NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/abortion-rule-for

Following scant debate, the Senate last week approved an amendment to an Indian health care bill that would permanently prohibit the use of federal dollars to fund abortions for Native Americans except in rare cases. The move has prompted an outcry from women’s health advocates—who point out that a similar ban has existed on a temporary basis for years—and from tribal groups, who are asking why Native American women should be subject to restrictions not applicable to other ethnic groups. Some charge that the Senate proposal is overtly racist.

Wow. Misogyny and racism all rolled into one.

The more I read about it, the more it looks like an attack by Vitters on a marginalised and vulnerable segment population, solely for the purpose of scoring some political points from his electorate.

I can't think of any question to add to the OP that would generate any sort of debate except perhaps this:

Is there anyone who can find something about this that isn't disgusting and disturbing?

...at least they haven't reinstituted forced sterilization?

Yeah, I've got nothing. It's just plain horrifying.

It just seems like some gross attempt to take reproductive rights from all US women, but in some racist, roundabout way. Like no one's going to notice if you do it to the darkies first.

Now I know why they have all those angry smilies.

Is there anyone who can find something about this that isn't disgusting and disturbing?

Fuck!

Umm ohh nanana, errrr perhaps, nonona. Ohh Ohh yeah, maybe it is a move designed to increase the number of native Americans, so that they can take their land back?

ye-gods...


Someone should be sent to congress, for the sole purpose of giving every single congresperson, who voted yay for this proposal, square in the nuts.

Land of the free, they say...

It just seems like some gross attempt to take reproductive rights from all US women, but in some racist, roundabout way. Like no one's going to notice if you do it to the darkies first.

Bingo.

It's the same procedure as seen when they cut funding for reproductive health services that are predominantly used by poor women. See, rich white women (like the wives and daughters of the Congressmen who back such bills) will still be able to get safe abortions whenever they want them. It's just the poor and the non-white who deserve to be punished if they shamefully choose to have sex.

Bingo.

It's the same procedure as seen when they cut funding for reproductive health services that are predominantly used by poor women. See, rich white women (like the wives and daughters of the Congressmen who back such bills) will still be able to get safe abortions whenever they want them. It's just the poor and the non-white who deserve to be punished if they shamefully choose to have sex.
It's completely despicable.

Bingo.

It's the same procedure as seen when they cut funding for reproductive health services that are predominantly used by poor women. See, rich white women (like the wives and daughters of the Congressmen who back such bills) will still be able to get safe abortions whenever they want them. It's just the poor and the non-white who deserve to be punished if they shamefully choose to have sex.

The creepiest part is that it seems like Vitters is using it to earn back his conservative credentials after getting caught with his pants down.

I guess he has to show that he can punish the 'dirty whores' too, instead of simply soliciting their services.

The racial element of this is contemptible - the abortion element isn't necessarily. This is politicians voting to withdraw public funding from a service that (they think) the people who voted for them don't agree with. Of course, being European I'm not entirely up-to-date with US law, but doesn't your constitution prohibit both racial discrimination and restrictions on abortion?

The racial element of this is contemptible - the abortion element isn't necessarily. This is politicians voting to withdraw public funding from a service that (they think) the people who voted for them don't agree with. Of course, being European I'm not entirely up-to-date with US law, but doesn't your constitution prohibit both racial discrimination and restrictions on abortion?

As for the no restrictions on abortions part, the government can't (austensibly anyway) restrict your access to have an abortion. They're in no means constitutionally required to fund your abortion. Much in the same vein, the government can't stop you under the first amendment from buying a printing press and publishing a newspaper, but they're by no means obligated to pay your costs in doing it.

As for the racial restrictions, this does confuse me greatly regarding racial restrictions, but I have to ask because honestly I don't know. This bill would prevent federal money from being used to fund abortions for native americans. Does anyone know if federal dollars funds abortions for non native americans as it stands now?

As for the no restrictions on abortions part, the government can't (austensibly anyway) restrict your access to have an abortion. They're in no means constitutionally required to fund your abortion. Much in the same vein, the government can't stop you under the first amendment from buying a printing press and publishing a newspaper, but they're by no means obligated to pay your costs in doing it.

As for the racial restrictions, this does confuse me greatly regarding racial restrictions, but I have to ask because honestly I don't know. This bill would prevent federal money from being used to fund abortions for native americans. Does anyone know if federal dollars funds abortions for non native americans as it stands now?

According to the article, it makes something called the Hyde amendment permanent for beneficiaries of the money that the federal US government gives to Native groups, if I read it correctly:

The controversy swirls around a federal law—known as the Hyde amendment—that prohibits abortion coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and Indian Health Service programs. While the Hyde law must be renewed by Congress each year, the Vitter amendment—which the Senate approved on Feb. 26—would apply Hyde’s restrictions permanently to IHS beneficiaries. For that reason, tribal health advocates charge that the Vitter language treads on the sovereignty of Indian communities and places unique constraints on native women.

OK on closer reading I understand what's going on now. Federal government funds healthcare to a limited extent through two programs, medicare and medicaid. In addition, native americans have access to a third program, the Indian Health Service or "IHS" (whether native americans have access to IHS funds in lieu of or in addition to medicare/medicaid I have no idea).

Since the 70s the Hyde amendment has prevented federal funds from any of these 3 programs from being used in funding abortions. Now whether you agree or disagree with that particular part, that's the way it's been for 35 years. The federal government won't fund abortions. This amendment however had to be renewed annually, and has been every year. This change makes the portion of the amendment that denies federal funding via IHS for abortions permanent, and not renewed every year.

Now while we may disagree with this restriction, we may question the necessity of making an annual amendment that has been renewed every year for 35 years, the title of this post "abortion ban for native americans" is extremely false and borderline inflamatory. The government hasn't banned abortions for native americans, they've merely made permanent a restriction that has existed for 35 years, and renewed each year.

So, what does this change in real, practical terms? Absolutly nothing.

...at least they haven't reinstituted forced sterilization?
I don't think you quite understand what abortion is or what banning it does...

If they wanted to encourage the aboriginal women to not seek abortion, hence promote growth.... this is not the way to do it. Financial incentive is the way to do it. Education, and other progressive means would do it.

I don't think you quite understand what abortion is or what banning it does...

Except that abortions are not banned.

OK on closer reading I understand what's going on now....snip Neo Art's usually intelligent stuff...So, what does this change in real, practical terms? Absolutly nothing.

Thanks. That makes it slightly less disgusting in certain terms.

Unfortunately, it gives more credence to my theory that this Vitters guy is just doing this for political gain, at the expense of whole communities of women who are dealing with enough shit.

In answer to Bakamyht's question, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that expressly grants women a right to an abortion. In fact, it does not address abortion either way!

Whenever the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe vs Wade back in 1973, those who voted in favor of the killing of unborn children as a "right" did so by taking the Fourteenth Amendement (which deals with equal protection under the law) and turning it completely on its head. In the name of social engineering, the Court took language from the Constitution that was geared toward one situation, yanked it from its historical and grammatical context, and made it mean something that it simply did not. (This is why it is so important to interpret the Constitutional in the light of what the Founders originally intended. We don't need a "living document," we have an amendment process built into the Constitution that allows us to change our laws if need be.)

One other issue, while I have the floor. I've heard many people in this forum talk about the denial of "reproductive rights" and the "racist" overtones of this recent legislation. However, it seems that the one person's rights that are truly being overlooked (and indeed, have been violated by Roe) are those of the unborn child. Simply because he is not in a position to engage in demonstrations on his own behalf or to vocalize his plight to the outside world does not mean that his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is any less dear or that his humanity is somehow less real (he is the product of a human sperm and a human egg, genetically speaking, there is no way he is going to turn into a rhinoceros in the mother's womb). In fact, for all the villification that pro-choicers do of the pro-life position and those of us who hold to it, the one thing they have not been successful in doing is refuting the evidences (philosophical, theological, and scientific) that affirm the personhood of the unborn!

I would be happy to discuss this matter further with anyone who wishes. Have a pleasant day, and God bless!

In answer to Bakamyht's question, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that expressly grants women a right to an abortion. In fact, it does not address abortion either way!

The constitution doesn't expressly discuss a great many things we take for granted as definitive rights. What the constitution does expressly state is our rights to liberty, equality, and due process. Which makes any nonsensical argument of "it's not there in the constitution!" utter shit.

The rest of your post is the same mindless crap we see trotted out here now and then, and as it's been done to death and you add nothing unique or substantive to the discussion, there stands no point to reply to it.

If they wanted to encourage the aboriginal women to not seek abortion, hence promote growth...
They don't.

The rest of your post is the same mindless crap we see trotted out here now and then, and as it's been done to death and you add nothing unique or substantive to the discussion, there stands no point to reply to it.
Aww, come on! I know you want to spend your free time responding to another mindless anti-choice post! Here, let me summarize it for you, to simplify things:

Blah blah blah rights of the unborn. Blah blah *insert complete misunderstanding of human embryonic development* blah blah blah sperm magic blah blah. Blah fertilized eggs are people too! Blah blah *totally flawed mis-characterization of US law* blah blah murder babies blah blah blah. Blah blah no, I'm not going to mention the existence of the female human person who happens to be the "environment" in which the fetus is gestating, aside from perhaps mentioning her womb, blah blah blah. Blah blah pro-life rulez, pro-choice drools! In conclusion, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE BEEN ABORTED?!

Except that abortions are not banned.

Quit piggybacking on Neo Art, we know you wouldn't have figured that out yourself.

Thanks. That makes it slightly less disgusting in certain terms.

Unfortunately, it gives more credence to my theory that this Vitters guy is just doing this for political gain, at the expense of whole communities of women who are dealing with enough shit.

It's like politicians who pass 'new laws' that 'get tough on crime', when said crime they are targeting are already covered by the criminal code. You know...like creating a 'street racing' crime, when driving over certain speeds is already criminal. It appears to the vast, uniformed majority that the politician is doing something useful.

However, the moccasin telegraph is abuzz with anger over this...it seems an unreasonably provocative gesture.

Quit piggybacking on Neo Art, we know you wouldn't have figured that out yourself.

Nice try Neesika.

In answer to Bakamyht's question, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that expressly grants women a right to an abortion. In fact, it does not address abortion either way!

