Feminists And Health Care: Leave My Uterus Alone?

Two things occurred to me after reading Democrat Allen Boyd's characterizations of the public push back against health care reform. Traditionally, the American people don't much care for government. They may tolerate it. But if it gets too close to home - as in potentially managing their health care - it's Leave my body alone!

That caused me to think of the standard feminist lament regarding the uterus. As I'm unaware of any special allowances in any proposed health care bill that excludes that particular organ, maybe it isn't really about government leaving it alone, but more along the lines of what the current government is willing to encourage you to do with it?

Too bad this isn't a Republican proposal, the feminists would probably be the most vocal lobby against it of them all. I wonder if any of them have paused to ponder what might happen if the government were ever to take a socially conservative turn? Wouldn't that be a bitch? A change in direction, I mean - not the feminists, of course.

But as he fended off gnats buzzing through the August humidity after a morning fending off angry constituents at a town hall meeting here, Boyd confided that the depth of the unease spurred by the health care debate had caught him by surprise. Read more: 

Comments

[ShyAsrai]

i've been pondering the apparent apostasy of the liberal in embracing government-run healthcare.

[FMG Garry]

Your headline gave me a chilling thought.

Abortion is cheaper than delivering a baby.

Just saying.

[syn]

I used to support abortion without conscience then I finally accepted the scientific fact that it is never my body which is aborted when abortionists abort.

However, I do believe that yes, government has no right to suck out my brains since it is my body the government is terminating.

[Lala]

I was reading up on Margaret Sanger. She despised abortion and abortionists.

I read that the community organizers will visit women and advise them to space their children. I wonder if amnio will be obligatory.

[Brittancus]

Even though the Democrats have stated that illegal immigrants, will not have access to Americans health care, it can easily be compromised by fraudulent use of stolen ID. BUT WE ALL SEEM TO FORGET, THAT IF THE DEMOCRATS PASS A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP--OR BLANKET AMNESTY. AS NEW CITIZENS ALONG WITH THEIR FAMILIES THEY CAN SPONSOR THE OUTER CIRCLE OF FAMILY MEMBERS THEY THEN WILL BE ABLE TO CONVENIENTLY ACCESS--HEALTH CARE--WITHOUT ANY RESTRAINTS?
Everybody in the workplace must be carefully vetted for inconsistencies with a progressively upgraded E-Verify. Even without stealing into the reformed health care system by federal law the taxpayers must support illegal immigrants for emergency medical services. Foreign nationals use this mandatory law, as an excuse for any kind of minor injury or illness.

The travesty that drives the faltering health care system is of course money. Everyday our televisions are monotonously inundated with adverts about new drugs and medicine. Personally I'm sick of the continuous kaleidescope of ads, trying to program our brains to buy another boring antihistamine? We should also question the majority of Republicans, why there are rumors of a dark conspiracy? Could it be that that these people have a cemented interest in killing any type of reform? How many of these politicians have secret stocks in multi-bed hospitals, greedy profiteering insurance firms or the pharmaceutical industry. THE QUESTION THAT MUST BE ASKED IS, WHO HAS VOTED AGAINST A PUBLIC OPTION? WHICH POLITICIANS HAVE A FINANCIAL STAKE IN KILLING ANY REFORM? IS THERE INFORMATION THAT ANSWERS THESE QUESTIONS? My health care experience was mainly in England and Australia and prior to the mass immigration invasion was positively first class.

Of course the status quo doesn't want any change in the trillion dollar medical complex, because it could strictly confine a multitude of new common sense laws? Sadly, I have listened to lies sprouting from the special interest lobby over the airwaves for weeks. Trouble is, a majority of the American people believe this tripe that we are constantly bombarded with?

We are still conveying many entitlement programs to illegal aliens and their families, with extorted taxes.We have always been the recipients of business welfare and likely always will be, because the pariah businesses that hire illegals, never pay anything to their support. GET RAW ANSWERS AT NUMBERSUSA Tell those in WASHINGTON no more AMNESTIES. USE ATTRITION TO DEPORT THEM THROUGH E-VERIFY, 287 G, NO MATCH SOCIAL SECURITY LETTERS AND LIGHTENING ICE RAIDS. CONTACT YOUR POLITICIAN 202-224-3121 AND DEMAND NO WEAKENING OF CURRENT LAWS?

