Abortion

EACH Woman Act Would Allow Federal Medicaid Plans to Cover Abortion

New bill would kill the Hyde Amendment and also stop states from banning private insurance coverage of abortion.

|

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health/Twitter

A group of female Democrats in Congress has introduced a bill that would kill the Hyde Amendment, a policy that has for nearly 40 years prohibited federal Medicaid coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the mother's life. The language advocates are using to talk about the bill, called the EACH Woman Act, is rather obnoxious—"No woman should ever be denied critical reproductive health services, including safe and legal abortion, simply because her health insurance refuses to cover her care," said Center for Reproductive Rights CEO Nancy Northrup in a statement. But putting an end to a policy that's based on religion, not health care needs and/or cost-effectiveness, is a good idea nonetheless. 

Of course, Medicaid funding for abortions seems to provoke knee-jerk objections outside religious conservative circles, too. Fiscal conservatives prone to bristling over the low-income insurance program in general seem especially incensed by the idea of "taxpayer-funded abortions." But anyone who's actually more concerned with cost efficiency than punishing people for their choices should see that covering an abortion—which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second—is a heck of a lot cheaper than covering pregnancy and labor costs.

"Childbirth in the United States is uniquely expensive, and maternity and newborn care constitute the single biggest category of hospital payouts for most commercial insurers and state Medicaid programs," according to The New York Times. And this excludes the potential cost of Medicaid coverage and other aid to the child as it grows up. Even if you don't endorse Medicaid ideologically, it currently exists, and so shouldn't it exist with optimal cost-efficiency and efficacy? 

Obviously some women on Medicaid—in which 1 in 6 women of reproductive age are enrolled—will find the money to obtain an abortion regardless of whether insurance pitches in. But getting the money together takes time, and time is of the essence when it comes to pregnancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, women on Medicaid are more likely to have abortions later in pregnancy, when the fetus is further developed and the procedure is more expensive, more risky, and more likely to require travel. 

The EACH Woman Act, introduced by Representatives Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), would benefit women on Medicaid as well as federal employees and others. It has two main components:

1) Restoring abortion coverage to health insurance programs managed by the federal government, including Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Indian Health Services, and the federal health care program for military families

2) Prohibiting federal, state, and local government policies that ban private health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage

Though the full bill text isn't available yet—and I wouldn't put it past Congressional Dems to try such shenanigans—nothing indicates that it will attempt to require private insurance companies to cover abortion. 

NEXT: Is This the Most Libertarian Legal Opinion Ever Written?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. “No nukes! No nukes!”

      It all depends on the bait.

    2. I’m afraid to look below this comment.

    3. Apparently, Hit &Run; is down too, just like the NYSE. 2 and half hours and no new post? WTF?

    4. As soon as I saw an ENB abortion article with 330 comments, I smiled. Can’t wait to see what kind of shit show lies beneath.

  1. This sounds like the bill to sneak that gun ban into.

  2. “Childbirth in the United States is uniquely expensive, and maternity and newborn care constitute the single biggest category of hospital payouts for most commercial insurers and state Medicaid programs,” according to The New York Times.

    “Congrats on your pregnancy. But look, tax revenues came up a little short this year, and Medicaid just can’t afford to put you up in the hospital for a week while you give birth. So we’re just going to go ahead and kill your baby. Now, now, no complaining.. it’s for the Common Good, you see.”

    1. People on medicaid are gross and poor and we don’t really want “those” kinds of people reproducing.

      1. Margaret Sanger thanks you.

        1. So long as they’re born to American parents on American soil, every new poor person should be welcomed, I guess.

          1. I see what you’re saying. We should put up a portable border fence around every medicaid mom.

  3. But anyone who’s actually more concerned with cost efficiency than punishing people for their choices should see that covering an abortion?which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second?is a heck of a lot cheaper than covering pregnancy and labor costs.

    Lol, that actually is kind of an insulting argument to pro-lifers.

    1. If you take their argument at face value.

    2. “kind of”? I’m not even a pro-lifer but that stinks to high heavens.

      What about those of us who are neither wanting to “punish” people for their “bad decisions(?)” nor are we concerned with “cost efficiency” when it comes to performing abortions?

      1. I was trying to be charitable.

      2. shouldn’t everyone be concerned about cost efficiency?

        1. Well when you elect to have the gov. pay for it you kind of toss your concerns about any kind of efficiency out the window.

          1. that’s fair.

        2. If that’s the case, I’ve got a coat hanger I’ll let any woman borrow for free; whether she’s on Medicaid or not.

          1. No fetus
            can beat us!

            You rape ’em,
            We scrape ’em!

            Last one outta here
            Is a fertilized egg!

      3. It’s a bit like saying it’s far cheaper to just execute suspected criminals on the spot rather than give them fair trials.

        1. No. It’s more like saying “If they’re going to force you to pay for other people, one costs less. If you have no moral qualms about it, it’s the rational decision.”

          1. If you want abortions to be cheaper getting Medicaid involved is one way to guarantee they will get more expensive.

            But that being said it’s kinda messed up that the argument is how much cheaper it is to kill a “bad decision” than it is to raise an actual child. That’s like saying it’s cheaper to just kill yourself at 50 than to drain resources through Medicaid beyond those years.

            What the fuck.

            1. I eagerly await some Luddite progressive congressperson, (Ms Boxer, I’m looking at you) to propose the “Carousel Act of 2015”.*

              *Elected leaders exempted from Carousel, of course.

          2. So what’s the issue? Or were the “I don’t want to pay for abortions” crowd just covering for their religious/emotional objections to abortion all along?

            1. yes. I think that might be it.

              I, on the other hand, don’t care who aborts who (excepting that I think the fathers should be able to bring suit to prevent such things- but that’s a different matter).

              I really just don’t want to pay for it.

              1. Nor do I.

                Of course, abortion is a tiny morsel going into the gaping maw of Medicaid.

            2. The religious/emotional objections crowd never seemed to hide behind anything to me, they seemed pretty clear that they oppose abortions for religious/emotional reasons.

              But those like myself who don’t care whether or not you have an abortion are a bit mystified by the argument that we should get medicaid involved so we can make abortions cheaper since raising a child is SO MUCH more expensive.

              +1 Death panel.

              1. Well, of course I don’t want to pay for abortions, or for Medicaid at all. But if abortion/child rearing is purely an economic argument–and assuming Medicaid isn’t going anywhere–then the math is pretty clear which is the cheaper course.

                1. I disagree that the math is “pretty clear” for two reasons.

                  One, private markets would be more efficient in providing lower cost abortions. Medicaid is virtually guaranteed to make it more expensive.

                  Two, the cost benefit analysis of raising a child vs. killing it off does not take in to consideration who exactly is getting killed off. Sure, some of these babies may end up as negative costs, but many could also potentially become people who add positively to the economy by becoming rich or creating jobs.

                  This takes death panels to an absurd extreme.

                  1. One, private markets would be more efficient in providing lower cost abortions. Medicaid is virtually guaranteed to make it more expensive.

                    I addressed that.

                    Two

                    A completely skewed analysis unless you take in all the other lifepaths as well. How many job creators vs. murders and welfare drainers do you think are coming out of the Medicaid wombs?

                    1. How many job creators vs. murders and welfare drainers do you think are coming out of the Medicaid wombs?

                      That’s a good question. One might assume that it’s mostly murderers and welfare drainers, but then how many welfare drainers equals one Bill Gates? This isn’t a simple answer, is my point. There are a variety of factors involved in this particular cost benefit analysis.

                    2. That’s a good question. One might assume that it’s mostly murderers and welfare drainers, but then how many welfare drainers equals one Bill Gates? This isn’t a simple answer, is my point. There are a variety of factors involved in this particular cost benefit analysis.

                      From a simple monetary analysis – a whole hell of a lot.

                      1. Let’s assume us some spherical cows – the ‘welfare drainers’ are only a cost cost and the ‘Bill Gates’ are only a benefit.

                      2. Somewhere I read that entrepreneurs only capture about 3% (max) of the wealth they create. Bill Gates is worth approx $86 *billion*.

