yes.

[Shagbark Hickory]

138. Tax payers should demand them. nt

[Marrah_G]

139. Yes- we should, no questions asked

[ismnotwasm]

141. Yes n/t