28 February 2007

House Bill 86 Would Prohibit State from Paying for Some Abortions

H.B. 86, sponsored by Reps. Wachtmann, Brinkman, Latta, Seitz, Hottinger, Schneider, Setzer, Dodd, Wolpert, Goodwin, Fessler, Bubp, Collier, Combs, Wagoner, Wagner, McGregor, J., and Huffman would

"amend section 124.85 of the Revised Code to prohibit the state offering, sponsoring, or endorsing a health insurance policy that covers nontherapeutic abortion."

"Nontherapeutic abortion" means an abortion that is performed or induced when the life of the mother would not be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy of the mother was not the result of rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency.

Has anyone heard about this? I haven't, and I'm surprised because abortion is usually a high-profile issue.

I believe City Council passed a similar law pertaining to municipal employees some years ago.


Mark said...

If this banned abortions or cut insurance payments from long-term care received from an abortion, I'd be more concerned.

I'm not sure how much abortions are out of pocket but would it be that much more than what the insurance companies don't cover for office visits?

I guess if I expected good service from health insurance companies, I would be more worked up over this.

Barb said...

My friend claimed to pay $600 for an abortion in Angola, Indiana--which she claimed was carried out over her screaming protest and change of heart at the clinic. Her boyfriend wanted the procedure as he already paid child support for another woman's baby conceived when he and my friend were apart briefly.

Abortion is not in the best interests of women --but in the interests of the irresponsible male. Since I believe abortion deprives infants of their right to life, I certainly don't want to pay taxes for anyone's abortion. It also means fewer young people to sustain the future of social security.

Liberals can be so short-sighted.

WestEnder said...

Liberals can be so short-sighted.

I would say that anyone who thinks abortion is a black and white, right or wrong issue is short-sighted. I hardly think your "friend's" story represents the situation accurately. It may satisfy you on an emotional level to think of it as such, but that does not make it accurate, realistic, or right.

Medical clinics do not perform procedures over a patient's "screaming protest" because a boyfriend insists on it. In Angola, Africa maybe, but not in the U.S.

Let me offer a scenario you may not have considered:

A mother has 3 children and gets pregnant with a 4th. Her husband died in a car accident. Prenatal testing shows twins with serious genetic defects that would require emotional and financial care the mother cannot provide.

What would you do if it were you?

Wes said...

Oy. The Fetus Über Alles brigades never pass up a chance, do they? (At least this one said her friend "claimed to," and never spoke to it with 100% certainty.)

But hey, anything to OH NOES SAVE THE BAYBEES!!!1!!!one1

And I'm not one for ad hominems, but what the heck. You see that favorite book list? The only thing worth a darn on there was The Bible, and the presence of Rick Warren's claptrap and World magazine mean this poor soul can't interpret it even remotely correctly. And don't get me started on the spiritual void that is the modern megachurch and the musical void that is contemporary Christian "praise and worship" "music."

Finally, a cursory Google search turned up no abortion clinic in Angola, IN. There is, however, one of those horribly misnamed "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" there. I call industrial-strength BS.

On the original topic, this bill is just another attempt by the troglodytes in the Ohio General Assembly (something of which there will sadly never be a shortage) of throwin' red meat to the JEEEEzus! base. Strickland will veto, and there ain't a two-thirds majority (even some GOPers are pro-choice, you know) to override.

Jesus of Nazareth was such a wonderful person who has been so disastrously misinterpreted over the centuries (by, among others, St. Paul). I would hope that, if He came back today and saw what these Pharisees were doing in His name, he'd go all Moneychangers-In-The-Temple on them.


mark said...

After Wes' smackdown, I'll just address a minor point.

Is the taxpayer angle appropriate here? Yes, insurance policies for state workers would ultimately be paid for by taxes but would an abortion-free policy cost more than a free abortion policy? Would this mean a change in vendors which could cost the state more money?

Again, my reaction to this is that convoluted insurance regulations overshadow everything else.

And, Barb, if your friend really spent $600 for an abortion in Angola, I'd like to sell her a used car.