Whenever the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe vs Wade back in 1973, those who voted in favor of the killing of unborn children as a "right" did so by taking the Fourteenth Amendement (which deals with equal protection under the law) and turning it completely on its head. In the name of social engineering, the Court took language from the Constitution that was geared toward one situation, yanked it from its historical and grammatical context, and made it mean something that it simply did not. (This is why it is so important to interpret the Constitutional in the light of what the Founders originally intended. We don't need a "living document," we have an amendment process built into the Constitution that allows us to change our laws if need be.)

One other issue, while I have the floor. I've heard many people in this forum talk about the denial of "reproductive rights" and the "racist" overtones of this recent legislation. However, it seems that the one person's rights that are truly being overlooked (and indeed, have been violated by Roe) are those of the unborn child. Simply because he is not in a position to engage in demonstrations on his own behalf or to vocalize his plight to the outside world does not mean that his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is any less dear or that his humanity is somehow less real (he is the product of a human sperm and a human egg, genetically speaking, there is no way he is going to turn into a rhinoceros in the mother's womb). In fact, for all the villification that pro-choicers do of the pro-life position and those of us who hold to it, the one thing they have not been successful in doing is refuting the evidences (philosophical, theological, and scientific) that affirm the personhood of the unborn!

I would be happy to discuss this matter further with anyone who wishes. Have a pleasant day, and God bless!



Ill say this slowly, since you are new here. We have abortion threads that will go more into this in detail, but for nwow this will suffice. Say it with me...


An. Embryo. Is. Not. A. Human.

Ok, without treading too far into the realm of general abortion debate (which, I have a nicely complicated view on that as well), I'd like to express my displeasure at this Senate bill. Honestly, I don't think it matters whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice (or anti-life or anti-choice, as it were :P) - I think the only judgment you can make is that this bill is despicable. It's one thing if the Senate were to try to come up with a way to pass a bill making it next to impossible for any woman to get an abortion (which would open up another huge debate), but for the Senate to say: "well, only this race of people can't do it" is just plain wrong.

However, it seems that the one person's rights that are truly being overlooked (and indeed, have been violated by Roe) are those of the unborn child.
Your personal opinion that a fetus is a person is irrelevant to whether it should be granted rights or not.

My personal opinion is religious fanatics arn't people, but that doesn't mean I can go around shoving them off cliffs, or denying them the right to vote I guess.

Ok, without treading too far into the realm of general abortion debate (which, I have a nicely complicated view on that as well), I'd like to express my displeasure at this Senate bill. Honestly, I don't think it matters whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice (or anti-life or anti-choice, as it were :P) - I think the only judgment you can make is that this bill is despicable. It's one thing if the Senate were to try to come up with a way to pass a bill making it next to impossible for any woman to get an abortion (which would open up another huge debate), but for the Senate to say: "well, only this race of people can't do it" is just plain wrong.

have you actually read the thread? The only reason that this applies specifically to native americans is that native americans are the only group of people that get specific health care funding by race.

Abortion is not funded by any federal health care program. Native americans are the only group that get their own federal health care program so by definition they're the only group that can be singled out for this.

As far as I can tell, the government gives Native Americans free health care.

"It’s a very racist amendment," said Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center, " it puts another layer of restrictions on t[B]he only race of people whose health care is governed primarily by the federal government."

Native Americans are upset that they do not get free abortions as well.

However, I evidently missed something because NSG is unusually perturbed. Does anyone care to explain things to my stolid self so that I may partake of the outrage? I only quaffed half-a-cup of coffee today, and I am missing the proverbial boat.

However, I evidently missed something because NSG is unusually perturbed. Does anyone care to explain things to my stolid self so that I may partake of the outrage? I only quaffed half-a-cup of coffee today, and I am missing the proverbial boat.

the problem I see it is this. The Hyde amendment has prevented federal funding for abortions since the 70s. It's been renewed every single year. It prevents the use of funds from medicare, medicaid and the INH. The amendment had to be renewed annually every year. This recent bill would make the provision preventing INH dollars from being used, but would still keep in place the requirement to yearly renew those same provisions fro medicare/medicaid.

I don't really necessarily agree with making ANY of those provisions permanent, but to single out the one part that deals with native americans and make that permanent while leaving hte other sections intact to require yearly renewal seems...suspect, at best.

the one thing they have not been successful in doing is refuting the evidences (philosophical, theological, and scientific) that affirm the personhood of the unborn!

When the child can eat and breathe on its own (As in inhale and exhale air, and swallow food, it doesn't have to pick it up), it's a person. These are the basic tennents to being alive without full machine support. And a child can do neither of these untill born.

Now, I'm pro choice for this reason, among others. And I will say outright I welecome the "OMG baby murdering monster!" reaction. Unlike most people I actuall am a monsyer, with no regard for human life, so I could care less about that crap. When someone can give me a logical pro-choice argument that does not rely on religious theory, playing to the idea that I may care about another human, or the old "what if you had been aborted?" argument, then I might be willing to listen.

The constitution doesn't expressly discuss a great many things we take for granted as definitive rights. What the constitution does expressly state is our rights to liberty, equality, and due process. Which makes any nonsensical argument of "it's not there in the constitution!" utter shit.

The rest of your post is the same mindless crap we see trotted out here now and then, and as it's been done to death and you add nothing unique or substantive to the discussion, there stands no point to reply to it.

"Mindless Crap." How eloquent! If anything, you have just proven what I said earlier. You do not have the evidence on your side, and so you resort to insults to TRY to bolster your argument. If you have evidence that life does not begin at conception, or that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was meant to give women access to abortion then, by all means, present it!!! I know most of the "pro-choice" arguments have also been "done to death" but unlike you, I am willing to extend you the courtesy of listening respectfully. (That's the nice thing I have noticed about most liberals. They often speak of open mindedness and tolerance for diversity, but this "tolerance" seems to only extend to fellow liberals.)

My brief reply earlier was not meant to be a full exposition of the pro-life position but was simply meant to put an idea on the table that I did not believe was receiving significant discussion. However, if you would like to read a more detailed article that provides links to BOTH pro-choice and pro-life websites, it can be found at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_Wade.
Perhaps when you do the research and read the position papers of those of us who hold to the pro-life position, you will find that not everyone who disagrees with you is "mindless."

However, it seems that the one person's rights that are truly being overlooked (and indeed, have been violated by Roe) are those of the unborn child.

In the period of the pregnancy where abortion is legal, the "child" in question is merely a fleshy husk without a person inside. No brain, no neural net - and therefor no feelings or personality at all.

Therefor we cannot grant them the same rights as persons unless we are insane.

the problem I see it is this. The Hyde amendment has prevented federal funding for abortions since the 70s. It's been renewed every single year. It prevents the use of funds from medicare, medicaid and the INH. The amendment had to be renewed annually every year. This recent bill would make the provision preventing INH dollars from being used, but would still keep in place the requirement to yearly renew those same provisions fro medicare/medicaid.

I don't really necessarily agree with making ANY of those provisions permanent, but to single out the one part that deals with native americans and make that permanent while leaving hte other sections intact to require yearly renewal seems...suspect, at best.

That is outrageous! Yet not as outrageous as I had hoped.... :(

Mindless Crap." How eloquent!

You are undeserving of my efforts of eloquence.

or that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was meant to give women access to abortion

The original intent was to provide liberty.

(That's the nice thing I have noticed about most liberals. They often speak of open mindedness and tolerance for diversity, but this "tolerance" seems to only extend to fellow liberals.)

I am tolerant of people who support human rights. I am intollerant of those who would restrict human rights. You're absolutly correct about that. Frankly I think everybody should be intollerant of those who would restrict human rights.

My brief reply earlier was not meant to be a full exposition of the pro-life position

Your brief reply, following by this blusterous nonsense, is the full exposition of the anti-choice position.

That's all there is, blusterous nonsense, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

but was simply meant to put an idea on the table that I did not believe was receiving significant discussion.

You don't think the anti-choice rhetoric gets enough discussion in this country?

However, if you would like to read a more detailed article that provides links to BOTH pro-choice and pro-life websites, it can be found at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_Wade.
Perhaps when you do the research and read the position papers of those of us who hold to the pro-life position, you will find that not everyone who disagrees with you is "mindless"

You already show your ignorance of the discussion by linking to Roe v. Wade and not planned parenthood v. casey

have you actually read the thread? The only reason that this applies specifically to native americans is that native americans are the only group of people that get specific health care funding by race.

Abortion is not funded by any federal health care program. Native americans are the only group that get their own federal health care program so by definition they're the only group that can be singled out for this. Is this true? In Canada, aboriginal people are among a very limited class of people funded via the feds for health care...some others would be those who serve in the military, the RCMP, Members of Parliament and federal inmates. How does it work in the US?

"Mindless Crap." How eloquent! If anything, you have just proven what I said earlier. You do not have the evidence on your side, and so you resort to insults to TRY to bolster your argument. If you have evidence that life does not begin at conception, or that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was meant to give women access to abortion then, by all means, present it!!! I know most of the "pro-choice" arguments have also been "done to death" but unlike you, I am willing to extend you the courtesy of listening respectfully. (That's the nice thing I have noticed about most liberals. They often speak of open mindedness and tolerance for diversity, but this "tolerance" seems to only extend to fellow liberals.)

My brief reply earlier was not meant to be a full exposition of the pro-life position but was simply meant to put an idea on the table that I did not believe was receiving significant discussion. However, if you would like to read a more detailed article that provides links to BOTH pro-choice and pro-life websites, it can be found at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_Wade.
Perhaps when you do the research and read the position papers of those of us who hold to the pro-life position, you will find that not everyone who disagrees with you is "mindless."

I suggest you calm-down. Do not show that kind of emotion here.

Fear is the path to being banned. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate...leads to suffering.

Is this true? In Canada, aboriginal people are among a very limited class of people funded via the feds for health care...some others would be those who serve in the military, the RCMP, Members of Parliament and federal inmates. How does it work in the US?

Well, ok, let me qualify that statement. The government provides healthcare to government employees and those in government care, yes, I believe. However that operates more like "insurance" than it aid.

I think using this font makes me appear far more eloquent.