                      3. Assume the welfare drainers cost us a round $100,000

                      That gives us 860,000 thousand welfare drainers to counter a single Bill Gates.

                    3. Bill Gates is a greedy capitalist pig, so we (The Government Almighty, Which Speaks for Us, All is For the Hive, Sieg Hive!) must tax away the majority of his ill-gotten $86 billion? You know, he did NOT build that? And spent it all on the poor, because the poor deserve medical care evry bit as much as Bill Gates does. And no, we will NOT let Bill make his own charity choices? He is not qualified to do that! He doesn’t even have a fancy college degree and licences, like the social worker do!

                      Then when Bill turns 65 or so, we will give him a bullet, and encourage him to punch his own ticket, as being medically far more cost-efficient, than using “society’s resources” to sustain his sorry ass in his old age. All is for the Hive!!!

                    4. A completely skewed analysis unless you take in all the other lifepaths as well. How many job creators vs. murders and welfare drainers do you think are coming out of the Medicaid wombs?

                      This argument suddenly changes if we’re talking about moving across a border instead of outside a womb.

                  2. Tman- sure, SOME of these babies may have positive costs- but that’s not the point.

                    Someone could abort the next hitler/einstein is a bad argument. The argument here is do they WANT to abort. We’re not talking forced abortions, simply access.

                    We are also operating under the assumption that we will be forced to pay for it one way or another. There is not assumption here of “the market provides it cheaper.” That ship has sailed.

                    1. SOME of these babies may have positive costs- but that’s not the point.

                      Actually, that is my point. Neither of us can know the answer to this question, thus assuming +/- costs is faulty reasoning.

                      We are also operating under the assumption that we will be forced to pay for it one way or another.

                      This is the argument that is used to justify Obamacare.

                      “Hey those folks are going to the emergency room without insurance, and we all end up paying for it. We should just insure them all to bring the costs down.”

                      How’s that working out so far?

                2. So is killing newborns with Down Syndrome or other debilitating illnesses.

                  For that matter, some cost-benefit analyst could have recommended that we kill Reason before or after her birth because it would cost $250,000 for her first few months of life.

                  1. ^^This was in response to SF at 1:13.

                  2. For that matter, some cost-benefit analyst could have recommended that we kill Reason before or after her birth because it would cost $250,000 for her first few months of life.

                    Yes, it would.

                    But in the supposedly cold calculus of the purely economic objection to public funding of abortions vs. funding childbirth and rearing, that shouldn’t matter.

                    And your child is cuter than most poor kids anyway.

                3. Well, of course I don’t want to pay for abortions, or for Medicaid at all.

                  Would you be willing to pay for tiny American flags?

                  1. Would you be willing to pay for tiny American flags?

                    Only a few here and there. I’m not made of money.

              2. It is a rational argument.

                1)The state is going to force you to pay for either abortions or supplement the rearing of children.
                2)Abortions is more cost effective than the projected costs of childbirth and rearing.
                3)Without moral objections, the rational choice is the most cost effective.
                4)Abortion is the rational choice.

                1. 1)The state is going to force you to pay for either both abortions or and supplement the rearing of children.

                  FTFY.

                  I wish we could abort most of our political class, and unlike for these abortions, i would be willing to pay up to see that happen.

                2. The extension to that rational argument leads to forced sterilization and euthenasia.

                3. Wait till Neocons get hold of this argument.

                  1) The state is going to force you to pay for our already bloated defense budget so why not let us bomb Middle Eastern countries indiscriminately, or even possible drop nuclear weapons, or allow people such as Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales go ahead and get rid of as many Muslims fucks as possible so that there won’t be any blowback or possible future terrorists.
                  2. Completely getting rid of any possible terrorists through any means necessary is more cost effective than spending 10+ years in that country.
                  3 Without moral objections, the rational choice is the most cost effective.
                  4) Neutralizing any and all possible threats in the Middle East is the rational choice.

            3. Or were the “I don’t want to pay for abortions” crowd just covering for their religious/emotional objections to abortion all along?

              Well, yes, of course.

      4. Exactly.

        My not wanting to personally relieve you of the burdens that your decisions have placed on you is not me wanting to *punish* you for those decisions.

        Its me not wanting to give my money to other people.

      5. Nope, sorry, you have to be at least one of those.

    3. Death does tend to be more cost efficient than treatment, but usually this argument is not trotted out openly.

      1. It isn’t? You don’t think pro-choice people talk all the time about how abortions are a wiser choice for poor women than keeping it?

        1. I was speaking in the context of medicine.

        2. “You don’t think pro-choice people talk all the time about how abortions are a wiser choice for poor women than keeping it?”

          Eugenicists certainly did.

      2. Isn’t that kind of the purpose of abortion in the first place?

        1. pretty much what nikki said.

        2. I’m pretty sure freakonomics has a whole chapter on it.

          1. Why not just sterilize the poor? Its even cheaper

            1. because that is a straw man…?

              no one is advocating forced abortions- simply access.

              1. “”simply access.””

                I missed the part where Planned Parenthood was banned from the ghetto

            2. If the whole reversible junk glue thing pans out, then we might see government pre-emptively sterilize males until they can show the financial capacity to care for a child.

              No one will care about the imposition on liberty because it’s dudes and anyone complaining will be labeled an MRA, and it means fewer welfare cases (and stopping the brown folk already here from outbreeding us) so there will be some right wing support, and from a practical standpoint, forcing men to wait longer for children until they’re socially/financially ready comes with fewer biological downsides than it does with women (though not none).

        3. This thread is like a pro-lifer’s wet dream.

          1. Really? I haven’t seen any of those fetus-parts-in-a-bucket pics they like to stroke to yet.

            1. Give it time. I think Eddie gets out of bed late.

  4. Jesus.
    More culture war.

    Prediction:
    Because the EACH Woman Act is solely intended to fight the culture war, it’s going to be entirely counterproductive to its stated goals.

    1. Yeah, but there’s gonna be lots of good ol cronyism stuffed into that puppy, so someone’s gotta think it’s good. And isn’t that all that really matters? I mean, come on, no one really still thinks that any bills are written, voted on, and passed for any other reason whatsoever, do they?

    2. Even if it isn’t solely intended to fight KULTUR WAR, it will immediately and irrevocably be transformed into that by the media and the politicians and the loudest social media voices.

      That’s the thing about KULTUR WAR. Once it has assimilated a subject, it is nearly impossible to have a rational public discussion about the subject again. And that’s exactly what it is supposed to do. If people are squabbling over an subject in which they are invested emotionally, they’re not paying rational attention to a host of other issues.

      1. I CANT HEAR OBAMACARE PREMIUMS SKYROCKETING OVER THE SOUND OF YOUR CONFEDERATE FLAG SUPPORT YOU RACIST

        1. Look, I’d much rather talk about fake black people and celebrity rapists than about the administration openly breaking the law, without consequence, in service of an attempt to imprison their political opponents. That’s the kind of discussion that ends in a subpoena.

          1. Only if you allude to the dreaded woodchipper. Or did I miss more stories of the Empire fucking with its detractors?

      2. As long as they aren’t paying for any homo abortions, I’m OK with this.

    3. ^^This. Way too much clickbait lately.

    4. Plus, as we all know, when Uncle Sugar subsidizes an activity, it inevitably leads to more of that activity. And increased costs.

  5. And this has what chance of passing in the Senate? I see this as more as a “War on Wimminz” politiking.

    1. Look, Republicans oppose helping ‘EACH’ woman!

      That’s EACH woman! That’s like every woman!

      Republicans are against women!

      War on women!

  6. “Medicaid funding for abortions”

    I’m all for it. I even wrote a song about it.

    1. +1

      I actually made a successful guess as to what song you linked, as I thought the exact same thing.

  7. First Cosby…and now Jared? Have we collectively been living a lie, America? Or is this just part of the Illuminati Freemason Zionist shape-shifting Lizard People’s misinformation campaign to keep us obese and docile?

    Discuss.

    1. You forgot the “dude your getting a dell” guy, after he got busted for pot some years back I lost all hope in humanity and became the anarchist I am today.

