Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice; Health Insurance / Medical Insurance; Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 01 Feb 2011 - 3:00 PDT
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions 
Two New York Times editorials examine the current "wars" over abortion in the states and in the federal government. Also, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup addresses potential court challenges to state abortion legislation.
~ The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill: The House Republican-backedbill (HR 3) "is so broad that it could block insurance coverage for abortions for countless American women," the editorial states. According to the editorial, the bill "would bar outright the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion, well beyond" the ban on federal funding for abortion coverage in the new insurance exchanges. The editorial adds that the bill would prohibit tax credits for small businesses that provide insurance to their employees from being used to buy health plans covering abortion and also would prohibit people who buy their own health insurance from claiming a tax deduction for premiums of health plans covering abortion or the cost of an abortion. Further, people who use tax-preferred health savings accounts would not be able to pay for an abortion without paying taxes, the editorial says. The editorial calls the legislation and other efforts to restrict abortion access "far more extreme" than other legislation proposed at the federal level, adding, "Lawmakers who otherwise rail against big government have made it one of their highest priorities to take the decision about a legal medical procedure out of the hands of individuals and turn it over to the government" (New York Times, 1/29).
~ The Two Abortion Wars: State Battles Over Roe v. Wade: An increase in the number of governors and legislatures that are "solidly anti-abortion" considerably raises the prospect of "extreme efforts to undermine abortion access with Big Brother measures that require physicians to read scripts about fetal development and provide ultrasound images, and that impose mandatory waiting periods or create other unnecessary regulations," the editorial states. It specifically notes two efforts by antiabortion-rights activists -- bans on health insurance coverage of abortion and on abortion later in pregnancy. On the latter issue, while "[r]eigning Supreme Court precedent" restricts the government from banning abortion prior to what is considered viability -- 22 to 26 weeks' gestation -- a new Nebraska law (LB 1103) challenges the "viability standard" by banning abortions after 20 weeks' gestation, the editorial states. The objective of the Nebraska law and "[c]opycat laws" in other states is to "provide the Supreme Court's conservative majority with a new vehicle for further tampering with Roe v. Wade's insight that the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy is best left to women and their doctors pre-viability." The editorial concludes, "Americans who support women's reproductive rights and oppose this kind of outrageous government intrusion need to respond with rising force and clarity to this real and immediate danger" (New York Times, 1/29).
~ In a letter to the editor, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup writes, "Anti-choice lawmakers across the country may be heralding a new era in which they plan to mount aggressive campaigns to limit abortion," but those who oppose abortion rights "won't necessarily have the last word." She continues that in the last couple years, "anti-choice state legislators have pushed especially ambitious agendas, enacting some of the most extreme anti-choice legislation in recent memory." However, "[j]udges have declared these laws unconstitutional" time after time, she says, because "[t]hey violate women's rights by profoundly intruding on their private medical decisions and by imposing trumped-up regulations on abortion providers so they can no longer realistically provide women's services" (Northup, New York Times, 1/29).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
© 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject. There are no references listed for this article. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:
MLA
9 Dec. 2011.
National Partnership for Women & Families. (2011, February 1). "New York Times Editorials, Letter To The Editor Critique Recently Proposed Legislation Restricting Abortion Access." Medical News Today. Retrieved from
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/215268.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
posted by Ken on 30 Apr 2011 at 4:59 am
Trump’s Profanity Does not Represent Republican’s Idea of Free Speech
Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Las Vegas and used profanity only heard on the streets and considered gutter talk.
While I am attempting to set an example for my grandchildren, we have a presidential candidate using the “F” word and getting applause for his foul mouth language. I am very disappointed in any member of my party who feel that Trump’s behavior is acceptable. He needs to take a course in moral speech behavior. When Joe Biden was caught on a live microphone using God’s Name in vain, It was what one would expect coming from the mouth of a Democrat, as the party supports many anti-Christian values, but to have a Republican use vulgar words in public is a disgrace to the party.
As a member of the Baldwin County Executive Committee for the Republican Party, I respectfully request that all Christian Republicans call for Trump’s withdrawal from the race, an apology from him for his disgraceful use of vulgar words, and a pledge not to support him.
While he has many Jeffersonian views, politically speaking, he does not deserve the support of moral-minded Republicans.
Ken
| post followup | alert a moderator |
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