"Mindless Crap." How eloquent! If anything, you have just proven what I said earlier. You do not have the evidence on your side, and so you resort to insults to TRY to bolster your argument. If you have evidence that life does not begin at conception, or that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was meant to give women access to abortion then, by all means, present it!!! I know most of the "pro-choice" arguments have also been "done to death" but unlike you, I am willing to extend you the courtesy of listening respectfully. (That's the nice thing I have noticed about most liberals. They often speak of open mindedness and tolerance for diversity, but this "tolerance" seems to only extend to fellow liberals.)

My brief reply earlier was not meant to be a full exposition of the pro-life position but was simply meant to put an idea on the table that I did not believe was receiving significant discussion. However, if you would like to read a more detailed article that provides links to BOTH pro-choice and pro-life websites, it can be found at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_Wade.
Perhaps when you do the research and read the position papers of those of us who hold to the pro-life position, you will find that not everyone who disagrees with you is "mindless."


Take it to the abortion thread. We've already slaughtered every arguement you could make on that, we dont feel like doing it again.

Searchy is your friend.

As far as I can tell, the government gives Native Americans free health care.

However, I evidently missed something because NSG is unusually perturbed. Does anyone care to explain things to my stolid self so that I may partake of the outrage? I only quaffed half-a-cup of coffee today, and I am missing the proverbial boat.

I'm not sure what you want explained exactly, but I'll take a guess that it's about the funding issue? I can't really speak with authority on the US side of things, but in Canada, aboriginal people do not receive provincial health care coverage like most other citizens, but rather are funded federally. This is because aboriginal people are a federal matter, not a provincial one. It puts us in a unique position, but it's not all fun and games. We have a hell of time, for example, getting the feds to approve procedures that the provinces are set upt to review more quickly, and in more detail. The feds aren't, frankly speaking, generally very good at delivering healthcare services here because healthcare is overwhelmingly dealt with at the provincial level.

You folks have a different system of funding, but it seems to me that the kinds of funding provided are roughly similar for aboriginals and non-aboriginals except for who is providing them.

In the period of the pregnancy where abortion is legal, the "child" in question is merely a fleshy husk without a person inside. No brain, no neural net - and therefor no feelings or personality at all.

Therefor we cannot grant them the same rights as persons unless we are insane.

Folks, please...take this annoying, endless abortion debate to an abortion thread. Abortion is only peripherally the issue here.

Is this true? In Canada, aboriginal people are among a very limited class of people funded via the feds for health care...some others would be those who serve in the military, the RCMP, Members of Parliament and federal inmates. How does it work in the US?

the ihs runs the medical clinics on indian reservations and offers a limited amount of off reservation services to indians on some basis that im not sure of. this also includes alaskan natives.

for reservation indians that means that there are no abortion services within a reasonable distance and since these are the poorest american communities, its hard to afford the drive to a city with abortion services let alone pay for the procedure itself.

The IHS was established more than 200 years ago as part of a treaty obligation for land seized from Native Americans. Today it is the sole source of health information and services for many Native Americans. Currently, the federal agency serves roughly half of the nearly three million Native Americans and Native Alaskans in the United States. In accordance with the Hyde Amendment, which restricts public funding for abortion, IHS cannot provide abortion services to Indian women except in the case of rape, incest, or life endangerment

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/std-hiv/native-americans-13171.htm

I suggest you calm-down. Do not show that kind of emotion here.

Fear is the path to being banned. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate...
...leads to obnoxious font choices?

OK on closer reading I understand what's going on now. Federal government funds healthcare to a limited extent through two programs, medicare and medicaid. In addition, native americans have access to a third program, the Indian Health Service or "IHS" (whether native americans have access to IHS funds in lieu of or in addition to medicare/medicaid I have no idea).

Since the 70s the Hyde amendment has prevented federal funds from any of these 3 programs from being used in funding abortions. Now whether you agree or disagree with that particular part, that's the way it's been for 35 years. The federal government won't fund abortions. This amendment however had to be renewed annually, and has been every year. This change makes the portion of the amendment that denies federal funding via IHS for abortions permanent, and not renewed every year.

Now while we may disagree with this restriction, we may question the necessity of making an annual amendment that has been renewed every year for 35 years, the title of this post "abortion ban for native americans" is extremely false and borderline inflamatory. The government hasn't banned abortions for native americans, they've merely made permanent a restriction that has existed for 35 years, and renewed each year.

So, what does this change in real, practical terms? Absolutly nothing.

The article also states that the restrictions in the new amendment are not exactly the same as those in the broader Hyde amendment.

But critics say the creation of a second law governing IHS-funded abortion services might confuse the issue if inconsistencies are found between the two mandates. Indeed, certain elements of Vitter’s amendment stray from the Hyde language. For example, while Hyde allows federally funded abortions for victims of incest at any age, Vitter specifies that the incest exception pertains only to minors.

Marlene Fried, a founding board member of the National Network of Abortion Funds, said the practical implications of that difference would be minimal. Still, she added, the change is significant as "another way of narrowing the [Hyde] exceptions."

...leads to obnoxious font choices?

Which leads to....the Dark Side

Folks, please...take this annoying, endless abortion debate to an abortion thread. Abortion is only peripherally the issue here.
To be fair, abortion is usually only peripherally the issue in "abortion" debates.

"Mindless Crap." How eloquent! If anything, you have just proven what I said earlier. You do not have the evidence on your side, and so you resort to insults to TRY to bolster your argument. If you have evidence that life does not begin at conception, or that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was meant to give women access to abortion then, by all means, present it!!! I know most of the "pro-choice" arguments have also been "done to death" but unlike you, I am willing to extend you the courtesy of listening respectfully. (That's the nice thing I have noticed about most liberals. They often speak of open mindedness and tolerance for diversity, but this "tolerance" seems to only extend to fellow liberals.)

My brief reply earlier was not meant to be a full exposition of the pro-life position but was simply meant to put an idea on the table that I did not believe was receiving significant discussion. However, if you would like to read a more detailed article that provides links to BOTH pro-choice and pro-life websites, it can be found at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_Wade.
Perhaps when you do the research and read the position papers of those of us who hold to the pro-life position, you will find that not everyone who disagrees with you is "mindless."


I can type in Times New Roman, arnt I clever? As everyone has allready stated this has been done to death again and again and again any arguement you could possibly come up with has all ready been refuted. Think before you post.




I'm pro-choice btw.:)

To be fair, abortion is usually only peripherally the issue in "abortion" debates.

*giggles*

Folks, please...take this annoying, endless abortion debate to an abortion thread. Abortion is only peripherally the issue here.

What is the issue then ? A group of people that got special benefits due to their "ethnicity" now gets less benefits than before - making them more like the rest of the population.

Sucks for them of course, but what else is there to debate ?

What is the issue then ? A group of people that got special benefits due to their "ethnicity" now gets less benefits than before - making them more like the rest of the population.

Sucks for them of course, but what else is there to debate ?
Well, we could have a theoretical debate as to whether stuff like the Hyde Amendment would exist if men were the ones who got pregnant (or if women were the ones who made all the laws). But I suspect it wouldn't be much of a debate.

What is the issue then ? A group of people that got special benefits due to their "ethnicity" now gets less benefits than before - making them more like the rest of the population.

Sucks for them of course, but what else is there to debate ?
Hmmm, your ignorance for one.

"Special benefits" in your usage seems to denote lack of justification for said benefits.

Tell me, did your people trade their land in the US in exchange for certain benefits?

No. Thus, aboriginal people 'being treated like the rest of the population' would be manifestly unjust.

...leads to obnoxious font choices?

I'm actually a little annoyed. He's using monotype corsiva, from the looks of it, which is my font of choice on MSN messenger. But it looks downright idiotic on this forum.

No. Thus, aboriginal people 'being treated like the rest of the population' would be manifestly unjust.

The problem is we sorta have...you know...a constitution that talks about equal protection...

"Special benefits" in your usage seems to denote lack of justification for said benefits.

It does. If the benefits are meant to compensate for the stealing of land they are nothing more than a mockery and insult.

Tell me, did your people trade their land in the US in exchange for certain benefits?

Why, yes. They did in fact ;)

the problem I see it is this. The Hyde amendment has prevented federal funding for abortions since the 70s. It's been renewed every single year. It prevents the use of funds from medicare, medicaid and the INH. The amendment had to be renewed annually every year. This recent bill would make the provision preventing INH dollars from being used, but would still keep in place the requirement to yearly renew those same provisions fro medicare/medicaid.

I don't really necessarily agree with making ANY of those provisions permanent, but to single out the one part that deals with native americans and make that permanent while leaving hte other sections intact to require yearly renewal seems...suspect, at best.

There is also the issue that the new amendment doesn't simply make the Hyde amendment restrictions permanent for Native Americans. It uses different, possibly more restrictive language. I haven't read both amendments, but the article points out at least one instance of further restrictions being brought in the Vitter amendment.

This means that, not only would the provisions be permanent only for Native Americans, but that they are also more restrictive - only on Native Americans.

The problem is we sorta have...you know...a constitution that talks about equal protection...

You say that like Canada doesn't have a Constitution and an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

None of which abrogate aboriginal rights.

Providing services solely to people with disabilities is not discrimination, simply because not everyone gets those services. Nor is adhering to obligations that were created during land exchanges with aboriginal nations. People who did not have a land base in this country should not expect to reap the benefits that were agreed in return for giving up that land base. It would be ridiculous to argue otherwise.

This means that, not only would the provisions be permanent only for Native Americans, but that they are also more restrictive - only on Native Americans.



This is what I was thinking.


Which is always the first step. Take a part of the population that most people arent likely to raise a fuss over...


You get where this is going. Its just a slow chisling away at abortion rights. Its a first step, and who better for that first step to be on than a portion of the population that is not only very small but doesnt have huge legal groups like the NAACP backing it? A very, very small first step, but a first step none the less.

You are undeserving of my efforts of eloquence.
Why, because I disagree with you? Are you this rude to everyone with whom you disagree or just those who you feel are an easy target (e.g. nice guys like myself)?
The original intent was to provide liberty.
You are engaging in circular reasoning here. "The 14th Amendment was meant to guarantee our rights. Abortion is a right. Therefore, the 14th Amendment gives us a right to abortion?"

I am tolerant of people who support human rights. I am intollerant of those who would restrict human rights. You're absolutly correct about that. Frankly I think everybody should be intollerant of those who would restrict human rights.
And you don't believe that killing a child in his mother's womb is a violation of human rights?
Your brief reply, following by this blusterous nonsense, is the full exposition of the anti-choice position.