    2. Why do you think they’re legalizing the pot?

    3. He’s a kiddie-porn monger. Anyone who’s ever eaten @ Subway is an enabler. You should all be ashamed and that horrible Water Injected, Coagulated Deli Meat should be forever banned as a consequence.

      /Boar’s Head management

      1. Boar’s Head must be better somewhere given its reputation, but out here on the west side of the country it tastes like Oscar Mayer.

        1. That may be so, but its still a damn sight better than Subway

    4. Tuesday’s raid comes more than two months after the executive director of the Jared Foundation — Fogle’s organization that aspires to combat childhood obesity — was arrested in Indianapolis on federal child pornography charges.

      The Jared Foundation: No Fat Kids!

    5. Jared is now an unperson.

      1. That is the funniest shit I’ve seen in a long while.

      2. RL trolling is the best trolling!

  8. which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second

    Yeah lets get every abortion backed by government dollars… In five years that statement will read “which can be as little as $3000-$5000 in the first trimester, or up to $15,000-$20,000 in the second”.

    It is fucking elective surgery, in most cases. Minimizing government outlays is my goal.

    1. Minimizing government outlays is my goal.

      Methinks that your goal is the opposite of theirs.

    2. I’m sorry, ma’am, but you’ve run out of money in your abortion savings account.

  9. “”punishing people for their choices””

    Wow, that’s a neat turn of a phrase for “letting the consequences of people’s choices take their natural course”

    1. Nature is for suckers. That’s the whole reason people have technology.

      1. You probably also don’t believe people’s teeth should rot and fall out of their heads just because we have these crazy shamans running around calling themselves “dentists” nowadays.

        1. Sugar is a processed food. You ever see the ivory piano keys hunter-gathers call teeth?

          1. All food is processed. Technology is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

            1. I only eat the berries, twigs, and rodents I artistically collect on my daily commute.

              Fatty.

        2. Hey Nicole, since you decided to have fun and climb that tree and accidentally fell out and broke your leg, you need to let the consequences of that choice take its natural course. So, enjoy your pain and your death by blood vessel obstruction. We don’t want to interfere with nature by using painkillers, anti-clotting medicines, and surgery.

          1. + 1 Separate Peace

            1. You are the worst, Just when I think it’s nicole you go and bring up that sweaty turd.

          2. ‘We don’t want to interfere with nature by using make your neighbor pay for your painkillers, anti-clotting medicines, and surgery.”

            FTFY

        3. Of course Nicole is an anti-Dentite.

      2. “‘That’s the whole reason people have technology.”

        And that’s why all ‘technology’ is free and distributed by government, and not actually priced by market forces or affected by demand!

        1. I could have sworn that goalpost was right here.

          1. I missed the part where anyone suggested we Ban Abortion

            1. Maybe Hugh is remembering the other thousand or so threads about abortion.

              1. Or the fact that we pay for them to have the kid.

                1. How many people give birth to kids only because they decided abortion was too costly?

                  1. When the state will pay them to have a kid? Are you joking?

                    1. Because giving birth is such a pleasant experience anyway?

                    2. Because giving birth is such a pleasant experience anyway?

                      Again…are you joking? Our culture glorifies maternity and children. We subsidize maternity and children in all sorts of ways. And as soon as you’re pregnant, you have all these awesome hormones saying MOMMY GOOD MOMMY LOVE BABY even though a rational person would be more worried about their vagina getting ripped apart.

                    3. “Our culture glorifies maternity and children.”

                      Most extant cultures either do or historically did, for some reason. I wonder what happens to cultures that equate offspring with parasites and see having them as the worst thing evar.

                    4. Japan?

                  2. I thought most of these types chose to give birth because they clearly see how profitable the government check for having that kid is?

                    Am I not getting this right?

                    1. If that’s the case, and the lucrative payout for birthing remains, then why does “free” abortion negate that in any way?

                    2. It doesn’t negate it, but it does a little, tiny bit to tip the scale closer to even.

                    3. It doesn’t negate it, but it does a little, tiny bit to tip the scale closer to even.

                    4. “t it does a little, tiny bit to tip the scale closer to even.”

                      I’m having a little difficulty understanding why “even” is some kind of compelling governmental interest.

                    5. I’m having more difficulty understanding why “nudging” women to have kids is some kind of compelling governmental interest.

                    6. Who’s gonna pay for today’s war on whatever if not future taxpayers?

                    7. Its a compelling government interest to keep itself existing. And to do that it needs ‘citizens’ to lord over and tax.

                      After all, if the US shrunk down to, say, 30 million people – why might start thinking that we don’t need an overbearing federal government anymore.

                    8. “why “nudging” women to have kids”

                      I think they already did the nudging on their own.

                      Hey-oooooo (insert dancehall)

                    9. something something WAR ON WIMMYNZZZZZ something something

            2. I missed the part where anyone suggested we Ban Abortion

              Thanks to whores like Sandra Fluke, paying out-of-pocket costs is the same thing as restricting access which is the same thing as a ban.

    2. You’ve just caused millions of wiminz folk to suffer a micro-aggression trigger.

      We need a bill that can tax you for each micro-aggression. We can finally balance the budget.

    3. Don’t be ridiculous. A woman would never make another person pay, even at the cost of their lives, for the consequences of her sexual decisions. Why, if that were the case, we would probably see women lying about being raped to avoid losing social status for a poorly-chosen dalliance.

      1. Good posts. Women it seems, don’t get pregnant in a vacuum. Who knew…

        1. Women it seems, don’t get pregnant in a vacuum.

          However, they do get unpregnant with a vacuum in them!

          ^doesn’t quite work, but I’m too lazy to refine the joke.

      2. I mean that when I say good posts. I see my last comment might have come across as an attack against you.

  10. Here’s a novel concept:

    Do you wish to have an abortion?

    Pay for it yourself, slaver.

    1. Why do you hate women?

      1. They’re irrational and won’t have sex with me!

        Wait…was that a retorical question?

  11. It’s these kind of articles that make me question who is truly Scottish around here.

  12. On topic, sort of: If I was ever somehow elected president, my first proclamation would be to promise to veto any passed bill that had a stupid, cutesy acronym as a title.

    1. I would also veto any bill that has overwhelming support from either party; almost as fast as any bill that has bipartisan support.

  13. “A group of female Democrats in Congress has introduced a bill that would kill the Hyde Amendment, a policy that has for nearly 40 years prohibited federal Medicaid coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the mother’s life.”

    My understanding is that all women of child bearing years are given pregnancy tests before undergoing anesthesia. If the women test positive, they’re generally offered the option to undergo an abortion while they’re under for having whatever procedure for which they’re being anesthetized. That’s what they mean by “risk to the mother’s life”.

    This is to say, women on Medicaid are generally given abortions at the tax payers’ expense whenever it might effect their health anyway. Pregnancy itself is a risk to the mother’s health. So what is the point of this change in legislation–simply signaling? They want to manufacture another wedge issue?

    If we’re going to change things, personally, I’d like to see a federal law prohibiting federal Medicaid coverage of any procedure to anyone unless it’s a risk to the mother, father, or child’s life. How’s that for equal protection of the laws?

    1. This is to say, women on Medicaid are generally given abortions at the tax payers’ expense whenever it might effect their health anyway. Pregnancy itself is a risk to the mother’s health. So what is the point of this change in legislation–simply signaling? They want to manufacture another wedge issue?

      November 2016 is the point. The War on Women isn’t going to fabricate itself after all.

    2. My understanding is that all women of child bearing years are given pregnancy tests before undergoing anesthesia. If the women test positive, they’re generally offered the option to undergo an abortion while they’re under for having whatever procedure for which they’re being anesthetized. That’s what they mean by “risk to the mother’s life”.

      Where the fuck did you hear this?
      As a female who has undergone anesthesia this has never happened to me. They might *ask* if I’m pregnant, but they don’t administer a mandatory pregnancy test OR offer you an abortion. And it would be offensive and unethical to do so. And having an abortion doesn’t even require anesthesia normally.

      This sounds like some psycho rumor that you read on World Net Daily.