[TFMo]

Something we seem to be forgetting here; the nature of this bill, and the way things are done in such cases, is that anything not specifically addressed is considered INCLUDED. No, there is nothing (that I have found yet) in HR 3200 about abortion or coverage for illegal aliens...INTENTIONALLY. By omitting such provisions in the document, it allows the Dems to include them by default.

So yes, illegals will receive benefits and abortion will be covered...and, as usual, We the People will be forced to pay for it whether we agree or not. And they DO have a provision for those of us who balk at the idea of paying for such things; as this comes from our taxes, the IRS will have jurisdiction to prosecute us.

[TFMo]

I was reading up on Margaret Sanger. She despised abortion and abortionists.
Posted by: Lala

I don't know what you are reading, but it must be a parody or something.

Sanger was all for abortions of the poor, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the "weed" races.

Enjoy this quote from her book Women and the New Race: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Other interesting tidbits can be found at http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

[mark l.]

along those feminist lines...

if obama loses the puma's, he could very well wind up with bush-like approval numbers.
Dem base might hold at around 37-39%, but thinking about the primaries, and the old addage about 'a woman scorned', he could very well find himself sitting on a 30-32% approval rating.

http://www.miseryindex.us/

were looking at 10.5% unemployment minimum, ans multiple lefty economic pundits, like reich, have already forecast a jobless recovery. considering the rate at which we are printing money double digit inflation in more than likely in the next three years.

carter hit 20.76 on the index, and a brief dose of double digit inflation would put obama ahead of carter.

[mark l.]

"Abortion is cheaper than delivering a baby."

along those economic lines-

i try imagining what a liberal govt would do if for some reason abortion did come down to an economic choice of another nature...

in a hypothetical scenario, and for sake of getting as many abortions done as possible, someone decides that it is cheaper to have them done in a post fidel cuba. trying to imagine the healthcare side of the federal govt wanting them done here to justify monetary gain via taxation/allocation versus the "our bodies, our choice" mantra.

sounds far-fetched, unless you are a 90 minute plane ride from cuba, and would rather pursue the privacy and sights of another country, at a savings of 1500-2000 bucks.

[Lala]

TFMO - here ya go

in "The Woman Rebel," the real reason Sanger declined to advocate abortion, notwithstanding the law's flexibility and what she took to be the procedure's safety, is that abortion appalled her.

She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: "I do not approve of abortion." She called it "sordid," "abhorrent," "terrible," "barbaric," a "horror." She called abortionists "blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so." She called the results of abortion "an outrageous slaughter," "infanticide," "foeticide," and "the killing of babies." And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control "has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place." Birth control stands alone: "It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation."

[kcom]

So, you think, reading between the lines, she was against it? :)

[ALEXISTAN]

The only choice the Democrats wants you to have, when it comes to health care, is whether or not to destroy a living infant in the womb.

[dcmatthews]

Alexistan: Your statement would actually be more accurate if you simply omitted "when it comes to health care". The only choice Democrats want you to have in any aspect of life is whether or not to have an abortion. They certainly don't want you to have the choice to own a gun or not, to send your child to whatever school you want, etc.

[SarahW]

Induced abortion is statistically safer than carrying to term (individual risk varies). I agree with Dan Rhiel. The uterus and all the rest of me is not going to be given up to government management, nor would any reasonable person think this is a way to stay free of direct government interference with our bodies, male and female.

[jaed]

Abortion is cheaper than delivering a baby.

Here's another thought:

Aborting a disabled or sick baby is much, much, much cheaper than delivering said baby and providing the medical care, rehab, education, and other services that baby will need. Down's. Spina bifida. A host of other problems that in no way rule out a full life - but that cost money to treat. (The argument is even stronger for babies with more serious problems that do rule out a full life.) For that matter, statistically, it is cheaper to abort all children suspected of having a given relatively-minor genetic problem - say, insulin resistance, or propensity to dyslexia. There's almost no end to how ugly it's possible to get with this.

I have seen more than one comment by Democrats to the effect that Sarah Palin should have been forced to abort her son Trig, specifically on the grounds that he will require a lot of services and help. I take this as 99% Palin-specific hatred rather than policy proposal, but it demonstrates the lines along which some people are capable of thinking.