That's all there is, blusterous nonsense, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Did you even read my reply? There was nothing blusterous about it. I dare say that I have shown more civility to you than you have shown to me. I have given you points to consider, and rather interact with them in a thoughtful way, you resort to the same tactics as before. In addition to that, you have engaged in the error of over-generalization. You say that my "blusterous nonsense" is the "full exposition" of the pro-life position. That's simplistic. There are those who call themselves "pro-life" who would make allowances in certain circumstances like rape, incest, life of the mother (I would make allowances for the latter one, but that is a separate issue). There are those who call themselves "pro-choice" who, while they may disagree with me on the legality of abortion, would agree that we should work to reduce abortions in this country. Based on your logic, anyone who is pro-choice believes we should not only have abortion-on-demand, but that everyone ought to go out and get one!
You don't think the anti-choice rhetoric gets enough discussion in this country? Apparently not, seeing as how there are people who still think that abortion is the benchmark of freedom and progress.
QUOTE=Neo Art;13534042] You already show your ignorance of the discussion by linking to Roe v. Wade and not planned parenthood v. casey[/QUOTE]
I can see the relevance of [I]Planned Parenthood v. Casey as far as the issue of access to abortion. However, Roe is the decision that made abortion a federal issue in the first place, and it is the decision that has sparked such controversy these 35 years.

I will reiterate that I am willing to discuss the issue with anyone who wants to do so in a thoughtful and civilized manner (and I have since read some of the other posts, and many of you are "disagreeing agreeably"). However, I really don't want to engage in a "tit-for-tat" exchange of insults. So, if Neo Art and others of like temperment are still willing to believe that only liberals and pro-choicers are enlightened defenders of human rights, and that all conservatives and pro-lifers are mindless emotionalists (and, by the way, I happen to hold a Master's degree), then no amount of persuasion or "extending of the olive branch" is going to do any good. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one and save our conversation for other topics. Well, I need to rejoin the real world and go do my homework! Have a great day eveyone, and God bless!

It does. If the benefits are meant to compensate for the stealing of land they are nothing more than a mockery and insult. I don't think you understand how seriously we take the Treaties. We might not be happy with Treaty breaches, and failures to live up to the terms, but we do not consider them to be invalid.



Why, yes. They did in fact ;)
Really, who are your people?

Also damn you Jolt *shakes fist at the sky*

They don't.

Hence, the use of the "IF" modifier. :)

Well, we could have a theoretical debate as to whether stuff like the Hyde Amendment would exist if men were the ones who got pregnant (or if women were the ones who made all the laws). But I suspect it wouldn't be much of a debate.

I think you are 100% correct.


But interestingly enough, in my experiance (only mine remember) the most obnoxious "pro"-lifers Ive met have had vaginas....

Im still struggling to figure that one out.

I think you are 100% correct.


But interestingly enough, in my experiance (only mine remember) the most obnoxious "pro"-lifers Ive met have had vaginas....

Im still struggling to figure that one out.
I find the same is true of anti-feminists in general. The ones with vaginas are more annoying. Damn the vagina!

SCOTUS will shoot it down if it makes it to there, it obviously goes against Due Process.

SCOTUS will shoot it down if it makes it to there, it obviously goes against Due Process.

Doubtful, given that it's already been on the books as something annually renewed for 35-odd years.

SCOTUS will shoot it down if it makes it to there, it obviously goes against Due Process.

Buh?

Pretend it's not so obvious, and break it down for us, m'kay? Or I'm going to have to assume you're talking out of the wrong orifice.

SCOTUS will shoot it down if it makes it to there, it obviously goes against Due Process.

Not necessarily Due Process. There's a possible argument to be made under equal protection, though, since this amendment has different provisions than the broader one.

Of course, I'm not sure how the equal protection argument works with a group of people who are treated differently under the law by treaty...

Of course, I'm not sure how the equal protection argument works with a group of people who are treated differently under the law by treaty...

It's so damn complicated it makes aboriginal lawyers want to scream. Then again, aboriginal rights are constitutionally entrenched in Canada, and I believe that is different in the US.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/abortion-rule-for



Wow. Misogyny and racism all rolled into one.

The more I read about it, the more it looks like an attack by Vitters on a marginalised and vulnerable segment population, solely for the purpose of scoring some political points from his electorate.

I can't think of any question to add to the OP that would generate any sort of debate except perhaps this:

Is there anyone who can find something about this that isn't disgusting and disturbing?

It says that the federal government won't pay for abortion, not that they can't pay for their own baby's slaughtering. Not quite as dramatic as you paint it.

It says that the federal government won't pay for abortion, not that they can't pay for their own baby's slaughtering. Not quite as dramatic as you paint it.

Welcome to this thread about 4 pages and 3 hours ago. Way to stay on the ball...

Welcome to this thread about 4 pages and 3 hours ago. Way to stay on the ball...

Thanks. ;)

It says that the federal government won't pay for abortion, not that they can't pay for their own baby's slaughtering. Not quite as dramatic as you paint it.

Read the thread before posting kthxbye.

It says that the federal government won't pay for abortion, not that they can't pay for their own baby's slaughtering. Not quite as dramatic as you paint it.

The issue (as I'm sure you're aware despite your feigned ignorance) is that this bill targets a specific minority group. It is, no matter one's view on abortion, incredibly racist, and as others have pointed out is likely a political ploy by a beleaguered politician. Do try to refrain from threadjacking in the future.

It's so damn complicated it makes aboriginal lawyers want to scream. Then again, aboriginal rights are constitutionally entrenched in Canada, and I believe that is different in the US.

IIRC, treaties carry force of law just below the Constitution. So as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution, they're higher than other forms of law.

IIRC, treaties carry force of law just below the Constitution. So as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution, they're higher than other forms of law.

but the constitution clearly has an equal protection provision.

but the constitution clearly has an equal protection provision.

Indeed. But the courts haven't struck down all the other law pertaining to Native Americans.

Seems to me it's a tricky subject in law. Reservations are US land, but not in the same way as any other land. Native Americans are US citizens, but treated differently.

I honestly don't know enough about the law here to know exactly what it all pans out to.

So, what does this change in real, practical terms? Absolutly nothing.

Making the amendment permanent makes it harder to change when the government comes to it's senses. Instead of simply not renewing it now they have to go to the trouble of passing an amendment to amend the amendment.

The issue (as I'm sure you're aware despite your feigned ignorance) is that this bill targets a specific minority group. It is, no matter one's view on abortion, incredibly racist, and as others have pointed out is likely a political ploy by a beleaguered politician. Do try to refrain from threadjacking in the future.

Fine ban it for all other races then. Or would you like them to ban it for everyone but american indians (wouldn't that be racist too?)? What are you trying to say?

abortions are kind of necessary things sometimes no?

though the woman life is always threatened by children :p

Damn the vagina!

Vagina's should be pounded into dust!

Fine ban it for all other races then. Or would you like them to ban it for everyone but american indians (wouldn't that be racist too?)? What are you trying to say?

Maybe not to ban them for anyone because its not your body?

Read the thread before posting kthxbye.

Yeah unless the thread is past 20 pages. No one should have to read all that shit before posting their own shit.

Maybe not to ban them for anyone because its not your body?

and who the hell is banning them?

and who the hell is banning them?

I was responding to what Kontor said, not what the article said. Im well aware no one is banning them.

Maybe not to ban them for anyone because its not your body?

Ban the giving of federal money to pay for it, read the OP.

Ban the giving of federal money to pay for it, read the OP.

Youre one to talk. I read the OP. I responded to your statement. In your statement, you said

Fine ban it for all other races then. Or would you like them to ban it for everyone but american indians (wouldn't that be racist too?)? What are you trying to say?


You didnt mention the federal money aspect. Dont try to make me look like an idiot because you didnt qualify your own statement.


ps- Non-Native Americans already didnt get government money for abortions.

You didnt mention the federal money aspect. Dont try to make me look like an idiot because you didnt qualify your own statement.


ps- Non-Native Americans already didnt get government money for abortions.

I meant ban the giving of money. In the context of my previous post, I didn't feel I would have to be more specific.

I meant ban the giving of money. In the context of my previous post, I didn't feel I would have to be more specific.

Banning something for everyone, when in fact, only one group receives it in the first place, is meaningless.

I would support a ban on this Vitters character.

Paternalist bullshit like this is why I support any and all aboriginal sovereignty movements in the Americas. What gives him the right to further marginalise people simply to further his political career?

In my mind, the US should simply hand over all money associated with treaties and then shut the hell up. Once you hand it over, you shouldn't get a say in how it's spent.

I was responding to what Kontor said, not what the article said. Im well aware no one is banning them.

Fair enough, carry on then.

I would support a ban on this Vitters character.

Paternalist bullshit like this is why I support any and all aboriginal sovereignty movements in the Americas. What gives him the right to further marginalise people simply to further his political career?

In my mind, the US should simply hand over all money associated with treaties and then shut the hell up. Once you hand it over, you shouldn't get a say in how it's spent.

yes.

since abortion is legal in the US, its availability should be up to each indian nation to decide, not the federal government.

It just seems like some gross attempt to take reproductive rights from all US women, but in some racist, roundabout way. Like no one's going to notice if you do it to the darkies first.

Now I know why they have all those angry smilies.You got it. But most Americans are too stupid,or rather, clueless,to catch on.

Fair enough, carry on then.

He says from on high.

Banning something for everyone, when in fact, only one group receives it in the first place, is meaningless.

Well you see, I was not aware of that till KOL posted it. Related to that, it would be racist to let only one ethnic or racial group have that privilege. The indians were the only ones who (had) that privilege. This then, is actually taking action against racist things.

I may be missing something big, but if I am, I don't see it.

While it really isn't directly the subject of this thread, would anyone else support complete and total sovereignty for aboriginal nations instead of all the funky legal wrangling that goes on for the pseudo-separate status?

I may be missing something big

You are, I suggest you read the thread.

Well you see, I was not aware of that till KOL posted it. Related to that, it would be racist to let only one ethnic or racial group have that privilege. The indians were the only ones who (had) that privilege. This then, is actually taking action against racist things.

I may be missing something big, but if I am, I don't see it.

Riiiiight. Ignoring the obligations arising from land transfers to the federal governments from the aboriginal nations that originally held title is taking action against racism.