      1. I used to work in a hospital lab doing testing on patient samples and I remember doing rapid hcg urine tests on patients admitted for outpatient surgery. I can’t say if this was legally mandatory or if it is mandatory in every state, but it’s kinda like when you donate blood they ask you what your blood type is but they test it anyway. Before we gave blood to a nurse to put into a patient we did our own testing to ensure compatibility just in case heartland (or the red cross, or any other blood product supplier) fucked up. A hospital will never just trust what a patient tells them if it leaves their ass uncovered. It’s not unreasonable to think that you received an hcg test without being explicitly told and since insurance gets billed you might not ever know.

  14. OT: It’s never too early to start…

    http://abcnews.go.com/Internat…..d=32283240

    He’s only in a little trouble.

    A “ruthless biker” was given a “ticket” for parking illegally at the ferry terminal in Halifax, Canada…and he’s only 3!

    Declan Tramley, who loves riding his red plastic motorcycle, put his hand to his forehead in exasperation when he was caught by Constable Shawn Currie leaving his bike in a “no-parking zone” on Sunday, Halifax Regional Police Sgt. Pierre Bourdages told ABC News today.

    “His dad approached Currie and told him he loves police, and they conspired to give him a ticket for fun,” Bourdages said.

    1. I just vomited a little. *Slurp*, Thanks.

    2. they conspired to give him a ticket for fun

      Ugh, where’s I?igo Montoya when you need him?

      1. “His dad approached Currie and told him he loves police, and they conspired to give him a ticket for fun,” Bourdages said.

        Thereby ending his terrible love for police at a safe and early age.

  15. . . . prohibited federal Medicaid coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the mother’s life. The language advocates are using to talk about the bill, called the EACH Woman Act, is rather obnoxious?”No woman should ever be denied critical reproductive health services, including safe and legal abortion, simply because her health insurance refuses to cover her care . . .

    So, Medicaid *doesn’t* deny women critical reproductive health services – as it will still pay for abortions for medical necessity – it just doesn’t require the *rest of us* to pay for elective abortions.

    I mean really, even if you’re an abortion supporter, meaning that you support access to legal abortion, why would this upset you?

    Women can still get abortions, Medicaid will still pay for the *medically* necessary ones, you just have to pay out of pocket for those that are due to mishaps/laziness.

    And, quite frankly, if you can’t afford to pay out of pocket for an *occasional* abortion, you can’t afford to have sex in the first place.

    A late-term abortion costs approx $2000 – much less if you act faster.

    1. It was very kind of you to step up and actually make the “punishing people for their choices” argument that other commenters are so skeptical is a real thing.

      1. There’s nothing about punishing people for their choices in that.

        I simply do not wish to bear the burden of your choices. That’s it.

        The whole – you can’t afford to have sex bit is . . . you can’t afford to have sex. If you can’t afford the potential consequences of an action, or afford to take mitigatory action, then don’t do it and expect, no *demand* that someone else bail you out.

        1. So Medicaid shouldn’t cover Xrays and casts because if people can’t afford a broken leg they shouldn’t leave the house in the first place?

          1. Well, then what *shouldn’t* Medicaid cover?

            And if Medicaid covers everything, then what’s the need for private insurance, let’s just get rid of that, put everyone on Medicaid, and go full-on single-payer.

          2. Well, then what *shouldn’t* Medicaid cover?

            And if Medicaid covers everything, then what’s the need for private insurance, let’s just get rid of that, put everyone on Medicaid, and go full-on single-payer.

          3. How many women accidentally fall on to a cock and can’t extricate themselves before it ejaculates?

            Yep, doc, it was crazy, the porch got frozen and I didn’t see the ice. Next thing I know, my pants were off, and I landed right on this guy’s dick.

            1. How many women accidentally fall on to a cock and can’t extricate themselves before it ejaculates?

              THIS IS MY NEW FETISH!

            2. How many women accidentally fall on to a cock and can’t extricate themselves before it ejaculates?

              Somehow the woman was still raped.

    2. If you want to save *the most* money, you can just Kill Yourself.

      1. Agreed. It will also reduce their carbon footprint.

    3. I mean really, even if you’re an abortion supporter, meaning that you support access to legal abortion, why would this upset you?

      Because the state will pay if she elects to bear the child, but not if she doesn’t.

      Wow that was hard.

      1. They’ll continue to pay for any non-elective procedures whether she has the baby or not.

      2. So why not save a shedload of money and euthanize people on welfare? If we can’t afford kids on welfare, we certainly can’t afford adults on the dole.

  16. It makes so much sense for one-time procedures which only a minority of people will ever have done to be covered by one-size-fits-all “insurance”. Anyone who disagrees hates women.

    1. So you’re in favor of eliminating prenatal care from Medicaid coverage, in that case?

      1. Not for nothing, but everybody is pre-natal at some point.

      2. See point below = why do you keep translating an absence of “Free” abortions into 1-1 birth of unwanted children?

        Its almost like your presuming if government doesn’t provide something for free, no one will have access to it?

        1. Its almost like your presuming if government doesn’t provide something for free, no one will have access to it?

          No, it’s almost like I’m assuming we’re talking about a government insurance program. If you can get one free procedure, or one procedure you have to pay for yourself, which one seems cheaper to you?

          1. the one that doesn’t involve any dependents?

  17. But anyone who’s actually more concerned with cost efficiency than punishing people for their choices should see that covering an abortion?which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second?is a heck of a lot cheaper than covering pregnancy and labor costs.

    You can be fiscally conservative and opposed to the government getting into the fetus-killing business for moral reasons.

    Also, to play this silly utilitarian game, since when has government participation in an industry lowered costs anyway? You don’t think those numbers are going to go up if government starts subsidizing them?

    1. How dare you inject principles into a bullshit utilitarian calculus! its been demonstrated that 89% of the people who do that are also Rapists.

  18. The language advocates are using to talk about the bill, called the EACH Woman Act, is rather obnoxious?”No woman should ever be denied critical reproductive health services, including safe and legal abortion, simply because her health insurance refuses to cover her care”

    I’m glad you recognized that. It was quite a visceral reaction I had to this one.

  19. “Childbirth in the United States is uniquely expensive, and maternity and newborn care constitute the single biggest category of hospital payouts for most commercial insurers and state Medicaid programs,”

    I, for one, am thrilled to be forced to pay insurance premiums to cover these incredibly risky and expensive services that I will never use.

    1. Barren, eh? How’s the cat horde accumulating?

      1. that’s kind of a rude comment.

      2. Great. I’m at 0.

        1. You’re still young.

        2. Ah, but how many abortions does it take to keep that zero?

          Limitless, undoubtedly. Which is why no one should have to pay for them out of pocket.

          1. Nikki, you aborting whore. If you’d just keep that aspirin between your knees, everything would be fine.

            1. this is probably good snark but i can’t translate it at all.

              1. Well, let’s see. The charming SIV calls Nikki barren and then you suggest she’s had a few abortions.

                Gee, I don’t understand how anyone ever comes away with the impression that the anti-abortion crowd are a bunch of women-hating assholes. What a canard!

                Did you have a stroke or something? I don’t recall you being this much of a supercilious asshole. Or maybe gay marriage broke your mind like it has John’s.

                1. ” you suggest she’s had a few abortions.”

                  No, that’s the most uncharitable reading of what i actually said.

                  The point i tried to make was that she seems to have accomplished the Zero # so far without the aid of Big Government Free Abortion.

                  Clearly, no one else could possibly do this without ending up with a screaming brood.

                  “Did you have a stroke or something? I don’t recall you being this much of a supercilious asshole. Or maybe gay marriage broke your mind like it has John’s.”

                  I’ve supported gay marriage on these boards for years. I also am Pro-Choice. I’m generally against Goverment paying for shit that isn’t absolutely necessary or else Social Disaster.

                  Supercilious? I understand “super” (thank you). whats the cilious part?

                  1. Well, #1 the 0 was for the number of cat SIV imputed that she owned and #2 no one here is advocating Medicaid paying for abortions. No one. The only argument is whether abortion is cheaper than rearing a child under the condition that Medicaid will exist either way.

                    1. I actually asked you why you were reading me as being the gigantic asshole, not why anyone else offends you.

                      “no one here is advocating Medicaid paying for abortions. No one”.

