Morphine Prince 109,645 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 ALEM, Ore. — A sweeping new bill passed by Oregon lawmakers will force taxpayers to assume some of the costs of abortions, even though many oppose the procedure, anti-abortion campaigners said Thursday as a legal expert predicted the measure will draw lawsuits. The bill passed Wednesday by the Legislature requires insurance companies to cover abortions at no cost to the patient. Those in the country illegally, who because of their immigration status are ineligible for Medicaid, would be able to have costs of abortions and other reproductive health care services paid by the state. Oregon already had some of the most liberal abortion laws in the country. The new measure was introduced in response to federal attempts to curtail reproductive services. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/lawsuits-expected-over-oregons-abortion-funding-bill/2017/07/06/4b22b832-62ac-11e7-80a2-8c226031ac3f_story.html?utm_term=.00d377adfdad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,776 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Not sure how I feel about this... I always say that someone can be against abortion if they want to and get no abortion themselves rather than trying to make it forbidden for everyone. In this case, someone is forced to pay for something they consider morally repulsive. On the other hand, the same happens with military spending, which many on the left probably consider mass murder paid for by their own tax money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggyZiggs 30,067 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 hm idk how to feel about this. Some ppl might use this for the wrong reasons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Laurent 4,862 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, Luc said: Not sure how I feel about this... I always say that someone can be against abortion if they want to and get no abortion themselves rather than trying to make it forbidden for everyone. In this case, someone is forced to pay for something they consider morally repulsive. On the other hand, the same happens with military spending, which many on the left probably consider mass murder paid for by their own tax money. Not all government funds come from income tax so you really can't be sure that regular working people who are pro-life will be paying for this. For all you know a couple of corporate tax cheques from McDonalds could be paying for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMonster 15,025 Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 I mean, abortion is free in the UK already - but then again, I know we have the NHS. I can understand to an extent why this would cause controversy. Women must wholeheartedly have the right to choose whether or not to keep a baby - but should the public (if income tax is the source of funds) pay for it? It's an interesting debate to have. In the UK, I agree that it should remain free. It would communicate a degrading message if this was ever reversed. But switching from having it paid to free is a more complex scenario I think. Personally, I think it depends on the context of the health service. It's about relativity. I am not particularly educated on specific state health care, but I'm assuming that you have to pay for most treatments, right? That being said, it sends a slightly odd message that abortion is free (and therefore, in turn, is 'easy' and 'not a big issue') but most things are not. From that stance, I'm not sure where I stand with this. subtext / fantasy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 22 hours ago, Luc said: Not sure how I feel about this... I always say that someone can be against abortion if they want to and get no abortion themselves rather than trying to make it forbidden for everyone. In this case, someone is forced to pay for something they consider morally repulsive. On the other hand, the same happens with military spending, which many on the left probably consider mass murder paid for by their own tax money. Most people pay taxes to **** they are morally against. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GagaLogic 194 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Born To Slay said: Most people pay taxes to **** they are morally against. This. I'm sure my tax money goes to housing/feeding/medical care of rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. I would rather foot the bill for a case of shotgun shells to send them all off where they belong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,834 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 On 2017-07-07 at 7:47 PM, Saint Laurent said: Not all government funds come from income tax so you really can't be sure that regular working people who are pro-life will be paying for this. For all you know a couple of corporate tax cheques from McDonalds could be paying for it. It doesnt work that way. Money is pooled together if u filled a cup of water from a jar which had multiple sources of water to fill that jar, u cant say that cup of water came from source A or B. ITs just mixed and part of the total in this case it will cost money from general taxation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,834 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 On 2017-07-07 at 8:14 PM, OMonster said: I mean, abortion is free in the UK already - but then again, I know we have the NHS. I can understand to an extent why this would cause controversy. Women must wholeheartedly have the right to choose whether or not to keep a baby - but should the public (if income tax is the source of funds) pay for it? It's an interesting debate to have. In the UK, I agree that it should remain free. It would communicate a degrading message if this was ever reversed. But switching from having it paid to free is a more complex scenario I think. Personally, I think it depends on the context of the health service. It's about relativity. I am not particularly educated on specific state health care, but I'm assuming that you have to pay for most treatments, right? That being said, it sends a slightly odd message that abortion is free (and therefore, in turn, is 'easy' and 'not a big issue') but most things are not. From that stance, I'm not sure where I stand with this. Government funds are a mix of all sources. U cant break ot down and say the source is this tax or that tax Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Laurent 4,862 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 10 hours ago, Economy said: It doesnt work that way. Money is pooled together if u filled a cup of water from a jar which had multiple sources of water to fill that jar, u cant say that cup of water came from source A or B. ITs just mixed and part of the total in this case it will cost money from general taxation That's exactly the point I made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.