Wow. Fascinating way to look at it. Is black white in your world too?

Well you see, I was not aware of that till KOL posted it. Related to that, it would be racist to let only one ethnic or racial group have that privilege. The indians were the only ones who (had) that privilege. This then, is actually taking action against racist things.

I may be missing something big, but if I am, I don't see it.

Natives get some benefits others dont, because we got the benefits of screwing them out of their land and sovereignty.

While it really isn't directly the subject of this thread, would anyone else support complete and total sovereignty for aboriginal nations instead of all the funky legal wrangling that goes on for the pseudo-separate status?

I would.

While it really isn't directly the subject of this thread, would anyone else support complete and total sovereignty for aboriginal nations instead of all the funky legal wrangling that goes on for the pseudo-separate status?

*holds up hand*
Too obvious?

*holds up hand*
Too obvious?

A bit:p

Riiiiight. Ignoring the obligations arising from land transfers to the federal governments from the aboriginal nations that originally held title is taking action against racism.

Wow. Fascinating way to look at it. Is black white in your world too?

If paying for the abortions of the natives was in a treaty or contract, then they should abide by it. But other wise, it's just wasting $$$$.

While it really isn't directly the subject of this thread, would anyone else support complete and total sovereignty for aboriginal nations instead of all the funky legal wrangling that goes on for the pseudo-separate status?

not complete and total but i would like sovereignty put into the constitution in some manner so that it cannot be overruled by the courts.

Sin,it's BK. Please check TG's.

not complete and total but i would like sovereignty put into the constitution in some manner so that it cannot be overruled by the courts.

Canada has plenty of land with such a tiny population. They should give the indians the land.

Canada has plenty of land with such a tiny population. They should give the indians the land.



Maybe because its not Canada's responsibility to pay for the fucking ups of the US government?

Canada has plenty of land with such a tiny population. They should give the indians the land.

maybe they should fully respect the treaties they have now. how many canadian aboriginal nations would prefer to sever ties with canada completely?

Well you see, I was not aware of that till KOL posted it. Related to that, it would be racist to let only one ethnic or racial group have that privilege. The indians were the only ones who (had) that privilege. This then, is actually taking action against racist things.

I may be missing something big, but if I am, I don't see it.

You seem to be missing the fact that the previous law already kept the federal government from paying for abortions for anyone except in certain circumstances. It applied to Medicare/Medicaid and to the Native Americans (can't remember the program name off the top of my head). This law comes up for renewal every year.

This new law will permanently block such funding for Native Americans, with stricter restrictions than those placed on Medicare/Medicaid.

not complete and total but i would like sovereignty put into the constitution in some manner so that it cannot be overruled by the courts.

But then you stomp all over equal protection by treating one class of people differently than others.

You can't get past all the funky legal wrangling without either full sovereignty, or none.

If paying for the abortions of the natives was in a treaty or contract, then they should abide by it. But other wise, it's just wasting $$$$.

Don't be idiotic. Provision of health care is a general obligation most of the treaties dealt with. Specifics would not have been settled point by point. It's not up to you to decide whether it is wasting money or not, and it shouldn't be up to the government who has the obligation to provide the services...it should be up to the people themselves to prioritize spending according to their needs.

But then you stomp all over equal protection by treating one class of people differently than others.

You can't get past all the funky legal wrangling without either full sovereignty, or none.

then i suppose i prefer the funky legal wrangling

depending on what you mean by ful sovereignty.

Don't be idiotic. Provision of health care is a general obligation most of the treaties dealt with. Specifics would not have been settled point by point. It's not up to you to decide whether it is wasting money or not, and it shouldn't be up to the government who has the obligation to provide the services...it should be up to the people themselves to prioritize spending according to their needs.

And if the indians officially broke off from the U.S and Canada? Would we still owe them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$?

Edit: It's not up to you to decide that it's NOT wasting money.

While it really isn't directly the subject of this thread, would anyone else support complete and total sovereignty for aboriginal nations instead of all the funky legal wrangling that goes on for the pseudo-separate status?

Well, if the thread were to wander in that direction, I wouldn't be perturbed.

Sovereignty would minimally prevent people like Vitters from imposing their religious beliefs on people who don't want it or need it. It would also shut up all those people who foolishly believe that Natives get something 'extra' that no one else does.

However, I hold little hope.It would seem that in today's society, it is more important to use Native women in some sort of backdoor maneuver to restrict all women's rights than it is to ensure that their rights are being respected.

This new law will permanently block such funding for Native Americans, with stricter restrictions than those placed on Medicare/Medicaid.

Which is where a very important question comes up. Do native americans qualify for medicare/medicaid? If so, then there's no equal protection problem, because those that qualify get the same treatment under medicare/medicaid as everyone else that qualifies under medicare/medicaid. If the IHS places tighter restrictions, but medicare/medicaid is still an option then there's no equal protection problem. What might not qualify under IHS might qualify under medicare/medicaid.

If the IHS is in lieu of medicare/medicaid we have a problem.

It's got to be all or nothing, this is horrible.

It would seem that in today's society, it is more important to use Native women in some sort of backdoor maneuver to restrict all women's rights than it is to ensure that their rights are being respected.

well here's a fairly serious question to this. What rights exactly are being trampled upon? Nobody is restricting the right to have an abortion.

And if the indians officially broke off from the U.S and Canada? Would we still owe them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$?

Edit: It's not up to you to decide that it's NOT wasting money.

To your edit: then we're at an impasse. Your opinion on the matter is as useless as mine.

If the 'Indians' (it's people like you who shouldn't be using this word by the way) decid to officially break off, it could not happen as a unilateral move anyway. Not realistically. In Canada it would mean a Constitutional amendment nearly impossible to achieve. More likely what you'll see is, as is happening, various self-government agreements put into place. They generally involve a large lump sum payment in addition to a land claim settlement, and then a slow revocation of tax-free status. What else we've seen is that instead of provincial taxes, these nations would administer their own taxation scheme. These nations would gradually take over the administration of their own health-care and social services, including education and so forth, as well as controlling membership/status and governance. They would have power to legislate within their jurisdiction, but would still remain tied to the nation somewhat in the same position as a province (and yet not quite).

then i suppose i prefer the funky legal wrangling

depending on what you mean by ful sovereignty.

I mean full sovereignty. They would not fall under the US government.

They would actually be able to form their own nations, join the UN, etc. They would not be US (or, in Canada, Canadian) citizens automatically, although dual citizenship would likely be possible.


Which is where a very important question comes up. Do native americans qualify for medicare/medicaid? If so, then there's no equal protection problem, because those that qualify get the same treatment under medicare/medicaid as everyone else that qualifies under medicare/medicaid. If the IHS places tighter restrictions, but medicare/medicaid is still an option then there's no equal protection problem. What might not qualify under IHS might qualify under medicare/medicaid.

If the IHS is in lieu of medicare/medicaid we have a problem.

I know very little about how these programs work, but that does make sense. But, if those who qualify for IHS do qualify for medicare/caid, why have IHS at all?

I know very little about how these programs work, but that does make sense. But, if those who qualify for IHS do qualify for medicare/caid, why have IHS at all?

arguably, not everyone who qualifies for IHS would necessarily qualify for medicare/caid. Maybe IHS is a suppliment to medicare/caid and not a replacement.

Frankly I have no idea.

well here's a fairly serious question to this. What rights exactly are being trampled upon? Nobody is restricting the right to have an abortion.

just their access to abortion.

is it enough to have the right if you cant afford the trip to an abortion clinic or the price of the procedure?

I mean full sovereignty. They would not fall under the US government.

They would actually be able to form their own nations, join the UN, etc. They would not be US (or, in Canada, Canadian) citizens automatically, although dual citizenship would likely be possible.


i dont think that many indian nations want that. they tend to be proud americans who are also proud members of their tribes.

just their access to abortion.

Question on this. Is there anything stopping say...planned parenthood or another institution from setting up a clinic on a reservation with the permission of the tribe?

is it enough to have the right if you cant afford the trip to an abortion clinic or the price of the procedure?

I have the right to form a newspaper, but I most certainly can't afford to create one. The government won't stop me from creating a newspaper if I so choose, but I can't afford to do it. Is that a limitation on my right?

Is it the responsibility of the government to provide access to an abortion on top of gaurenteeing your right to have one if you so choose? I have the right to have sex with the consenting adult of my choice in the manner of my choice (see Lawrence v. Texas). Does the government have an obligation to provide me with a consenting adult to have sex with?

Now I know I sound flippant and that's not my intention, but at what point do we have to say "yes you have the right to, but if you can't afford it, the government isn't necessarily under the obligation to provide it for you"

well here's a fairly serious question to this. What rights exactly are being trampled upon? Nobody is restricting the right to have an abortion.

Quit deflating my rhetorical balloon with your needles of logic.

While I can not intelligently comment on the legal situation, it does strike me as an effective way to make sure that Native women can not have access to easy and safe abortion. They may have the right, but be unable to exercise it for financial reasons. And this bill, act, whatever, would further limit practical access by attempting to control the manner of spending the monies allocated for the health of these women.

Question on this. Is there anything stopping say...planned parenthood or another institution from setting up a clinic on a reservation with the permission of the tribe?


logistics. its pretty expensive to set up a clinic that will be used by a handful of people a year and its pretty hard to find professional staff willing to work in the middle of nowhere.


I have the right to form a newspaper, but I most certainly can't afford to create one. The government won't stop me from creating a newspaper if I so choose, but I can't afford to do it. Is that a limitation on my right?

Is it the responsibility of the government to provide access to an abortion on top of gaurenteeing your right to have one if you so choose? I have the right to have sex with the consenting adult of my choice in the manner of my choice (see Lawrence v. Texas). Does the government have an obligation to provide me with a consenting adult to have sex with?

Now I know I sound flippant and that's not my intention, but at what point do we have to say "yes you have the right to, but if you can't afford it, the government isn't necessarily under the obligation to provide it for you"

i know what you mean but it still remains that for this demographic denying the ihs the option of providing abortion services is denying on-reservation women a needed medical service.

i dont think that many indian nations want that. they tend to be proud americans who are also proud members of their tribes.

I can't help but think that, if they are US Citizens, equal protection should apply to them just as much as anyone else.

Thus, they would be treated exactly as all other US citizens are. Reservation governments could cover only the same sorts of things that local governments currently cover.