                      Really? Then there’s no argument then.

                      “The only argument is whether abortion is cheaper than rearing a child under the condition that Medicaid will exist either way.”

                      As i’ve pointed out a number of times…. Until you can demonstrate that everyone giving birth under medicaid is somehow expunged by offering free baby-nukings, its a specious comparison.

                    2. As i’ve pointed out a number of times…. Until you can demonstrate that everyone giving birth under medicaid is somehow expunged by offering free baby-nukings, its a specious comparison.

                      Nope, it’s a 1-to-1 calculation. Any child not aborted obviously costs more. The child that wouldn’t have been aborted anyway doesn’t figure in.

                    3. So is my being pro-choice insufficient if I still think Government shouldn’t pay for it?

                      (*or anything else regarding procreation)

                    4. Not all all. But to be consistent, Medicaid shouldn’t exist, which solves all the problem rather neatly.

                    5. “Medicaid shouldn’t exist”

                      But until you get to that utopia, we might as well include as much as possible under it?

                      I’m just trying to understand why I’m the giant douchebag for thinking that expanding it is generally a bad idea when we both apparently agree that it shouldn’t exist at all.

                    6. You’re a giant douchebag for being a shit to Nicole.

                      All I’ve said in this entire thread is that there isn’t an economic argument against Medicaid-funded abortions, just the usual religious and emotionalist objections using economics as a stalking horse.

                      Get rid of Medicaid and problem is solved.

                    7. :”You’re a giant douchebag for being a shit to Nicole.”

                      I was under the impression this was just a conversation. My apologies, sir knight.

                      “there isn’t an economic argument against Medicaid-funded abortions, just the usual religious and emotionalist objections using economics as a stalking horse.”

                      Well, that settles it. Clearly I’ve been bringing up god and weeping too much here.

                    8. “Any child not aborted obviously costs more.”

                      Well, any baby not aborted by Government will clearly never be aborted any other way.

                    9. I actually asked you why you were reading me as being the gigantic asshole

                      What, don’t you want to be part of the gang?

                      /One of us, one of us, gooble gobble…

                    10. There’s no logical reason for Libertarians to ever disagree about anything. Only God and Emotions prevent Total Consensus

                      This is what happens to people who don’t Go Along To Get Along.

                    11. ENB is arguing for taxpayer funded baby killin’, you illiterate moron.

                      But putting an end to a policy that’s based on religion, not health care needs and/or cost-effectiveness, is a good idea nonetheless.

                      She also assumes the straw-man premise that anyone who is not a sky-daddy worshiping young-Earth superstitious theocrat couldn’t possibly oppose killing as many people as necessary for the greater good of society reduced Medicaid spending.

                  2. whats the cilious part?

                    I think it means covered with fine hairs?

                    Do you have a snowy down?

                2. They know I’m barren from the abortions. Duh!

                  1. No, but people can be reasonably sure if you aren’t that you still managed (somehow) to make the choice on your own nickel.

                    Why do we need to have government add Planned Parenthood to the list of Agencies? are they not doing fine by themselves?

                  2. I thought it was the crack?

            2. If you’d just keep that aspirin between your knees, everything would be fine.

              You know, SugarFree, there is such a thing as Doggy Style.

        3. 0 cats? You have ways to go before you are truly the worst, then!

    2. I, for one, am thrilled to be forced to pay insurance premiums to cover these incredibly risky and expensive services that I will never use anything for anybody else.

      FIFY

    3. I, for one, am thrilled to be forced to pay insurance premiums to cover these incredibly risky and expensive services that I will never use.

      As the *father* of three kids I can only say;

      Me too, Nikki. Me too.

    4. This is why single payer is best – you never know how much of your money goes into that shitpile so you can’t complain!

  20. You want cost efficiency AND a cleaner lower-carbon environment? Just think of all the power we could generate from burning the renewable resource of the bodies of unwanted babies!

    1. That’s a nice modest proposal you have there.

    2. Burning? What a horrifying waste of potential energy.

      Why, those zygotes have at least 2.8 decades of reliable mining potential. Their little hands are ideal for working in the crevasses where machinery is ineffective.

      1. Or, if you really feel you need ‘green’ energy – just have them walking the treadmills connected to the generators.

      2. And they can do a fine job of exacting monocle-polishing.

      3. Can’t we farm their stem cells to make some sort of organic, super-efficient battery? Why aren’t we pouring billions into this idea?

        1. The Matrix today. The Matrix FOREVER!

  21. The Hyde Amendment has been supported by conservatives and moderates for years.

    Why on earth challenge it now?

    Oh, yes, election year. And the Dems don’t have a lot of issues.

    They can’t really run on the economy. Or foreign policy.

    So they’re left with the confederate flag, abortion, or the rape epidemic on college campuses.

    1. Actually, those 3 things are probably all they need. Because, Stupid Party.

  22. This is just the first step anyway. What they actually want is free tax payer funded abortions. It’s social justice. Somewhere, there’s a man to blame.

    1. Some people say.

  23. But anyone who’s actually more concerned with cost efficiency than punishing people for their choices should see that covering an abortion?which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second?is a heck of a lot cheaper than covering pregnancy and labor costs.

    The answer here is, like the answer to ‘can’t have welfare state and open immigration’, not to expand the welfare.

    Instead of calling for federal abortion funding as the ‘cost effective’ decision, call for Medicaid to stop being an *assurance* policy and to be turned into a catastrophic only last resort insurer.

    Maternity is *expensive* in this country because who ever directly bears the cost of the medical services they consume? No one. You’ve decried government backed student loans as a major driver of the increasing costs of college education – including incentivizing people to make stupid decisions by taking on debt to finance majors that have no market demand (like having children that you can’t afford).

    1. What if, instead of expanding it, we swap it? You get your free taxpayer funded abortion, but if you want to carry to term, it’s on you.

      Man, why do I not think people will go for that version even though it’s less welfare overall?

      1. That’s something you can put in front of the people who think Medicaid should be covering this sort of thing in the first place.

      2. Actually I’d love to see a Republican shove that amendment into the bill, and the reaction. You have my sword!

      3. I’d be okay with that.

        Good luck getting the people that actually support this turd to do the same.

  24. What this country needs is another abortion debate in an election year, with a woman running against a man. Says every democrat ever. Not a bad strategy.

    1. Yup. It will work out considering that the GOP is seemingly addicted to saying the dumbest shit possible when anything involving reproduction or sexuality is at issue.

      1. Hey man, it’s called KULTUR WAR and this is exactly what it is supposed to do.

      2. To be fair, the media does a good job of seeking out the stupidest member of the stupid party, and treating him as the spokeman.

  25. Obviously some women on Medicaid?in which 1 in 6 women of reproductive age are enrolled?will find the money to obtain an abortion regardless of whether insurance pitches in. But getting the money together takes time, and time is of the essence when it comes to pregnancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, women on Medicaid are more likely to have abortions later in pregnancy, when the fetus is further developed and the procedure is more expensive, more risky, and more likely to require travel.

    Am I the only one who is struggling to find sympathy for those who “just can’t find the money to abort their baby in time?” If only there were some way to magically not get pregnant because you don’t have the money for it!

    1. If only there were some way to magically not get pregnant because you don’t have the money for it!

      There was, but guess what? They’re pregnant anyway, and they’re on Medicaid, and you’re paying for it.

      1. you make it sound like every medicaid paid-for birth would be otherwise neutralized by “Free” abortion.

        Rather than these being two entirely separate groups of people.

        1. You don’t think some of the women who currently carry to term on Medicaid would terminate if it were free?

          1. “some of the women”

            Now you’re getting closer to the question i asked above

            What % of people fail to get abortions only because it costs money?

            You seem to be treating it as a 1-1 exchange, at least rhetorically. As though every medicaid-funded birth could be ‘alleviated’ by medicaid-funded abortion… rather than they being two different populations.

            1. So your contention is that no woman on Medicaid who currently chooses to carry to term would change her mind if abortion was covered by Medicaid? I don’t believe that.

