Matt Yglesias

17 Responses to “NARAL President Nancy Keenan on Abortion and Health Reform”

1. Point Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

   What makes you so sure this is “in pursuit of Republican support”? There are a number of democrats that, while more than amendable on economic issues, are often hard core anti-choice. (Bob Casey comes to mind.)

2. joe from Lowell Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

   Herding cats.

   I’m not saying she’s wrong, all I’m saying is, the GOPers have it easy.

   Tom Delay never had to worry about things like this.

3. Mr. Econotarian Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

   One should note that some states (such as Illinois) have stronger mandates for IVF treatment in private health insurance than some public health systems (such as the UK NHS).

   NHS IVF service limitations differ from region to region, but here is an interesting anecdote:

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196083/Fury-NHS-trust-says-women-39-5-40-years-old-IVF.html

4. Neil D Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

   I’m guessing we’ll still have Viagra coverage.

5. frankie d Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

   negotiating, obama-style:
   allow the other side to cripple your legislation through “negotiations”, then watch them vote against it and then sit back and suffer as the weakened legislation fails and gives the other side a perfect chance to blast you because you passed such bad legislation.
   isn’t that the formula they followed with the stimulus package?
   brilliant…just brilliant!
   oh, but i forgot, obama is playing chess, and we just have to be patient and smart enough to understand it…

6. fostert Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

   Fair enough, let’s put a clause in the next Defense budget that says none of it can be used to pay for wars. After all, many people are morally opposed to war, so why should they have to pay for them?

7. pseudonymous in nc Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

   here is an interesting anecdote:

   It’s interesting how people on American blogs always pick up on the Daily Mail, a paper which is basically dedicated to destroying the NHS and making people afraid and angry, ideally with some minority group:

   “The ideal Daily Mail story,” a former Mail journalist told me, “should leave you hating someone or something” – this, at least, was the advice he was given by his sub-editor at the time.

8. Glaivester Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

   Fair enough, let’s put a clause in the next Defense budget that says none of it can be used to pay for wars. After all, many people are morally opposed to war, so why should they have to pay for them?

   Then stop calling yourself pro-choice and call yourself pro-abortion.

9. Steve LaBonne Says:
   July 7th, 2009 at 10:18 pm

   Then stop calling yourself pro-choice and call yourself pro-abortion.

   When you stop calling yourself pro-defense and call yourself pro-war.

   Abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor- your opinion is not wanted. Which part of that do dimbulbs like you not fucking understand?

10. Glaivester Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 1:32 am

    Abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor- your opinion is not wanted. Which part of that do dimbulbs like you not fucking understand?

    If she doesn’t want my opinion, then she doesn’t need my money. If she can’t pay for it herself, the doctor should do the job for free. After all, it is between the two of them, right?

11. latts Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 3:15 am

    If she doesn’t want my opinion, then she doesn’t need my money.

    Nice to know that I could have objected to ninety percent of the uses of my federal tax dollars for eight years, then, because God knows I had some damned strong opinions on what was being done with it, down to resenting one single potential calorie of food purchased that helped keep Karl Rove or Dick Cheney alive.

    It’s also nice to know that instead of sluttishness-enabling baybee-murder, taxpayers instead prefer to fund prenatal care, birth expenses, neonatal care up to and including Level III NICs when necessary, follow-up postpartum nursing, vaccinations, vision and hearing tests & therapy, maternity leave, subsidized daycares & preschools, special education, consistently decent public schools, and a variety of other costs that follow from producing precious angel children that are so full of God’s own potential. Or maybe not, and these comments are simply revealing self-righteous assholes.

12. JonF Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 6:21 am

    Re: Abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor

    Assuming we are not talking about medically indicated abortion (which should be covered), abortion is an elective procedure and I see no more reason it should be covered under a national health plan than liposcution should be.

13. Matthew Yglesias » Reid Tells Max Baucus to Hurry Up Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am

    [...] big-picture structural ideas like dropping a public option from the bill, and also small stuff like throwing reproductive rights under the bus. That would be frustrating if it was working, but at least if it was working you could say it was [...]

14. ajw_93 Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Thanks, but I’m more worried about my contraceptive coverage. I already had to choose an otherwise “lesser” option on taking my current job because contraceptive coverage was not offered on the plan I would otherwise have wanted. (The good news is, @Neil D, Viagra and its ilk aren’t covered here either.)

    Contraceptive coverage is something much more basic, much more pervasive, and much more important on a daily basis to many more women.

15. Eleutherios Kyriakos Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Re: Assuming we are not talking about medically indicated abortion (which should be covered), abortion is an elective procedure and I see no more reason it should be covered under a national health plan than liposcution should be

    Liposuction is not, of course, usually a form of homicide.

16. Eleutherios Kyriakos Says:
    July 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    I agree with AJW above about contraceptive coverage.

17. Nathanael Nerode Says:
    July 9th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    I’m afraid we are talking about medically indicated abortion.

    Yes, when a pregnancy threatens to kill a woman, these yahoos want to make sure her insurance doesn’t pay for lifesaving treatment.

    Evil. Utterly evil.