Which is where a very important question comes up. Do native americans qualify for medicare/medicaid? If so, then there's no equal protection problem, because those that qualify get the same treatment under medicare/medicaid as everyone else that qualifies under medicare/medicaid. If the IHS places tighter restrictions, but medicare/medicaid is still an option then there's no equal protection problem. What might not qualify under IHS might qualify under medicare/medicaid.

If the IHS is in lieu of medicare/medicaid we have a problem.

Here's (http://info.ihs.gov/BasisHlthSvcs.asp) some info which suggests the IHS is a supplement based on a Treaty right.

How one side can unilaterally alter a Treaty right is something I'd like to understand.

Quit deflating my rhetorical balloon with your needles of logic.

While I can not intelligently comment on the legal situation, it does strike me as an effective way to make sure that Native women can not have access to easy and safe abortion. They may have the right, but be unable to exercise it for financial reasons. And this bill, act, whatever, would further limit practical access by attempting to control the manner of spending the monies allocated for the health of these women.

It's like saying, hey, we'll take responsibility for funding your health care, but if you access health care off the reserve, we won't foot the bill. What, no health care facility available on reserve? Well that's not our problem, is it? Snigger, snigger.

I am soooo glad to hear that the Government is spending a bit less money to fund murder.

These folks can still choose to kill their child, they just have to pay to do so.

America just took a tiny step forward.

logistics. its pretty expensive to set up a clinic that will be used by a handful of people a year and its pretty hard to find professional staff willing to work in the middle of nowhere.

But is that the problem for the government?

i know what you mean but it still remains that for this demographic denying the ihs the option of providing abortion services is denying on-reservation women a needed medical service.

Ahh I fear with law the devil's in the details. From a legal standpoint there's a difference between not funding something and denying something.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't LIKE this. But in the heirarchy of evil things the government does I divide in two types. The evil things they do that they can't by law do, and the evil things they do that they can by law do.

If it's a thing they can't do (IE unconstitution) I fight it like hell and do my best for the justices to see it that way. If it's legal for them to do it, I can still lobby politicians and vote for those who uphold my ideals, but if I lose...well...that's a representative government for ya...

I can't help but think that, if they are US Citizens, equal protection should apply to them just as much as anyone else.

Thus, they would be treated exactly as all other US citizens are. Reservation governments could cover only the same sorts of things that local governments currently cover.

And yet they are not just US citizens, they are something more. Or less. Depending on how you look at it. The government has a fiduciary relationship with aboriginal peoples, a sort of guardianship. It is a political relationship that is dissimilar to the relationship between the government and any other people. It might be difficult to wrap one's head around it, but it should never be ignored.

I can't help but think that, if they are US Citizens, equal protection should apply to them just as much as anyone else.

Thus, they would be treated exactly as all other US citizens are. Reservation governments could cover only the same sorts of things that local governments currently cover.

in general they are treated as if they were states of their own. it is funky because the states they are in have some limited jurisdictions. treaties cover things like the boundaries of their lands, their rights to hunt and fish on land they used to own, other things that dont come to mind.

they are fully bound by US law in the same way that states are.

in theory, the IHS is run in a similar manner as medicaid so that its not out of bounds to disallow ihs money from paying for abortions since medicaid (which is run by the various states) is barred from using federal money for elective abortions.

in practicality the IHS is the only medical provider available to most on-reservation indians. denying abortions there is denying it completely for that population.

in any case, the various indian nations are never going to be made their own little countries inside the boundaries of the US. that leaves the only other option in your suggestion the disbanding of the reservations and the integration of the former inhabitants into the mainstream of US society.

i find that unacceptable.

And yet they are not just US citizens, they are something more. Or less. Depending on how you look at it. The government has a fiduciary relationship with aboriginal peoples, a sort of guardianship. It is a political relationship that is dissimilar to the relationship between the government and any other people. It might be difficult to wrap one's head around it, but it should never be ignored.

There's a point to this....I think the truth is the government sees them as dual citizens.

As americans they have the same rights as other americans, equal access to medicare/caid, same rights, same responsibilities, etc etc. However we can also look at indian nations are semi sovereign and the money the US government gives to them is part of treaty obligations with a foreign nation, which then filters those benefits to their people.

So on one hand, indians get a set of benefits for being americans and part of the nation of america, and ALSO get a set of benefits from being a member of their own indian nation. This isn't unusual and dual citizens have this all the time. Where it becomes murky is that the benefits realized by being a member of the indian nation are funded, in part, by the US government.

It's probably best to look at it that way. Overly simplistic, but perhaps it will help.

But is that the problem for the government?



Ahh I fear with law the devil's in the details. From a legal standpoint there's a difference between not funding something and denying something.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't LIKE this. But in the heirarchy of evil things the government does I divide in two types. The evil things they do that they can't by law do, and the evil things they do that they can by law do.

If it's a thing they can't do (IE unconstitution) I fight it like hell and do my best for the justices to see it that way. If it's legal for them to do it, I can still lobby politicians and vote for those who uphold my ideals, but if I lose...well...that's a representative government for ya...

im not saying its illegal. it has obviously been legal for the 35 years they have been doing it.

im saying its wrong.

in practicality the IHS is the only medical provider available to most on-reservation indians. denying abortions there is denying it completely for that population.

Interesting question. Can the IHS clinics bill for the abortion? Says you can't use federal dollars but if the patient pays fully the cost of the procedure...maybe a "schedual the abortion pay upfront" sorta thing.

im not saying its illegal. it has obviously been legal for the 35 years they have been doing it.

im saying its wrong.

I agree. I just get my feathers ruffled when people use words like "rights". A right is a legal construct. if there's no right that you have, then you can't have your right violated.

Now the government can certainly do wrong things without violating any legal right. And it's still wrong, it's just a violation of anyones rights. That's the point I was trying to get at.

Abortion is sick and evil; it should be banned in all insances

Puppet cowardice. As welcome as rectal itching.

Fine ban it for all other races then. Or would you like them to ban it for everyone but american indians (wouldn't that be racist too?)? What are you trying to say?

Knock it off with pretending you don't get it, or that you think the point is something it isn't. This bill was a publicity stunt with racist repercussions attempted by a politician trying to distract public attention from his indiscretions. Yes, for the record, only allowing abortions for Native Americans would indeed be racist (IMHO). But so is prohibiting them for only Native Americans. I will not debate with you whether abortion should be legal at all. You've made your opinion abundantly clear; I refuse to share my view on this, with you or anyone else. It is not relevant to the discussion whether I am pro-life or pro-choice. The topic of this thread was about an example of blantant racism. If you want to have a feces-flinging contest with the rest of NSG about abortion, go start the 1,000,000th thread on the topic.

Abortion is sick and evil; it should be banned in all insances

What exactly is an insance?

1) I think one problem with this debate is that none of us knows enough about the complicated and confusing relationship between the federal government and native peoples in the US. Neesika is the only resident expert on the system in Canada, but while similar, it is not really functionally comparable to the US system.

2) Another problem is that we do not know enough about US federally funded health care programs. It's not just Medicare, Medicaid and IHS. There is also federal funding for state programs. Do we actually know that no federal funds go towards abortion services for women off reservations? The US health care system is such a mess of private and subsidized sort-of private/sort of public crap that I'm not confident that we can say the fed does not fund abortion for non-native women.

3) As to the OP legislation, I agree with the argument that this is just a first step to further restricting abortion in re federal programs more broadly by "testing" new language on a population the mainstream and media do not care about, in a system non-bureaucrats do not understand. Since this measure is made permanent, rather than being reviewed/renewed annually, it can be used to bring other federal programs/laws into line with it. Since it is permanent, if any confusing discrepancies between it and Hyde and other laws/programs arise, it will be much easier to change them to fit this measure than to amend this permanent measure to match the older, renewable laws/measures.

4) In re the question of whether reservation clinics could bill for abortion services (I think Neo Art asked that one?), I don't think so, unless they also brought in doctors who do not work for the res clinic and brought their own mobile facilities as well. I'm basing this on anti-abortion restrictions in US aid to African health service clinics that would cut off ALL funds if a program violated the abortion restrictions, including money for medicines, equipment, electricity, salaries, etc, etc, across the board, whether those things were related to abortion services or not.

5) Aside from the disgusting racism inherent in using native peoples to test this latest experiment in rightwing manipulation -- and this cynical ploy to sacrifice native peoples for the resurrection of that corrupt bastard Vitters' worthless career -- there is also the inescapable unfairness of this within the inherently unfair reservation system. It is my understanding that native people in the US face a kind of Hobson's choice in re reservations. A whole host of important services and legal status are attached to maintaining some kind of resident connection to a reservation. If natives decide that life there is just too hard and abandon the reservation, they stand to lose not just benefits but political and legal standing as well. Thus, starting from the point of generations of economic and social oppression suffered by native peoples, many simply cannot afford (financially or politically) to abandon the reservation system. Thus they are, to some degree, prisoners of those parcels of land. With that in mind, for the feds to first set up rules that force natives to be in those places, and to make the fed the source of such basic services, and then to start taking away services (giving natives services not equal to what other Americans can access), and finally to attach what amount to economic and/or political penalties for seeking those services elsewhere, cannot be seen as anything but abusive, in my opinion.

Does the government usually pay for abortions?

I always thought that those things were covered like any other medical expense/procedure, by health insurance and one's own money.

Abortion is sick and evil; it should be banned in all insances

Ah, your first post. As usual, no argument, just an opinion.

Ah, your first post. As usual, no argument, just an opinion.

Now thats not fair. Some people say genuinly intellegent things within their first 10 posts.


Many dont, however.

Now thats not fair. Some people say genuinly intellegent things within their first 10 posts.


Many dont, however.

Liberals can go to hell!!!1111:upyours::upyours::upyours:

:mp5::sniper::sniper::mp5:

While it really isn't directly the subject of this thread, would anyone else support complete and total sovereignty for aboriginal nations instead of all the funky legal wrangling that goes on for the pseudo-separate status?

Definitely.

Liberals can go to hell!!!

You're doing it wrong. You spelled everything right.

:)

Liberals can go to hell!!!1111:upyours::upyours::upyours:

:mp5::sniper::sniper::mp5:

I thought America under Bush was Hell.

You're doing it wrong. You spelled everything right.