              1. No, you’re pulling a Bo here by claiming I’m demanding the absolute rather than you.

                My point was that the comparison between people giving birth on medicare, and people aborting on medicare, is a false choice. They are most likely entirely different populations with only moderate overlap. Pretending its an either/or choice is a rhetorical gimmick.

                1. I’m thinking that this will not resolve any issues. The people who are getting the abortions are single females from wealthy suburbs. IOW, the ones who can actually afford to pay for this shit themselves. The poor married females are not going to abort an increase in the monthly revenue.

                2. My argument has nothing to do with how big the overlap is. That’s totally irrelevant to the fact that we pay for only one choice.

                3. They are most likely entirely different populations with only moderate overlap.

                  Yes, and beyond that, it entirely ignores the economic incentives to not give a shit about safe sex that comes with free abortion. Are we really naive enough to say that the number of Medicaid eligible pregnancies would stay the same if abortion was free?

                  1. What’s the incentive to not get pregnant when you get paid to have the kid?

                    1. What’s the incentive to not get pregnant when you get paid to have the kid?

                      The fact that it’s order of magnitudes harder to insulate a mother from the costs and consequences of having to raise a child than it is to insulate her from the costs and consequences of having an outpatient medical procedure.

                    2. *orders of magnitude

                  2. “Are we really naive enough to say that the number of Medicaid eligible pregnancies would stay the same if abortion was free?”

                    No. No one made that case either. If the argument for “medicaid abortion” is that it merely “reduces costs”…. first, demonstrate that is actually the mechanism that’s going to happen. I don’t buy it in the slightest. As has been pointed out repeatedly, there’s plenty of incentive for Po-Folk to make babies already. at best, abortion seems to be something that is already being taken care of by discretionary spending. Transferring that discretionary spending by poor knocked-up people onto the government does not strike me as a means by which you somehow logically reduce the amount of people on the Handout Rolls at all.

                    1. I now realize i misread Trash’s point entirely. Disregard.

              2. “If it saves prevents just one child…”

      2. There was, but guess what? They’re pregnant anyway, and they’re on Medicaid, and you’re paying for it.

        Which does absolutely nothing to garner any more sympathy from me. Again… I’m struggling to find sympathy for people who fuck their way into wanting to kill their babies and then try to force me to pay for it at gunpoint. Or is this another one of those gay marriage arguments where i’m supposed to compromise on eroding my liberty even more because i’m not being pragmatic enough?

  26. “#4EACHofUS”

    I bet Twitter invented the hashtag as a way to bookmark certain topics.

    Now it’s being used as method of sloganeering for people who think bumper stickers and placards are too detailed and nuanced.

    1. I think the pro-life side should steal some of the gay marriage slogans. Stuff like “#LoveWins when a baby is born instead of aborted”

      Emotionalism rules the day… might as well play to it.

      1. I think “emotionalism” is already baked into the prolife cake, because the natural response to seeing a baby is to feel maternal or paternal feelings.

        So the emotional part is already accomplished.

        That said, the prolife task is to use reason to show people that, yes, their first instinct is right, it’s a baby entitled to the rights of personhood.

        1. Yes and no. There is emotionalism on both sides. I still think that embracing the rhetoric that your opponents used to gain a resounding victory on another issue is a winning move in the “battle for hearts and minds.”

  27. Really, does this bill even matter? If it passes or not. We’re totally fucked as a nation. People are going to vote for Hillary and Bush, and fucking Donald Trump for Christ’s sake. Last night my wife was telling me that 2 of her friends are big time Trump supporters. They are both recent immigrants. I thought it was a joke, but it’s not. They want to hurry up and become citizens so that they can vote for Trump. Dead serious. We’re fucked, we are past the point of anything saving us now.

    1. The nation was totally fucked by the turn of the 20th century. We’ve been coasting on the momentum of the first 120 years for the last 120 years. At some point this airplane will lose lift, and we’ll start heading back toward the ground. It is as it always has been. Liberty is but a fleeting blip.

  28. “policy based on religion”

    I wonder if ENB has heard of the old Clergy Consultation Service, or the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

    If a cause is tainted by association with religion, what about these pro-abortion, I mean pro-choice, religious organizations.

    1. The Fifth Commandment, as stated in the Old Testament of the Bible: “Thou shall not kill.”

      Every criminal statute outlawing murder is, therefore, a “policy based on religion.” Let’s repeal them, because “putting an end to a policy that’s based on religion … is a good idea.”

      1. The Fifth Commandment, as stated in the Old Testament of the Bible: “Thou shall not kill.”

        The actual translation is “Thou shall not murder.” Do yourself a favor and purchase a Strong’s Concordance.

        1. His point is still valid… extreme, but valid.

          1. Oh, I agree. It’s just the “Kill” that annoys me.

  29. What’s the poll #s on milleniels fer and agin taxpayer-funded abortions?

    1. Whatever the libertarian moment predicts that it would be.

  30. If I go drinking and then crash my car, no way my insurance company is going to pay out. But hey, if you get knocked up and want an abortion, my premiums will pay for it!

    1. Collision insurance won’t cover a wreck if you’re drunk? Really?

      1. Depends on the specific insurer.

  31. But anyone who’s actually more concerned with cost efficiency than punishing people for their choices should see that covering an abortion?which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second?is a heck of a lot cheaper than covering pregnancy and labor costs.

    And tubal ligation costs generally range from $1,000 to $3,000. And you only have to pay for them once. I suppose Ms. Brown supports making this a part of the Medicaid experience.

    1. Just to be fair, vasectomies cost about a grand. Let’s add that onto Medicaid.

      1. Screw that! How about an Obamacare mandate that they be provided by our employers without any co-pay, deductible, or other cost to the patient?

      2. Now that I think about it, if we wait until after the third trimester, all we’re talking is the cost of a bullet.

        PROGRESS!! EFFICIENCY!!

  32. Wouldn’t we save even more money by just killing everyone on Medicaid? And Medicare even more so? I mean, this is just a math question right?

    1. I thought i addressed this with the free suicide-pills

      CHOICE

  33. “Childbirth in the United States is uniquely expensive[…]

    … and we want it to keep it that way.”

    and maternity and newborn care constitute the single biggest category of hospital payouts for most commercial insurers and state Medicaid programs,” according to The New York Times.

    So let’s get ’em earlier while we still can, right, NYT?

  34. But anyone who’s actually more concerned with cost efficiency than punishing people for their choices should see that covering an abortion?which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second?is a heck of a lot cheaper than covering pregnancy and labor costs.

    I don’t see how this translates to less money being looted from my paycheck and the paychecks of everyone else. Which is really the issue here with Medicaid and other government programs.

    1. money being looted from my paycheck

      Maybe you missed the point that this is the goal

    2. Somehow taxpayer-subsidized abortions provided by Medicaid are magically immune to economic forces. See, poor women obviously don’t respond to incentives, and thus super-cheap or free abortions certainly won’t make them less concerned with not getting pregnant in the first place. They’ll obviously learn their lesson and certainly won’t get pregnant more often even though the negative consequences of getting pregnant are all but subsidized away.

      That’s how this works, right?

  35. Boohoohoo, I white and I feel so guilty!

    I so white I sad

    1. Sweet mother of fancy dog fuck.

    2. When I asked what it’s like to be white:

      “You kind of get this feeling like things belong to you.”

      Speak for yourself you collectivist asshat.

      1. Well, I do feel like things belong to me. My things. The stuff I paid for.

        1. Check your privilege. You were only able to pay for those things because you are white

          1. But I’m not white.

            I used to think I was white. But I realized that being Wonder Bread is just a social construct.

            I did some inner soul-searching and realized . . .

            That I’m actually a Mashantucket Pequot.

            Right now I’m prepping for the long legal battle that will be necessary to collect some of that sweet, sweet, Foxwoods money openly live as I really am.

            1. Well, Ag, Mashantucket Pequots are the best kinds of Pequots (according to my imaginary) Mashantucket Pequot friend.

              Good choice/I’m glad you were born that way.

              1. Of course they are. God’s chosen people. What other people managed to come back from literal extinction, to reclaiming a reservation and running a hugely profitable casino because it could be placed in the middle of a heavily populated area rather than the ass-end of nowhere.

