Babs Mikulski and Babs Boxer, two Democrat females from Maryland and California respectively have said some interesting things this past week, which should make everyone go “Huh?”
Barbara Boxer earlier this week equated the amendment to continue the ban of federal funded abortions to denying men Viagra. Now, I’m not quite sure if it is just me, but I don’t really see how these two are comparable. On the one hand you have an actual disorder; erectile dysfunction, on the other, you have pregnancy, which I don’t find to be a disorder. (Spare me mother’s health, rape/incest – those are already covered).
Barbara Mikulski created an abortion amendment that would call abortion preventative care, placing it in the Senate Health Care bill, which would invariably dump the federal funding ban on abortion.
As the Senate prepares for a possible vote today on the Mikulski amendment to the Senate version of the government-run health care bill, it is drawing more opposition. Americans United for Life joins the National Right to Life Committee in condemning the amendment for calling abortion preventative health care.
As LifeNews.com reported yesterday, NRLC condemned the Mikulski amendment because it would essentially define abortion as preventative care and could persuade private insurance plans to define abortion as such and provide coverage of it.
AUL staff attorney Mary Harned has released her own analysis of the amendment and concurs with NRLC that it presents problems.
“The Mikulski amendment, in pertinent part, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to provide coverage for and not impose cost sharing requirements on ‘preventative care’ for women ‘as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),'” she explained.
I would like to ask both Babs’ what they deem preventative care. I would assume that prevention starts before an individual gets pregnant, i.e. birth control and sex, however, that may just be my naiveté. Abortion is legal, I’m not sure why it needs to be included in an insurance plan, especially if Americans don’t want to pay for it or agree with it based on moral and religious grounds. How is a mandatory inclusion of abortions in a government health care system constitutional? It would seem that forcing all citizens onto a plan that covers abortions would violate first amendment rights for those who are opposed based on religious beliefs.
To make matters even worse, Mikulski recently stated that health care is a female issue. Is this just another Democrat showing her true intolerant and segregated beliefs? Mikulski is my Senator, so I have many opinions (not good) about how she operates and what she stands for. Health care is a human issue, not an individual group’s issue – but here we go again: liberals grouping people by class, race, gender and religion… Stop the insanity.