:)

But the gun smilies were used rather well

well here's a fairly serious question to this. What rights exactly are being trampled upon? Nobody is restricting the right to have an abortion.
One of the most popular tactics of the anti-choicers is to attack access to abortion. Sure, maybe it's still technically a woman's right to choose, sometimes, but she sure as hell isn't going to be at all able to exercise that right.

Look at Mississippi. Sure, women there are technically covered by all those lovely Supreme Court rulings, but there is a grand total of one clinic that provides abortions.

One.

And at that one clinic, patients must have a consultation and then wait 24 hours before having the abortion. The doctors are required to perform ultrasounds before the procedure, and they are legally required to lie and tell their patients that abortion is linked to increased chance of breast cancer and infertility (it isn't).

Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country. What percentage of Mississippi's women do you think have the time, money, and resources to travel to that one clinic and stay overnight waiting for that 24-hour-waiting period? Hell, what percent of Mississippi's women do you think know about the clinic in the first place? Or how to reach it?

Whether or not the "right" to abortion exists is pretty much moot in places like Mississippi. Who cares if women technically have the right to choose, when you ensure that it will never be possible for them to make any choice other than the one you want?

in general they are treated as if they were states of their own. it is funky because the states they are in have some limited jurisdictions. treaties cover things like the boundaries of their lands, their rights to hunt and fish on land they used to own, other things that dont come to mind.

they are fully bound by US law in the same way that states are.

in theory, the IHS is run in a similar manner as medicaid so that its not out of bounds to disallow ihs money from paying for abortions since medicaid (which is run by the various states) is barred from using federal money for elective abortions.

in practicality the IHS is the only medical provider available to most on-reservation indians. denying abortions there is denying it completely for that population.

in any case, the various indian nations are never going to be made their own little countries inside the boundaries of the US. that leaves the only other option in your suggestion the disbanding of the reservations and the integration of the former inhabitants into the mainstream of US society.

i find that unacceptable.

*shrug*

I find systematic inequality unacceptable, especially in the government.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/abortion-rule-for



Wow. Misogyny and racism all rolled into one.

The more I read about it, the more it looks like an attack by Vitters on a marginalised and vulnerable segment population, solely for the purpose of scoring some political points from his electorate.

I can't think of any question to add to the OP that would generate any sort of debate except perhaps this:

Is there anyone who can find something about this that isn't disgusting and disturbing?

The only good way that this can be viewed is predicated on the assumption that indians and eskimos are an endangered people. I am sure that there are some tribes whose populations are so small that it is not in their best interest to be allowed to have abortions. However, that is a pretty weak argument unless it was really regulated. I mean it is one thing to outlaw abortions to endangered peoples in an age based approach such as outlawing aborions for women over 25 who do not already have a certain number of children. It is another thing to ban them entirely.

However, I am not sure that we should have a government that is in population growth business. After all, although some peoples are endangered, humanity certainly isnt. I also am a bit leary of treating different races of men differently in terms of reproductive or other rights. Obviously, we need to recognize Indian treaty rights that may give them more property or political rights than say the Jones family down the street, however in the area of civil liberties I do not think that there should be disperate treatment on the basis of rights.

I think that every policy that encourages overpopulation should be repealled this includes everything from abortion restrictions to food stamps to tax deductions and credits for having children.

One of the most popular tactics of the anti-choicers is to attack access to abortion. Sure, maybe it's still technically a woman's right to choose, sometimes, but she sure as hell isn't going to be at all able to exercise that right.

Look at Mississippi. Sure, women there are technically covered by all those lovely Supreme Court rulings, but there is a grand total of one clinic that provides abortions.

One.

And at that one clinic, patients must have a consultation and then wait 24 hours before having the abortion. The doctors are required to perform ultrasounds before the procedure, and they are legally required to lie and tell their patients that abortion is linked to increased chance of breast cancer and infertility (it isn't).

Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country. What percentage of Mississippi's women do you think have the time, money, and resources to travel to that one clinic and stay overnight waiting for that 24-hour-waiting period? Hell, what percent of Mississippi's women do you think know about the clinic in the first place? Or how to reach it?

Whether or not the "right" to abortion exists is pretty much moot in places like Mississippi. Who cares if women technically have the right to choose, when you ensure that it will never be possible for them to make any choice other than the one you want?

Mississippi is pretty icky. I did not know about this.

Mississippi is pretty icky. I did not know about this.

Yeah, that's pretty fucked up.

Although I am pro-abortion I can see why antiabortionists get pissed off when their tax dollars fund something they morally oppose. However, there are a lot of things that are tax dollars are spent on that get me pretty cheesed so I guess it is just something we have to live with.

Although I am pro-abortion I can see why antiabortionists get pissed off when their tax dollars fund something they morally oppose. However, there are a lot of things that are tax dollars are spent on that get me pretty cheesed so I guess it is just something we have to live with.
Yeah, given that I think the defense budget should be roughly 1/100th of what it currently is, I tend to have very little sympathy when anti-choicers whine about how their tax dollars are being spent.

Yeah, given that I think the defense budget should be roughly 1/100th of what it currently is, I tend to have very little sympathy when anti-choicers whine about how their tax dollars are being spent.

What? You do not think that we should spend as much or more on our military as the rest of the world combined spends on their militaries? I am a fan of a strong military but even I raise an eyebrow at how much we spend.

Yeah, given that I think the defense budget should be roughly 1/100th of what it currently is, I tend to have very little sympathy when anti-choicers whine about how their tax dollars are being spent.

I agree that the nation should have a drastically lower defense budget. I am also pro-choice. Yet I do not think that tax-dollars should pay for abortions. Maybe if the person requiring the procedure was under 18, or the victim of rape. Other than that, I cannot discern one reason why I should have to "foot-the-bill" for these things, morality aside.

I agree that the nation should have a drastically lower defense budget. I am also pro-choice. Yet I do not think that tax-dollars should pay for abortions. Maybe if the person requiring the procedure was under 18, or the victim of rape. Other than that, I cannot discern one reason why I should have to "foot-the-bill" for these things, morality aside.

Assuming that unwanted children are at an increased risk of growing up to be poor, or engage in anti-social activities, maybe paying for abortions is a good investment in our future.

I agree that the nation should have a drastically lower defense budget. I am also pro-choice. Yet I do not think that tax-dollars should pay for abortions. Maybe if the person requiring the procedure was under 18, or the victim of rape. Other than that, I cannot discern one reason why I should have to "foot-the-bill" for these things, morality aside.
Well, that kind of leads to a very different topic. I support universal health care, and, given that, I see no reason to exclude reproductive health care. If I didn't support universal health care, I probably wouldn't support public funds being used to pay for abortion services.

Well, that kind of leads to a very different topic. I support universal health care, and, given that, I see no reason to exclude reproductive health care. If I didn't support universal health care, I probably wouldn't support public funds being used to pay for abortion services.

Even someone who supports universal healthcare may not support funding for certain procedures. As a much clearer example, I would not support public funding of purely cosmetic surgery (boob jobs and the like) even though I do support universal healthcare.

Elective abortion is kind of a weird one and I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I generally do not think that elective procedures should be covered by public funds.

On the other, I recognize that abortion is not really the same situation as many other elective procedures. Once a woman is pregnant, she needs to seek some sort of treatment - either prenatal care or abortion. Believing, as I do, that it is up to her which line of treatment she pursues, funding one while not funding the other seems like it places too much pressure on her to make a given decision.

Even someone who supports universal healthcare may not support funding for certain procedures. As a much clearer example, I would not support public funding of purely cosmetic surgery (boob jobs and the like) even though I do support universal healthcare.

Elective abortion is kind of a weird one and I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I generally do not think that elective procedures should be covered by public funds.

On the other, I recognize that abortion is not really the same situation as many other elective procedures. Once a woman is pregnant, she needs to seek some sort of treatment - either prenatal care or abortion. Believing, as I do, that it is up to her which line of treatment she pursues, funding one while not funding the other seems like it places too much pressure on her to make a given decision.

when I was sick with my gallbladder having it out was elective, right up to the point it cracked open and I went septic. elective doesn't always mean that it's not needed, most of the time it means it's not an emergency. most of the surgeries I have had have been elective, meaning I wasn't going to die right then, but I did need things fixed....soon.

Well, that kind of leads to a very different topic. I support universal health care, and, given that, I see no reason to exclude reproductive health care. If I didn't support universal health care, I probably wouldn't support public funds being used to pay for abortion services.

This is where we differ in opinion. Though I am for steadily incorporating universal health (like universal education), I do not see abortion as a function of it (unless the mother is at risk of dying). If people willingly have unprotected sex, then find themselves pregnant, it is not proper to force others to pay for the termination of those pregnancies.

This is where we differ in opinion. Though I am for steadily incorporating universal health (like universal education), I do not see abortion as a function of it (unless the mother is at risk of dying). If someone willingly has unprotected sex, then finds themselves pregnant, it is not proper to force others to pay for the termination of that pregnancy.

what if they willingly have protected sex and find themselves pregnant?

what if they willingly have protected sex and find themselves pregnant?

but that's still the risk they took isn't it?

what if they willingly have protected sex and find themselves pregnant?

Even so, considering there is no way to prove that it was "protected". The participants are aware of the risk, it is their problem.

I thought we were trying to get rid of those pesky Native Americans. They are going about it all wrong.

but that's still the risk they took isn't it?

yes, same as the risk I took this morning when I drove to the library. hopefully if I got into a wreck I would get medical care.

I was just wondering if it was seatbelt we set your arm, no seatbelt your arm has to be broken forever because you weren't doing what we think you should.

Even so, considering there is no way to prove that it was "protected". The participants are aware of the risk, it is their problem.
interesting. I assume you never seek medical care then?

yes, same as the risk I took this morning when I drove to the library. hopefully if I got into a wreck I would get medical care.

Not if you chose to get into the wreck.

interesting. I assume you never seek medical care then?

Only by my insurance.

yes, same as the risk I took this morning when I drove to the library. hopefully if I got into a wreck I would get medical care.

To be healed and have the damaged repaired, yes. But we're not talking about injuries that are detrimental to health. We're talking about a pregnancy. I fully support free abortions in the case to save a life or prevent injury. I'm not sure if I support free abortions via healthcare for situations where you just want an abortion.

