#1: Medicaid covered abortions ONLY for rape and incest. RomneyCare went beyond rape, incest (or even life of the mother/ectopic pregnancies) abortion-coverage. Will you or will you not concede that, A. Hun?
#2 As you accurately mentioned, abortion was already legal in MA -- and the state indeed already funded abortions for low-income women under Medicaid. But as noted #1 above, that was not ALL requests for abortions by poor women...only rape & incest (& possibly LIFE of the mother).
The bottom-line of what I cover below is that RomneyCare expanded Who would receive taxpayer-funded abortions:
When we had these FREEPER discussions in late 2007 and early 2008, I didn't try to hold Romney accountable for all 7% of abortions committed by the uninsured in MA now covered by RomneyCare.
When FREEPER folks pointed out that MA was under court order to fund low-income women Medicaid eligible, I didn't contend that. What I did contend in the previous election-cycle was the 4+% of the MA population who earned/earn above Medicaid level.
Romney himself said in one of the last-election cycle debates (I heard it direct from his lips) that almost 1/4th of the MA uninsured earned $75,000 or more. That's almost 2% of the female pop in MA. From other figures I extrapolated that another 2+% earn above Medicaid & below $75,000.
While I thought it 'twas "unreasonable" to hold Romney accountable for the court order in MA aimed at low-income women, they were less than 40% of the uninsured in MA. Therefore, the crit of $50 abortion subsidies in MA still holds...especially since NOW RomneyCare has SOME abortions 100% taxpayer-funded!
For more on this, see: RomneyCare Now Funding FREE Abortions: A Disqualifier for Mitt Romney’s Candidacy [Enabler Mitt]
#3 ALL: FREEPER folks -- like A. Hun -- keep dodging the fact that RomneyCare, just like ObamaCare does, expands the abortion industry's reach into our wallets. If you don't believe that, click on the link I just provided and educate yourself as to what has happened to RomneyCare since he left governing that state!
Bay State taxpayers are now partially paying for abortions for mandated women who earn above Medicaid eligibility levels under RomneyCare. The court order in MA only covered low-income, Medicaid eligible women...and Romney's on-the-record comment that RomneyCare covered 7% of the MA population...and that 1/4th of them earned $75,000 or more (almost 2% of the female population). Another approximate 2-3% earned less than $75,000 but above the Medicaid line.
That's almost 5% of the female MA population who are receiving taxpayer subsidized abortions under RomneyCare who were not part of the court order...
#4 The 1981 MA Supreme Court case wasn't the only one that Romneyites hide behind. They also hide behind a 1997 state opinion.
I'll let somebody in MA who has researched this address it: The 1997 opinion stated that if the government paid for childbirth, it must also pay for "medically necessary" abortions 29, [Planned Parenthood vs. Attorney General] evidently reasoning that if the government is going to pay to help kids, it must be fair and pay to kill them also. Romney's commitment to government intervention in health care prevails even when that "health care" pays to kill them. Not only is Romney's claim false that he had no choice, but adults, let alone leaders, are never "forced" in such ways. Romney should have vetoed, rather than praised and signed, any legislation that would pay abortionists to kill children. As he did also by implementing homosexual marriage, Romney created activist judges on steroids by taking anti-family court opinions and maximizing them, in this case, by interpreting "medically necessary" to mean all abortions.
Source: Mitt Romney: Former Gov. of Massachusetts (R) Tier 4 - Personhood Never
No I won't concede that. MA ignored the Hyde amendmet until 1981 and funded for "medically necessary" abortions under Medicaid. The legislature apparently passed a bill to bring State requirements in line with Hyde, but I cannot find when and if it came into effect.
I have found evidence that in 1985 MA covered abortions under "medical necessity" and also in the mid 90's. Unfortunately, as we know and Reagan found out, "medical necessity" is nothing more than a loophole to further abortion.
This covers your point #2 also...with this qualifier-Romney did not set the schedule for subsidies for insurance, of which the abortion coverage was a part. That is the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. Many of the details of Romneycare were completely out of his hands. The inclusion of abortion coverage was one of those things.
#3- As you mention, those levels of income you mention are not totally subsidized. They are on a sliding scale based on income and household members. Yes, they undoubtedly cover some women that would not be covered under the fed guidelines for Medicaid coverage. Fortunately, as income rises, the number of women that avail themselves of abortions fall.
I would point out that Bay State natives still support Romneycare 3 to 1. They overwhelmingly supported it from its inception. People that don't can certainly relocate. Romney has specifically and repeatedly said he opposes obamacare for that reason...it is outside the Federal governments power to mandate something that is delegated specifically to the states...just as auto insurance is a state matter not a federal one.
Romney should have vetoed, rather than praised and signed, any legislation that would pay abortionists to kill children.
He vetoed eight portions of the health care bill, and every one was overridden. MA was going to get government health care regardless of who was governor. Romney's plan prevented the legislature from using a direct tax to fund government health care.
His original proposal didn't even include a mandate...he favored tax incentives for those that did have coverage and one's that didn't actually pay for their healthcare out of pocket. (If someone can find a copy of his original proposal tagged as MA House Bill #4279 July 20th, 2005 I would greatly appreciate it. I would like to actually see his proposal and compare it to what came out as "Chapter 58".)
In fact, his original proposal came about to head off a house and senate proposals, and a drive for a MA constitutional amendment forcing government health coverage that acquired 75,000 signatures in favor of. All would have been worse than Romneycare.
For all this arguing over the abortion funding in Romneycare, the net effect was no more abortions than prior years, and in fact, a reduction in abortions in the following years. That is a national trend, but if Romneycare encouraged abortion to the extent you claim, there should have been a dramatic increase.
On a personal note....digging through all this is disgusting. Nothing is more Godless and wrong than on demand abortions. I'm surprised God hasn't zotted MA.
As far as Romney himself is concerned, I would never support him except for one reason....OBAMA IS WORSE. This election is the biggest crock of sh*t I have ever seen. I warned what would happen when conservatives turned their back on a man as good as GWB, now see where we are. I'm warning you again...if Obama isn't defeated, there will be nothing left of a conservative movement.
If conservatives can't help get Obama out, what use are we?