Skip to comments.State of Alaska proposes new regulations to pay for abortions
Posted on 07/14/2012 6:18:50 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
State health officials are refusing to answer questions about a proposal that critics fear could restrict abortions for low-income women in Alaska.
At issue is coverage for abortions through Medicaid and Denali KidCare, the state-federal health insurance programs for low-income Alaskans.
The state wants to require physicians who perform abortions to certify on paper whether an abortion is medically necessary. If it's not, or doesn't meet federal criteria, the state won't pay for it.
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, which provides the majority of abortions in Alaska, says a shift in wording of what constitutes a medically necessary abortion is the biggest of several problems with the proposal.
A rule now on the books defines a medically necessary abortion as one that improves "a condition harmful to the woman's physical or psychological health." The proposed change says an abortion can be eligible for payment if "the health of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy."
The elimination of the reference to "psychological health" appears to be a significant change that could rule out abortion coverage for many women, said Clover Simon, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.
"You have to be suspicious, because there have been so many attacks on a woman's right to obtain an abortion, especially poor women, in Alaska. So we have to be extra vigilant," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsminer.com ...
Take an aspirin and put it between your knees.
“attacks on a woman’s right to an abortion”
These clowns believe they are protecting something important!
This is taxpayer money and there are finally attempting to place some limits on the abuse.
There are very few bona fide medical reasons to abort a baby. If legalized abortion were really about women’s health, and not some so-called right to use abortion as one’s primary form of birth control, PP wouldn’t be saying a word.
It's so sick. This country will be destroyed from within, and it won't take much. After several more years of interior rotting, some external enemy will just saunter in to furnish the coup de grace.
Let's think about the useless, triflin' men, too. "Pregnant? Whatever. That's her problem, not mine."
For every woman whose legs fly apart, there's a man who can't keep it in his pants.
Very true. But I'll relate a bit of old wisdom that was passed down to me, "A problem is the responsibility of whoever suffer most from it."
In a just world, those who create problems would have to pay for them in proportion to their culpability. But we don't live in a just world. Whose fault is it when a teenager gets a lousy education? Some would say the teachers or the parents, or even the society as a whole. But in reality, the person who suffers for it is the teenager... so only the kid is really responsible for making sure he learns. Who is responsible for you getting mugged? Well, you suffer most for it... so you are (be aware of your surroundings, carry concealed, etc.). Who carries around the pregnancy for 9 months and then is usually the primary caregiver (in the feral culture that most of these bastard children come from)? Well then, the woman bears a greater share of the burden than the man... so her responsibility is also greater. Is it fair? Nope... but life isn't either.
I know I'll get the "blaming the victim" whiners in here quickly... but in reality (outside of a predator raping a small child, etc.) there are very few things in life that you have no control over. 95% of life's wounds are self-inflicted. It's called personal responsibility... and it sucks. But that's life. Quit whining about who else "should" be responsible and face life's unfairness head on. Otherwise, vote Democrat...
What, are those bastards getting pregnant now, and having abortions too?
But the males are not male apes, dogs or pigs. They are male humans, rational beings. And that means they are co-responsible.
No, the males aren't having abortions. They are begetting children for sudden destruction.
Both are co-responsible. It takes two. As you know.
No, unless the males are feral rapists, it only takes one, the female, to say no.
So intercourse ought to take place within the married state, with a husband and wife with an expicit commitment to each other, and to offspring who could result from their union. A child begotten of such people, in such a marriage, is highly unlikely, no matter how difficult the circumstances, to be slain and flung away dead. A child begotten outside of such a marriage, is dramatically MORE likely to face dismemberment and death.
Anyone who has thought about this for more than 10 minutes, knows that this is true. And all adults of normal mental capacity are responsible for what they do based on that knowledge.
Bottom line: both the woman and the man are responsible to reserve intercourse for circumstances in which they could decently care for, or arrange care for, the child who might be brought into being by their actions.
Are you saying that there is a serious ignorance about the causal relationship between the deposit of semen in a woman's genital tract, and conception? Do you dispute that paternal obligation exists?
If paternal obligation exists, when and why does it arise?
If obligation does not arise, for both the man and the woman, with the consent to have intercourse, then paternal obligation is an empty set: it has no elements, it does not exist in any case.
The man can just walk away. The woman can't.
For a liberal, "I don't feel like dealing with it" IS a legitimate medical reason.
The woman can walk away too, by destroying her offspring.
Decent people call for equal responsibility.
The rest settle for equal irresponsibility.
The result of "equal irresponsibility" being the judicially-approved extermination of 1/3 of every cohort of Amercan children since 1973; total fertility (excluding immigrants and the first-generation children of immigrants) being shriveled to below replacement level for almost 40 years; and -- this year, for the first time in history---- the birth of over 50% of all American babies to unmarried mothers when the mother is 30 or younger.
Will we as a nation survive for one more generation?
I doubt it.
I have a feeling that number is high. Because there *is* a stigma attached to abortion, women will claim they were using birth control when they really weren't.
I remember a PP representative coming to my high school (back in the 70s) to give a "birth control" lesson to my biology class. She presented the rhythm method as a birth control method, and lied about signs of ovulation, telling us that it was "safe" to have sex at the time of highest fertility. She piled on the pro-abortion propaganda pretty thickly... Modern PP hasn't changed its tactics.
However there is substantial objective evidence that increasing access to contraceptives to new populations of users (e.g. handing them out free to school students, or Sudanese, or any group of new users) will predictably boost the rates of abortion AND nonmarital childbirths AND STD's.
If they're handing them out along with the type of "education" that PP engages in, then it's easy to see why increasing access to contraceptives has an effect contradictory to their purpose.
That woman from PP that I mentioned in my previous post provided a ton of misinformation in the guise of education. Without going into all the specifics, I'll just say that the "education" about contraceptives was intended to discourage their use, while encouraging abortion. That was in the 1970s, but PP hasn't changed its tactics.
I would love to see a study on the effectiveness of accurate contraceptive education coupled with an honest discussion of what abortion is, and its long-term health effects. A study like that won't originate with Guttmacher Institute; when women effectively use contraceptives, it reduces abortion industry profits.