[Javert]

If the elected uteri (of both sexes, and Barney Frank) exempt themselves from health care reform, does that extend to the unelected uteri?

[CJ Casey]

I've already convinced several thinking liberal (yes, they exist) friends of mine with the "next administration" argument. Let's say that a full government medical care program is passed. And let's say that there's an eventual backlash either in the midterms or in 2012. And let's say that a conservative administration, the kind of conservative administration that gives Republicans and conservatives a bad name, comes into power, and they have at their disposal the complete control of the health, welfare, and life of over 300 million Americans. The looks that I get are staggering.

[Respawn]

Brittanicus,

I am glad that your experience with the NHS was positive - but your "before immigration" comment implies that you concede that the current experience of millions of Brits is quite different. Even with our "in the tank" media, there is ample evidence that government health care, where it is the only option (de facto or de jure), SUCKS ASS.

You OBVIOUSLY want a government-sponsored/controlled system - and that is you right, here in free-speech-loving America - but have you REALLY thought through the implications of your position? You obviously demonize "Big Phara" - the same companies who have brought us drug after life-saving, life-extending drug. They should do this for free, I suppose? How likely are they to continue creating the drugs you and your fellow "populists" rail against the costs of, if we take away their economic incentives? How many new drugs has the government created?

I have a question I have posed to MANY proponents of government health care, and I now propose it to you (in the vain hope that SOMEONE will address it honestly):

There are two aspects of "health care" in America that share the following characteristics:

1. They are not covered by/reimbursed for by any government (or most private) "insurance" plans;

2. They reflect CONSTANTLY increasing/improving levels of technology (one of the things that, according to The One, drives up the price of health care); and

3. They are characterized by CONSTANT price wars, lowering prices, and increased availabilty.

These two are LASIK eye surgery, and elective cosmetic surgery.

Please explain how two areas of health care, where the government involvement is minimal-to-nonexistent, where (effectively) NO government or private insurance applies, where technology CONSTANTLY increases/improves, where there are NO "panels," "effectiveness studies," "efficiency studies" (etc., etc., et ad nauseum cetera) KEEP GETTING BETTER AND CHEAPER?????????????????

Riddle me that, Batman, and I might be willing to entertain your silly ideas about government health care. Otherwise, notwithstanding that you appear to be (unlike most liberal trolls on this board) somewhat polite and articulate, you need to STFU.

[Paolo Thompson]

Who could forget the feminist's silence when Bill Clinton sexually abused a young female subordinate?

It has all been about taking away freedom for a long time now.

Sanger was in favor of eugenic purity. Apparently, my healthy middle class baby deserves life more than the baby born in the ghetto.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

[David Bialock]

I'd like to share a recent experience I had with a single-payer, government-run healthcare system, such as they have in Canada and the U.K.

My family was visiting Tokyo, where we have relatives, and at a temple deep in the mountains of northern Japan (a day trip from Tokyo). It was a rainy day, the stone steps to the temple were mossy, and at about 5 PM, my son took a header down the stairs, knocked out 2 teeth and cut his jaw and lip badly. Our first thought was worry for him; the next, when he seemed lucid and OK, worry for us. We were traveling without insurance; what was going to happen to us??

When they saw my son's bloody state, the temple priests called an ambulance for us. My elder son had just had a $1000 ambulance transport (across town) where we live in Central New York, so my thought was: OMG, there goes all of our savings. The ambulance took us from the remote mountain village to the city (a 30 minute ride) and into the city-run hospital, where nurses met us, checked my son out and had him x-rayed. They called a doctor in, who cleaned and stitched his wounds, and gave us antibiotics and instructions on seeing a dentist soon. We were at the hospital by 6 P.M. on a Sunday night, out by 7:45, in time to catch the last train to Tokyo.

The bill for the ambulance? 0 yen. (Ambulances are free in Japan). The bill for the x-rays, doctor's time, wound cleaning and stitches (without insurance, remember)? 27,000 yen or US $280.

Folks, I had a nurse-practitioner hold a wet splint on my hand for all of 5 minutes in the USA. The insurance bill read "surgery" and the charge was $800.

Our system is broken. Seriously broken. It has to do with mismanagement, too many middlemen and too much selfishness. Government runs our fire departments and police stations, and we think of these workers as heroes. It's time doctors and hospitals worked for us in the same way, and actually put efficiency ahead of the status quo.