                I bet that in a past life I was, like, a noble. Probably a king or something.

        2. Christ, I hadn’t considered that she might be feeling guilty for believing in property rights.

          *blinks repeatedly and shakes head*

          1. I thought she was admitting to being a Marxist. Then again, she said “things”, not “everything and everyone”

      2. The idea that your income belongs to you is just a manifestation of your burning white racist heart.

    3. Finally, a TV show that delves into the paradox of trigger warnings, racist triggers, and white privilege!

      Now, the real question is to they use actual white people or ‘white’ people? You know, like the NAACP?

  36. I’m working on an diabolically evil plan. Don’t give up hope glibertarians, there is hope!

    Here’s how it works. We go to Mexico and start a campaign to sneak everyone over the border into the USA. Then when the country is empty…

    1. Hmm, this could work. Especially if we trick people into building that wall beforehand so its all ready once everyone else is on this side.

      Then we just mosey on down ‘for a vacation’ and weld the gates shut from the southern side.

      1. You know, I think it could actually work on a smaller country. I think that half the population of Honduras is already in NOVA and MD.

        1. Or Cuba – its likely that in a couple of years there will be more Cubans in Miami than in Havana.

          1. Cuba or Honduras… Why not both? I mean, really, how much work is there left to be done at that point? We can probably even get the US government to fund us to do the benevolent migration work. And then one day, flying over the blue skies of Cuba and Honduras is this new flag with the likeness of a golden woodchipper…

            1. NO FLAGS!!!

              Flags are symbols of state oppression.

              1. And this is how libertopia descends into chaos.

                1. Well… I mean… where the fuck are we going to put the golden chipper???

          2. I think there are already more cubans in Miami than Havana

  37. Instead of paying for their abortions, how about we stop paying for them to have kids?

    Is government now in the business of financing all of our reproductive decisions?

    1. “Is government now in the business of financing all of our reproductive decisions?”

      Um, yeah, dude. That’s been the Democrats’ m.o. since at least 2006, probably longer.

      1. Has it been that long? Damn.

    2. Is government now in the business of financing all of our reproductive decisions?

      When you say ‘financing’ do you mean ‘paying for’, denying, or both?

      My condoms and vasectomy isn’t/won’t be paid for by the government. So, stepping through my progressive linguistic map I see it *will* be ‘financed’ in the ‘taxes collected to deny me my equal reproductive rights’, sense.

      Is that the same answer you get?

  38. ^This. I don’t care whether the cake was in the oven for three months or six. Since I didn’t order it, I don’t want to pay for some half-baked confection with, “It ain’t yours, but you’re paying for it, suckah!” written on it.

    1. there’s a birthday cake i’d like to buy.

  39. But anyone who’s actually more concerned with cost efficiency than punishing people for their choices should see that covering an abortion?which can be as little as $300-$500 in the first trimester, or up to $1,500-$2,000 in the second?is a heck of a lot cheaper than covering pregnancy and labor costs.

    I hear housing a murderer costs close to U$50,000 a year. Instead we could let them live at home and pay them U$25,000 a year not to do it again.

    Win, win.

  40. How is this even under debate on this site? No, taxpayers should not have to subsidize abortions

    1. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize any medical procedures. But since they do, there’s no reason to exclude a safe, common, and relatively cheap procedure.

      1. Except that every time you add a benefit that people don’t have to directly pay for, you make it harder and harder to tear down the edifice of the welfare state.

      2. But since they do, there’s no reason to exclude a safe, common, and relatively cheap procedure.

        Penis enlargement?
        Botox treatments?
        Tummy tucks?

        1. Feel free to insert “non-cosmetic” into that serial list.

          1. The desire for a flat belly isn’t cosmetic?

            1. I’m starting to believe that it’s an impossible dream…

              1. Youth is wasted on the young.

          2. Why should non-cosmetic be of any particular standard.

            Non-elective might make some sense.

            Of course, that would take abortion out of the equation. Can’t see why you’re doing anything but setting standards to fit your preferred conclusion.

      3. But since they do, there’s no reason to exclude a safe, common, and relatively cheap procedure.

        Whenever the government starts paying for something, it ceases to be cheap.

      4. “But since they do…” That wins the argument I guess. We’re already getting fucked, might as well learn to like it

      5. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize any medical procedures. But since they do, there’s no reason to exclude a safe, common, and relatively cheap procedure.

        Even when its a purely elective procedure being done for lifestyle reasons?

        You sure about that?

    2. “How is this even under debate on this site?”

      I know, seriously!? Only complete assholes would disagree.

        1. reference = any variance of opinion is the effect of God and your hysterical weeping. Enlargement of Medicaid is a perfectly sensible position for libertarians because economics. Stop pretending there’s any alternative POV.

          1. Yeah I must not have picked up on the extra layers of sarcasm due to all the weeping. It’s a burden!

  41. the EACH Man Act, is rather obnoxious?”No man should ever be denied critical reproductive health services, including little blue pills, simply because his health insurance refuses to cover his care

  42. Assuming the abortions we’re talking about is elective abortion (from what I can tell what the Hyde Amendment applies to), there is no functional difference whatsoever between saying “Medicare should ‘cover’ abortion” and saying “We should establish abortion subsidies”.

    How anyone can support that and claim to be a libertarian is beyond me.

    1. Because abortion is one of Reason’s Holy Sacraments, along with Open Borders and Gay Marriage.

      1. libertarian moment!

        And now, cocktail cruise!

  43. But putting an end to a policy that’s based on religion, not health care needs and/or cost-effectiveness, is a good idea nonetheless.

    I don’t care what it is based upon. It’s one less thing that the government is paying for, and that by itself is a good thing.

    Why do so many libertarians have to go full-retard and forget their principles when it comes to abortion and marriage?

    1. Maybe different libertarians have different principles?

      1. Yeah. Principles like small and limited government get left in the ditch whenever it comes to issues that might result in them losing their invites to the cool kids’ parties.

    2. Why do so many libertarians have to go full-retard and forget their principles when it comes to abortion and marriage?

      principals before principles. Just because we’re not TEAM members doesn’t mean that we don’t sometimes succumb to rooting for the “good guys” despite it being not very principled.

      1. I wouldn’t consider “Yee haw let’s screw over those damn Christians*, even if it means abandoning our principles!” rooting for the good guys. It’s more like teenage rebellion.

        *I am an atheist, though I do not have anything against religion. I simply lack faith.

        1. Yeah, I consider myself pro-choice. But, I can’t see where this can ever be reconciled as libertarian.

        2. I don’t think it’s nearly as much about “sticking it to the bad guy” as it is a subconscious and emotional reaction to groups of people they identify with or feel are being mistreated.

          I would be shocked if there wasn’t a strong correlation between the people for Medicaid subsidized abortion and the people who think there should be no stigma attached to abortion. Similarly there should be a strong correlation between those for banning abortion and those who thing there should be a very strong stigma attached.

          1. I consider abortion to be abominable, though I believe the consequences of using government to prohibit it would be worse than having it legal. That said, government has no business paying for it.

            1. I intentionally left out the “middle ground” group like yourself. I think there is room for thinking belief on all sides of the issue, but I think it’s hard to find yourself in the middle ground position via emotional reaction.

              1. I try to suppress my emotional reactions and think rationally like a human being.

                1. I see the emotional reactions for what they are, a shortcut my brain uses to get me to a moral conclusion faster than if I had to think it through fully. Sometimes they’re correct, sometimes they’re wrong. Either way, they shouldn’t be relied upon for “important” decisions.

          2. Being mistreated by denial of free shit?

    3. But putting an end to a policy that’s based on religion, not health care needs and/or cost-effectiveness, is a good idea nonetheless.

      Who says that this policy is based on religion, and not a perfectly rational conclusion that, outside of a very small percentage of abortions that are already covered, there is no “health care need” for an abortion, and that is why it shouldn’t be covered?

  44. #PregancyForAll

    Dismissive attitudes about male pregnancy and abortion rights abound

    1. Genderqueer Muslim atheist. Born white in the #WrongSkin

      When you expect future to be floating cars and trips to mars and all you get is gay marriage and pregnant men

      1. Only white men were wanting the cars and Mars.

        The rest of us were fighting for our day of liberation.

