News: Do you want your tax dollars paying for abortions ?

How about stating that if while on welfare they have a child, they will not receive any extra taxpayer money because they had a child while on welfare?

 

Ken, I'm a Republican and I'm not one to quickly give away money but we've had to accept help in the last year when I had no money to pay for a dental procedure that really had to be done. I'm so thankful that Christian friends stepped in and helped us.

I believe in Christian charity but I do not believe in giving money to those who don't try or just won't work. Their children are a different matter. Never would I want a child to go to bed hungry because my politics got in the way.

I don't think you would either but I wanted to make sure you understood that I'm no bleeding heart liberal but a Republican with a heart.

Diane

 

Neither would I, but it is simply unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved. As for the states, I don't know as I have not read the 50 state constitutions.

But even so, I do not believe in using the force of government to take from one person to give to another involuntarily. That violates my God-given rights. So many of our political arguments over schools, welfare, etc., would be settled if the government was not calling the shots in these areas. Our arguments are caused because various groups want the government to spend taxpayer money the way their group desires. Handle these matters privately and the arguments go away.

 

Ken,

You don't happen to listen to Neal Boortz on the radio, do you?

 

The Bible tells us to praise the Lord in everything. Not FOR everything, but IN everything. His reasons are not our reasons and His thoughts are not our thoughts. We only see through a mirror darkly, God sees very clearly.

 

Not very often. I can't listen via the Internet at work. I do go to his website.

 

KehH, I like that idea. We used it last month at the church business meeting. Some people wanted to use a certain amount of money (out of the church's coffer) for a particular project and others didn't think that was enough so we compromised with a set amount that all agreed to and the ones who thought that wasn't enough were free to contribute individually to make up for it. It worked quite well. Unfortunately, I don't think it would work as well in public life because there are too many selfish people who wouldn't contribute to worthy causes which would then not have sufficient resources.

 

It goes back to the proposition: Does the government have the right to use its power to force one person to give his money to another person, regardless of how "worthy" the cause may be?

My answer is "No".

 

Putting elective abortion on the side burner for a moment. If it supports mandatory abortion and sterilization, should it not be avoided? Or is the info put out by the sba-list blown out of proportion?

 

I would encourage her to have an abortion and to not concieve again until it was discovered why her life is threatened by pregnancy.

 

I'm pro-choice and am against the idea of mandatory abortions or sterilization. The latter goes against my belief in choice.

As for federal money paying for abortions within the US, the Hyde Amendment has removed federal funding for abortion procedures from health care provided to low-income women since 1976 (I think that is the year). State-to-state restrictions of Medicaid resources for abortion vary but are generally restricted to rape, incest, or endangerment of a woman's life. The most current listing of individual states' policies may be found here. I know that many posters here are against abortions in any case but I just thought it should be clear what we talking about in terms of our money paying for abortions.

(Many clinics, however, use a sliding scale based on ability to pay and will give a lower figure if a woman is on medicaid.)

As for women on Medicaid and/or welfare being required to use birth control or forced to have a tubal ligation performed, I am also opposed to that. I feel that these women should be provided adequate education on the variety of family planning methods available (from the pill which is daily, patch which is weekly, depoprovera every couple of months,an IUD, to tubal ligation which is in most cases irreversible). I feel that it would be unethical to force a medical procedure or medication on a woman, particularly in those whom the use of hormonal contraceptives might be less appropriate (i.e., a woman over the age of 35 who smokes or a woman with a history of strokes).

As for refusing to pay further benefits to a woman who has more children while on welfare, this might seem a good way to prevent abuse of the system but it will punish the child more than anyone else. For a any child to grow up healthily and to do well in school, he or she will need good nutrition and for many the only way to get this is through WIC or food stamps.

I'm still researching UNFPA before fully forming my opinion on that issue but a possible solution might be to have US funds support other aspects of the organization (i.e., treatment of STDs and providing family planning information) without supporting abortions.

Edited to add: I have not seen a vasectomy performed so I can't personally comment on how "invasive" the procedure is. Tubal ligations are as all surgical procedures invasive and do carry the risk of side effects to anesthesia or infection. They are generally performed laproscopically and as such are less invasive than an hysterectomy. The procedure itself is a relatively brief one and generally is performed on an outpatient basis. Like all contraceptive methods, it is not fool-proof and the estimate most often given for pregancy after one is 1 in 200. When pregnancy does occur following a tubal ligation, it carries a higher risk of being ectopic (occurring outside of the uterus). The risk is modified somewhat by the specific technique used to ligate the fallopian tubes and I'm not quite familiar enough with the procedure to know what is considered the most effective.

 

Interesting thread. It's at three pages so it will be closed no sooner than 1pm EST. In the meantime...

Connie, I can tell you that banding is the LEAST effective tubal ligation there is!
I'd never heard of women being required to be sterilized if they were on welfare. Were/are the men too?

Gina

 

Just a note in case some don't realize it...the thread can still be posted on after we say it's going to be closed. It's a six hour warning, and simply means that after six hours it will be locked, but in the meantime by all means, post away!
Gina

 

I have not seen a vasectomy performed so I can't personally comment on how "invasive" the procedure is.

As a person who has had one, I can tell you that it's a rather simple procedure. It involves a quarter inch incision. Since I'm sitting cringing with my legs crossed at the moment, I'll refrain from being more descriptive. Let's just say that I was back at work in a few days, and even took a trip to Disneyland a week later. The only side effects were swelling of the affected area and some occaisional minor abdominal cramping which persisted for about a year afterwards. Negative side effects are a slightly higher statistic of prostate cancer, but that's about it. I highly encourage any couples seeking sterilization to consider a vasectomy. Though I'm divorced now, as a husband, I was glad to undergo it, rather than have my wife undergo something more invasive.