Posted on 06/19/2011 12:18:25 AM PDT by lbryce
Jessica Kenyon was applying to become an officer in the Army and had just earned her spurs when she found out she was pregnant.
Little did the now 30-year-old realize that her military career would be short-lived. Kenyon, who was sexually assaulted by another servicemember, was denied an abortion at the military hospital in North Korea where she was stationed. Instead, she was told her only option would be to find a facility in Seoul or leave the country.
"You don't speak the language. You don't necessarily know how clean everything is, so you don't want to get sick," she recalls. At military bases, "they absolutely will not do it at all, no matter what, except for the health of the mother."
Under current law, only those women whose lives are endangered can get an abortion at military hospitals. Victims of rape and incest aren't entitled to federal funds for abortion services, even though other beneficiaries of government health care, like prisoners and Medicaid recipients, are.
Abortion rights supporters are hoping to capitalize on the ongoing defense budget debate to build momentum for a provision that would allow servicemembers who are victims of rape and incest to get an abortion at military hospitals.
A number of Senate Democrats, led by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, will officially introduce the MARCH -- Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health -- Act today, following on the heels of a similar House bill that was announced last week.
The bills are likely to trigger another political fight on an issue that has become the battleground for conservatives in the current Congress. Last month, an effort by Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., to interject a similar amendment into the 2012 Defense Authorization
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The article is tripe, for the most part. No matter whether the “author” of the “story” feels strongly enough to tilt their story or not, it misses a tremendous point. Abortion, even in the case of rape, is still, always, murder of a baby. That’s a life Our Lord gave to someone, in spite of any horrible crime preceding conception. I am glad that she was unsuccessful in her desire to have an abortion. I am also sorry about the miscarriage, even with her previous desire to murder her child.
So you’re saying that it’s “not a big deal” that my money is used to impose the death penalty to an innocent baby just because his or her father is a rapist? I have no problem with my money being used to execute rapists after due process of law, but not to murder innocent babies for the sins of their fathers.
It is bad enough that killing innocent babies is legal, but pro-aborts want me to pay for it too?
So you’re saying that it’s “not a big deal” that my money is used to impose the death penalty to an innocent baby just because his or her father is a rapist? I have no problem with my money being used to execute rapists after due process of law, but not to murder innocent babies for the sins of their fathers.
It is bad enough that killing innocent babies is legal, but pro-aborts want me to pay for it too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.