        1. And your casino? Which of course is a human right.

  45. Obviously some women on Medicaid?in which 1 in 6 women of reproductive age are enrolled?will find the money to obtain an abortion regardless of whether insurance pitches in. But getting the money together takes time, and time is of the essence when it comes to pregnancy.

    Solution is obvious, federally guaranteed abortion loans

  46. So the only reason people oppose abortion is because of religion? You do know there are plenty of atheists who oppose abortion, don’t you? What about the indisputable medical fact that abortion involves the termination of another human life? Isn’t that a good reason to oppose taxpayer money going to fund abortion?

    1. ” the only reason people oppose abortion is because of religion?”

      And your inability to control your out of control emotions.

      (hands him kleenex)

  47. It would seem that with all this concern about women being able to abort on demand that there would be a free clinic on every street corner funded by these people that care so much about women being able to get one. Why isn’t that the case? There’s a Salvation Army in almost every town why not a free aborto-clinic? Why doesn’t anybody care about the Wimmin?!

    1. Well, pro-lifers aren’t outside Planned Parenthood clamoring to adopt the babies about to be aborted.

      Both sides have their sticking points. As per usual, pro-life doesn’t want it to happen for whatever reason but won’t pony up their time and money to care for the child post-delivery. Pro-choice wants it but won’t pony up the cash or labor without government validation and funding, and societal approval.

      A very conservative Christian pro-life friend of mine was an escort for girls going into Planned Parenthood because the “Christian” pro-life crowd was so vile. She kept asking them if they were willing to adopt. Nope nope and nope.

      Me, I’m pro-life on the issue of constitutional rights of the child, but I DO see both foundation arguments for and against. However, I’m ambivalent about the reality of the situation because it’s such a quagmire of feelz. Neither side is immune to teh feelz.

      Neither side wants to put their money where their mouths are. That’s not going to get fixed.

  48. MARKET RE-OPEN TIMES

    We will begin accepting orders and resume trading according to the following schedule:
    3:05pm NYSE MKT – Primaries only
    3:10pm NYSE
    Closing auctions will continue as normal.

    Yeah, we’ll see.

  49. The vast majority of abortions are elective procedures.

    Forget the usual hooing and hahing between TEAM CHOICE and TEAM LIFE. This doesn’t need to be about that. It should be about whether we should be spending tax revenue on elective medical procedures that people want in order to maintain their current lifestyle (rather than their health).

  50. Guest 2 months ago

    In reply to specterbrando on 2007-04-24 – click to read

    I AM 5 MONTH AGO ABORTION THEN PREGNANT I WANT ABORTION PLEASE ADVISE ME?
    Reply
    User avatar
    Guest 22 days ago

    How does this woman compare to a woman taken out of baby making commission for 9-10 months using our abortion expense calculator?

  51. Well so far this summer we’ve had gays, racists, mexicans* (thank you The Donald), and now abortions.

    Its so awesome how the media helps us to identify the bad people who think wrong things so we can hate them. together.

  52. You guys do realize that the next step is going to be to demand that ACA plans sold on the exchanges cover abortion right? It will be an “essential benefit”.
    I mean, they’ve got birth control pills that some people consider abortion pills in there ,so it’s not that big of a jump.

    And all of those plans are community rated.

    They’ll just make the same argument they did for birth control. it’s preventive care. War on women. Religious people imposing their beliefs on others. Blah blah.

    And then they’ll have religious opt-outs in which the abortion gets paid for by the “insurance company” anyway.

    I’m pro-choice, but this is EXACTLY what I argued would happen once everyone was on community rate ACA plans. Everything becomes fucking political. Endless conflicts and poilitical warfare over just what will and won’t be covered, and the most influential identity group wins.
    Nobody gets to make their own decisions anymore, or decide for themselves what iwll and won’t be in their own medical plan. Instead you have to become a political activist to get the health care coverage you want.

    1. Everything becomes fucking political.

      GOPDNC rejoices.

    2. “The next step is going to be to demand that ACA plans sold on the exchanges cover abortion right? It will be an “essential benefit”.”

      And the purpose of doing so will have zero actual “economic” basis

      the only reason to do so would be to reopen the abortion/culture-war debates of the 1990s so that the DNC has something to sell the public

      Wedge. Issues. They’re not just for making calves look sexy anymore.

    3. Within a couple years, no one will be able to afford any of the plans on the exchanges.

  53. Trigger warning. Tony is crapping all over the socialist thread. How fitting.

    Tony like socialism. Tony like taxes. Tony like redistribution. Tony feel smart before passing out in mommy basement floor, tony drink, tony post on internet, tony fall down.

  54. Well, if you want to know something very cost effective, it would be just to sterilize all poor people on government assistance. Then they’d be gone in a generation.

  55. I’m in favor of 90th trimester abortions for Democrats.

  56. Is it so hard to admit that, at the end of the day, abortion is an elective surgery except in some very unusual circumstances and THAT is why the government should not pay for it?

    1. It’s a Sacrament, not elective surgery.

  57. Many Libertarians object to abortion not because it’s against someone’s religion but because it’s MURDER.

    1. The only reason you could think that is cause you’re some kind of Christian monster!

  58. I can’t imagine why anyone would object to killing a baby because it is the cheapest option.

    They must be some sort of religious freak.

  59. Government doesn’t PAY for abortions; government SAVES MONEY by subsidizing abortions for indigent women. An abortion costs about $500.00 and prevents more than $18,000.00 in obstetric and neonatal care costs. Do the math. These savings can be used to CUT YOUR TAXES.

    The Hyde Amendment is a tax-hike which YOU must pay.

    1. I’d like to see your data for this “you gotta spend money to make money” argument.

      If some poor person has already sprouted 4-5 kids and wants the Free Govt Abortions because #6 is just inconvenient and they don’t want to have to downgrade to Basic Cable just because of a $500 expense…. I don’t really buy it. Anyone who provides this kind of analysis is going to want to spin the data to some conclusion, and I’d wager that any independent data is probably too unclear to provide any simple smoking-gun proof, else it would be used everywhere.

      And even if there is some truth to the “Free Abortions Save Money” case – i still wonder how libertarians come to the conclusion that *only Government can possibly step in to solve this social need*

      what does Planned Parenthood *do* again?

    2. Well, you can buy pills that render the target sterile even more cheaply. And that’s a one-time deal. Why don’t we just go with that for anyone who wants Medicaid?

      What, are you against saving money?

  60. Hey. Was just thinking. Why can’t women, like, pay for their own fucking abortions, instead of making all of us pay?

    If men can afford to pay child support for 18 years, then women can cover their own abortions. It’s getting really hard to the current trend as anything less than the reduction of women’s responsibilities to those of children.

  61. I have a question for those who say that extorting taxpayers to pay for abortions that in the end save us all money supposedly is the way to go:

    If we accept (given the willingless to steal money from taxpayers for just about anything) that this is an ‘ends justifies the means’ situation, then why don’t we just throw women in prison who have children they can’t afford? Take their kids away and send them to prison for awhile, then when they get out, garnish their wages until they cover their debt to the state? This way we don’t have to fuck over the taxpayers, and we end up strongly discouraging women from making stupid choices.

    So if a woman has a kid she is either unable or unwilling to raise on her own (with her own resources), the state will take it and demand that she pay a check every month or go to jail. Or is it only ok to do that to parents with penises?

  62. “But putting an end to a policy that’s based on religion, not health care needs and/or cost-effectiveness, is a good idea nonetheless.”

    Anything that smacks of abortion being a wrong against a rights-bearing entity is anathema to the pro-abortion rights fanatics. That even this small concession to pro-life sensibilities (not forcing people who think abortion is unjust killing to pay for it) cannot be allowed to stand shows the totalitarian desire of the social left. Rights are a moral concept. The philosophy supporting the existence of human rights is partially based on Western religious beliefs in the equality and brotherhood of Man before God. Shall the baby of human rights be thrown out with the bathwater of religion because certain strains of libertarian hate religion?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.