Funding for Abortions Involving Rape, Incest Under Knife
A Senate subcommittee passed the proviso Tuesday that would cut funding as part of the state health plan.
South Carolina's state health plan would not pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest, according to a budget proviso passed by a Senate subcommittee Tuesday.
The proviso would only allow for the health plan to cover abortions if the life of the mother is in danger, according to a report in The State.
Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, sponsored the proviso, according to the report. If it passes the full Senate Finance Committee, it will remain in place for one year.
“We’re focusing on the rights and the liberty of an unborn child, and I can’t understand why the life of a child that’s a victim ought to be terminated,” Bryant told The State.
The current state health plan (which covers more than 400,000 people, according to the article) allows for abortions in the case of incest, rape and danger to the life of the mother. The federal government health plan includes the same exceptions, commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.
Also making headlines in Columbia today:
S.C. Democrats target ALEC, Statehouse members
Michael Kiger
5:11 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Don't be an ass! Providing Health Insurance IS NOT the same thing as funding abortions. What planet are you from?
Laura
5:28 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
It is a shame that a rape victim can not be helped through the health care system. They should not have to pay to have an abortion! They are a victim of crime and violence. Their bodies have been violated by criminals. Now we are going to turn them away from medical health for an unplanned and unwanted pregancy! Don't you think that should be a crime? I do not promote abortion. But I do see why some victims would want to go that route. Do not make them a victim again!
Ken
5:45 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
More astounding idiocy from our dear elected officials, the war on women's rights continues. Apparently now a woman will be either forced to pay for the abortion herself or have the baby if raped. Got to love the f**king christian reich.
maizenbluedoc
7:58 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Not a pro abortion proponent, but you are correct. This is a case of elected officials using religion to controll the masses.
SDR
9:08 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
I think that pregnancies as a result of a crime would be the only reason there SHOULD be state funding for abortion. Birth control, and its related costs, should be the responsibility of the individual.
Robert Kelly
9:46 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
SDR, the state would not be paying for abortions, birth control, or insulin for that matter. Health insurance is a private business which charges enough money to cover medical costs and still turn a profit. Why would birth control not be covered? Other medications are covered, and if you ran a health insurance company you would rather cover birth control instead of maternity and child care expenses. The state does not pay the medical costs, the insurance company does, and they are not the ones complaining about birth control! Why do you want to make government regulations which impede the free market?
Sammy
5:25 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The unborn child in a case like this is NOT a victim. The woman is the victim. The child is a child. To force a woman who was raped to suffer more is wrong.
Nell
9:55 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
To Sammy: Of course the child is a victim. Any unwanted child is a victim.
You obviously have never been raped. It is an absolutely horrible experience. Do you think the woman enjoys reliving the rape every hour of a 9-month pregnancy? What do you think will happen to the child after being born? Especially, what will happen if the child happens to be "special needs"?
Yes, Sammy, there is a war on women and you are leading it!
stanley seigler
1:58 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
@Nell: "...It is an absolutely horrible experience...Especially, what will happen if the child happens to be "special needs"?
never possible to know how "absolutely horrible" a rape must be...also it must be absolutely horrible to have make a decision to have/not have an abortion...but this choice should be a woman's not the government...ironic those who want to get govt out of our lives...fight so hard to get govt into a woman's life.
i am pro choice but might become pro life, if pro lifers could convince me they will insure all special need children/folks would be given a quality life from cradle to grave...now these children are victims of abuse (rape) and benign neglect...and those who make it to adulthood suffer a similar fate...and those who make it old age are in effect ...put out of their misery
society's priority should a quality life for all vice anti abortion...then when we can grantee that...then work on preventing abortions...hmm seems like a christian's priority.
to deny a woman's choice after a rape is unconscionable, criminal, and stupid pandering to a hypocritical christian right.
SDR
7:39 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
RKelly, youre logic is commendable . Birth control does not treat a disease or condition, unless you think being fertile is a treatable condition. By asking if an insurance company would rather buy the pill or pay for maternity expenses, you treat it as an "either or" situation. I can assure you it is not. Why do you want individuals to rely on the munificence of a morally and fiscally bankrupt political body for an active sex life?
Robert Kelly
8:38 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Thank you for the compliment, unless of course it was sarcastic. I think it can be considered "either - or" though, because from an insurer's point of view, people are going to be sexually active, and therefore either pregnancy rates go up, and costs associated with pregnancy and pediatrics go up with them, or the insurer can provide contraception coverage and hold costs down. That is not a morality argument, it is a free market argument.
Morally, it's no one's business what other people do with their sex lives. I can decide for myself what I believe is right; I can influence my children, but ultimately I should have no control over other adults and their freedom of choice. Sexual activity is simply no one else's business, and I see no reason why any government, or employer in an employer-provided health insurance program, should care what adults do. If it actually added to the cost of the program, then I guess you could consider it a negotiable item like other forms of compensation, but there is no reason to issue a fiat based on a one person's moral opinion. That is theocratic arrogance.
JoSCh
9:08 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Fertility and pregnancy ARE conditions that aren't always desired. Do you not agree with that?
Why would some preventative medications be covered and some not? How do you feel about Prilosec or vaccines such as for tetanus? You don't HAVE to eat tacos or walk barefoot so heartburn and tetanus can easily be prevented without a prophylactic, just like unwanted pregnancy can be prevented by not having sex.
And you never did answer the question, why are you for these government regulations impeding the free market? I'd like to remind you that this temporary regulation would have prevented exactly zero abortions in the last 6 years according to the linked article in The State.
Gretchen
8:14 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
I believe the people in COLUMBIA could find something else less important to cut. Why should a woman carry a child from RAPE or INCEST? The rules must be made by MEN ! ! ! !
maizenbluedoc
9:12 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
A suggestion: More women should get elected to office. I don't believe the bill was initiated by men against women, but to placate the religious right. For whatever reason, there should be exceptions involving pregnancy created by rape and/or incest against the woman.