I support a lot of rights, but I don't necessarily support the government freely handing over means to exercise those rights. It's your right yes but you have to be the one responsible for your actions to some extent.

Not if you chose to get into the wreck.

so, if you had say......hmm......food poisoning would you go to the hospital? or would you just die because you chose to eat food knowing the risk?

To be healed and have the damaged repaired, yes. But we're not talking about injuries that are detrimental to health. We're talking about a pregnancy. I fully support free abortions in the case to save a life or prevent injury. I'm not sure if I support free abortions via healthcare for situations where you just want an abortion.

I support a lot of rights, but I don't necessarily support the government freely handing over means to exercise those rights. It's your right yes but you have to be the one responsible for your actions to some extent.

to what extent? I need specifics.

to what extent? I need specifics.

again, for example, I have the right to form a newspaper. I can't afford to form a newspaper. My right to do so if I can and choose to does not obligate the government to fund me.

Only by my insurance.

does you insurance pay for abortions?

Well, that kind of leads to a very different topic. I support universal health care, and, given that, I see no reason to exclude reproductive health care. If I didn't support universal health care, I probably wouldn't support public funds being used to pay for abortion services.

Here in Canada, abortions are paid for by the public healthcare service.

so, if you had say......hmm......food poisoning would you go to the hospital? or would you just die because you chose to eat food knowing the risk?

It would be more like eating knowingly poisonous food, then taking a pill that you trust to counter-act the poison, which it does not. Then demanding others pay your bill. I do not believe in this.

You might demand that the pill-company pay your bill, though.

does you insurance pay for abortions?

No. But since I am a man, I see no reason to purchase that coverage.

again, for example, I have the right to form a newspaper. I can't afford to form a newspaper. My right to do so if I can and choose to does not obligate the government to fund me.

oh, I don't agree with government supplied universal health care at all, I think it should be available for the poor and disabled, but shouldn't be required for everyone. I thought we were assuming for the moment that the government was footing the bill, if they are, to what extent should they?

I don't like abortion, I think it's immoral, I think if you are providing health care though, you have to foot the bill for some things you might not agree with, I don't like it when people put their kids on Ritalin but I don't think that stops Medicaid for paying for it (in fact I know it doesn't) nor does it mean that they shouldn't pay for it.

Health care should ideally be between a patient and their doctor.

It would be more like eating knowingly poisonous food, then taking a pill that you trust to counter-act the poison, which it does not. Then demanding others pay your bill. I do not believe in this.

You might demand that the pill-company pay your bill, though.
all food has the possibility of making you sick, it doesn't often, but it can.

all sex has the possibility of making a pregnancy, it doesn't often, but it can.

I fail to see the difference. You cook food to help mitigate the bacteria, sometimes it doesn't work, sometimes you still get sick.
No. But since I am a man, I see no reason to purchase that coverage.
if you pay a premium for your insurance you are paying in for them to pay for abortions. If you are so against paying for abortions, it might be smart to find out if you are already paying for them right?

all food has the possibility of making you sick, it doesn't often, but it can.

all sex has the possibility of making a pregnancy, it doesn't often, but it can.

sick is different than pregnant

sick is different than pregnant

not in my experience.

all food has the possibility of making you sick, it doesn't often, but it can.

all sex has the possibility of making a pregnancy, it doesn't often, but it can.

I fail to see the difference. You cook food to help mitigate the bacteria, sometimes it doesn't work, sometimes you still get sick.

Except that you have to eat to live.

if you pay a premium for your insurance you are paying in for them to pay for abortions. If you are so against paying for abortions, it might be smart to find out if you are already paying for them right?

Insurance is required to cover my health-problems. Do you also suggest I cease paying taxes?

Insurance is required to cover my health-problems. Do you also suggest I cease paying taxes?

I don't suggest anything, I'm just saying if it's such a moral outrage to pay for abortions, one would think you would have researched whether or not you are paying for them.

I don't suggest anything, I'm just saying if it's such a moral outrage to pay for abortions, one would think you would have researched whether or not you are paying for them.

If you will review my posts you will find that the outrage is not "moral". I simply do not wish to pay for abortions anymore than I wish to hurl money at passers-by.

Except that abortions are not banned.

They are indeed "banned" if you work under the popular theory of "anything I have a right to, you must be forced to pay for, and you should be arrested if you refuse."

No one has funded my art, therefore I am being censored.

No one has cleaned and ironed my shirts, therefore I am being forced to dress in wrinkled rags.

It's how it works these days.

Personally, I think it's a way to avoid feelings of gratitude, and replace it with feelings of power and control. I would be happy to donate to a charity that provides these services to poor women on reservations. But then, they'd have to feel like someone was actually doing something out of human decency. If you simply demand it, and get taxes to pay for it, you get to have other people pay it without feeling like they did so voluntarily- you forced them to, they complied out of fear of the consequences that would result if they didn't, and that is so much more gratifying.

Same thing with an artist who wants public money for his or her work- he or she doesn't want to feel like the money was actually "earned" by doing something other people wanted to pay for, he or she is getting a thrill by having a government agency backed with courts and guns TAKE the money on their behalf.

It's sort of a fascist thing.

If you will review my posts you will find that the outrage is not "moral". I simply do not wish to pay for abortions anymore than I wish to hurl money at passers-by.

yes but that is true of so many medical procedures why single out abortion? its far cheaper than having to pay for live birth.

sick is different than pregnant
not in my experience.

Very different indeed, as a point of logic:

If your great grandmother was never pregnant, odds are that you won't be, either.

You can't say the same about being sick.

when I was sick with my gallbladder having it out was elective, right up to the point it cracked open and I went septic. elective doesn't always mean that it's not needed, most of the time it means it's not an emergency. most of the surgeries I have had have been elective, meaning I wasn't going to die right then, but I did need things fixed....soon.

Strange. I've never heard the term used that way. I've always heard it used to describe procedures that are not medically necessary, but that patients wish to have anyways. An elective abortion, then, would be one for which there is no medical need (ie. a doctor is not recommending abortion in her case), but the woman chooses to have it for her own reasons.

Strange. I've never heard the term used that way. I've always heard it used to describe procedures that are not medically necessary, but that patients wish to have anyways. An elective abortion, then, would be one for which there is no medical need (ie. a doctor is not recommending abortion in her case), but the woman chooses to have it for her own reasons.

http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Ce-Fi/Elective-Surgery.html

An elective surgery is a planned, non-emergency surgical procedure. It may be either medically required (e.g., cataract surgery), or optional (e.g., breast augmentation or implant) surgery.

Description

There are literally hundreds of elective surgeries spanning all the systems of the body in modern medical practice. Several major categories of common elective procedures include:

* Plastic surgery. Cosmetic or reconstructive surgery that improves appearance and in some cases, physical function.
* Refractive surgery. Laser surgery for vision correction.
* Gynecological surgery. Either medically necessary or optional surgery (e.g., hysterectomy, tubal ligation).
* Exploratory or diagnostic surgery. Surgery to determine the origin and extent of a medical problem, or to biopsy tissue samples.
* Cardiovascular surgery. Non-emergency procedures to improve blood flow or heart function, such as angioplasty or the implantation of a pacemaker.
* Musculoskeletal system surgery. Orthopedic surgical procedures, such as hip replacement and ACL reconstruction.

Interesting. Searching on it, though, seems to suggest that the term is used differently in a legal sense. The courts seem to use the term in the same way I did - in terms of medical necessity.

Like so many terms in English, it seems to be one of those confusing things where different people are using the same term in different ways and muddling things up.

Interesting. Searching on it, though, seems to suggest that the term is used differently in a legal sense. The courts seem to use the term in the same way I did - in terms of medical necessity.

Like so many terms in English, it seems to be one of those confusing things where different people are using the same term in different ways and muddling things up.

well, I mean I wasn't going to die from gall bladder problems, until it got emergent, before that it was a totally optional thing I could either feel like crap until it got emergent or have it out.

There are a lot of things that aren't "necessary" to continue living, but they will up your quality of life.....like having fibroids removed.

well, I mean I wasn't going to die from gall bladder problems, until it got emergent, before that it was a totally optional thing I could either feel like crap until it got emergent or have it out.

...which, based on what I'm seeing of the legal use, would mean that it was not an elective procedure. You were having a procedure to correct a life-threatening condition. The fact that it wasn't killing you right that second is irrelevant under that definition.

For instance, by the medical definition you posted, kidney transplants are generally elective. However, by the general legal definition, they are not.

Make sense?

There are a lot of things that aren't "necessary" to continue living, but they will up your quality of life.....like having fibroids removed.

That's a bit more iffy.

OK, I don't have time at the moment to deal with all the back-and-forth on this topic, but I do have a couple of observations.

People (such as Neo Art) who usually speak with authority, simply don't know that much when we are talking about Indian Law. For example, the whole "equal protection" concern raised herein is a bogus one when it comes to the government's relation with Indians. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=417&invol=535), 417 U.S. 535 (1974) ("The preference, as applied, is granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities "), United States v. Antelope (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=430&invol=641), 430 U.S. 641 (1977) ("The decisions of this Court leave no doubt that federal legislation with respect to Indian tribes, although relating to Indians as such, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications. Quite the contrary, classifications expressly singling out Indian tribes as subjects of legislation are expressly provided for in the Constitution and supported by the ensuing history of the Federal Government's relations with Indians."). If you want to debate that issue, read Morton and we'll talk.

Note that I am NOT saying that laws that treat American Indians differently cannot be racist or violations of equal protection. I AM saying that the various preferences, benefits, and burdens that apply to tribal members are not necessarily violations of equal protection just because those may be different than for non-tribal members.

Here, the law in question does not violate any "rights" if rights are defined as those things SCOTUS says are protected. See, e.g., Harris v. McRae (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=448&invol=297), 448 U.S. 297 (1980) (holding that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment do not impinge on the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ).

I, however, vehemently disagree with the view that would recognize the legal right of a woman to abortion but would deny the practical exercise of that right by denying access to abortion. And, particularly when we are talking about Indians on reservations, that is the whole point of this law.

Thanks Cat…I know the ‘equal protection’ argument wouldn’t fly in Canada because of s.35 of our Constitution which states that aboriginal rights cannot be abrogated by any of the provisions of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I simply don’t know enough about US Constitutional law to argue the point. Still, I don't want the yanks on this forum to go away from this thread with the wrong info.