Quote :

"Precisely Submitted by usernamehere on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 11:37am. You understand perfectly. "Does this mean if a bunch of Jehovah's witnesses get elected to a town council then they can remove the right to blood transfusions being paid for if they disagree with it?" If a bunch of Muslims get elected, they could ban paying for the use of pig valves in heart surgery. You see where this goes."

This was a comment over on BlueNC discussing this issue. Should government elected officials strive to be secular in decision making?

2/15/2010 1:46:33 PM

^
Should tax-payers be forced to pay for practices which they find abhorrent?

2/15/2010 8:26:25 PM

^^ As much as I disagree with the change to the health plan, there is a significant difference between not paying for medically necessary procedures and not paying for elective procedures. And yes, abortion is all but a very very very few cases is an elective procedure.

2/15/2010 8:33:39 PM

Abortions are $500. Big fucking deal.

2/15/2010 10:01:58 PM

Quote :

"As much as I disagree with the change to the health plan, there is a significant difference between not paying for medically necessary procedures and not paying for elective procedures. And yes, abortion is all but a very very very few cases is an elective procedure. "

I guess you would rather pay for the unwanted kid for 18 years that the person ends up having. Sure most people will say fuck it and pay the $500 out of pocket. If though 1 in 30 is not smart enough to realize this and just says "well golly gee i don't have $500 maybe i'll just have my baby" then you end up in the red.

2/16/2010 12:01:48 AM

Quote :

"As much as I disagree with the change to the health plan, there is a significant difference between not paying for medically necessary procedures and not paying for elective procedures. And yes, abortion is all but a very very very few cases is an elective procedure."

It is NOT rare that an expecting mother finds out that her health is at risk because of the fetus she is carrying. And when this does happen, this should be covered.

If a medical emergency can be covered when it was only needed because a fat guy couldn't stop eating, or a frat boy couldn't stop drinking, then an abortion should be covered when the female involved didn't even do anything wrong.

I am against abortion as a form of birth control but it should be an available option when the shit hits the fan.

2/16/2010 1:44:12 AM

^, ^^ As I said, I disagree with the change to the plan, in particular due to the reasons ^ mentions. If Apex or anyone wants to change this, the correct solution is to change the law to make elective abortions illegal. Of course that's impossible due to federal overreach but the solution is not this change to the health plan.

However, HUR, I have to question your assertion that the tax payer will wind up paying for the kid either way (ignoring that government salaries are paid by the tax payer, so it's true no matter what). In order to have these health benefits, the person in question is presumably a full time employee, which means they are being paid full time wages. Presumably then, this person will be paying for their own child, and in the (very few?) situations where they are on government assistance while working full time (which then brings up the question of why we don't just pay them more, given that it would be more efficient), then I seriously have to question how many of them you seriously think will look at paying out $500 now vs the cost of raising a child, and choose to not get the abortion.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 10:34 AM. Reason : sdf]

2/16/2010 10:24:58 AM

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/7042341/

Wake County may be following suit.

I found this interesting:

Quote :

"Gurley says 12 women who work for the county used the abortion coverage benefit over the last six or seven years—or since the county switched to a self-insurance program and brought the payment of benefits in-house. The county pays Cigna to administer the program. The cost of an abortion is between $400 and $600."

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A409955

OMG MASS UNWANTED BABIES!!!!1

2/16/2010 4:48:44 PM

My understanding is the majority GOP Apex council voted to remove this, but the majority dem wake county commission (chaired by a GOP) is doing it administratively rather than by a vote.

And the reason it is chaired by the GOP is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Wake_1217.pdf

Quote :

"Wake voters call for redo on chair election Raleigh, N.C. – 62% of Wake County voters think that the County Commissioners should have another vote for chair of the board at a time when all members can be present, after the Republican minority elected one of its own last week while one Democrat was sick and another was in the bathroom. 82% of Democrats, 56% of independents, and even 34% of Republicans support having a second election. 66% of voters in the county say they disapprove of the manner in which Tony Gurley was elected as chair to just 24% who think it was appropriate. That includes 40% of Republicans, 62% of independents, and 83% of Democrats. The board election episode could have negative consequences at the ballot box next year for the three Republicans standing for reelection. 56% of voters say the way it was handled makes them less likely to vote for GOP commissioner candidates, compared to only 22% who said it made them more likely to do so. Overall 45% of voters in the county say they plan to vote Democratic in the commissioner races next year to 36% who express an intention to vote Republican. Independents give Democrats a 35-26 advantage. “Wake County’s been trending more and more in a Democratic direction,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “That alone might make it hard for Republican commissioners to win reelection, but the way they’ve handled the chair election has turned off independents and made it an even tougher proposition.”""

Granted the dems let it happen, but taking the vote while one commissioner was sick and while another was in the bathroom isn't exactly a shining example of democracy when they wont pause for the guy to get his insulin. Frankly I'm not too surprised, county commissions are almost always a little more conservative than their urban city/town counter parts.

So the Apex largely GOP council started this ball rolling, got the wake County GOP chaired commission to go for it administratively, and then at suggestion of Rep Paul Stam (R Wake) to the NC League pushed for it to go statewide.

You can hate the dems in Washington all you want, but if you pull the GOP lever for the local vote, this is what you are getting.

2/16/2010 5:50:04 PM

Does that even follow Robert's Rules of Order??


Oh shit, someone motion quick to hold a vote on xyz policy while Liberal Susie is putting in a new tampon!!!

2/16/2010 6:21:05 PM

The mayor of Chapel Hill went on the radio and called this move being done in an administrative and political way shameful.

http://www.wchl1360.com/mp3/abortion1021510.mp3

http://www.wchl1360.com/mp3/abortion2021510.mp3

http://www.wchl1360.com/mp3/abortion3021510.mp3

2/19/2010 12:27:24 AM

I guess NC doesn't have it as bad as some places.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage

Quote :

"Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage February 20, 2010 A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances. According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage. The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion"

I was little confused when I first saw this, but as soon as I saw the word Utah, it all made sense. When you imagine laws like that, and efforts like the Apex GOP to cut funding for legal abortions, that could put some poorer women in a real bind, and the motive looks like it is more an more just to get abortion as close to illegal as possible.

Quote :

"In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior. Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution. "This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident." Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy. "This statute and the standards chosen leave a large number of pregnant women vulnerable to arrest even though they have no intention of ending a pregnancy," Paltrow said. "Whether or not the legislature intended this bill to become a tool for policing and punishing all pregnant women, if enacted this law would permit prosecution of a pregnant woman who stayed with her abusive husband because she was unable to leave. Not leaving would, under the 'reckless' standard, constitute conduct that consciously disregarded a substantial risk," Paltrow explained. While many states have fetal homicide laws most apply only in the third trimester. Utah's bill would apply throughout the entirety of a woman's pregnancy. Even first trimester miscarriages could become the basis for a murder trial. Bird said she is also concerned that the law will drive pregnant women with substance abuse problems "underground;" afraid to seek treatment lest they have a miscarriage and be charged for murder. She said it directly reverses the attempts made, though a bill passed in 2008, to encourage pregnant women to seek treatment for addiction."

2/20/2010 11:43:15 PM

nothing about that law "makes it a crime to have a miscarriage."

you are really good at twisting words, though. sounds like you have learned well from Ted

2/20/2010 11:45:28 PM

Twisting words?

1) Most of my last post was quoting an article for which I provided a link. Kind of hard to twist someone's words when you're posting 10 paragraphs worth of direct quotations.

2) My point was constant GOP pushed anti-choice laws make me think the goal is to "just to get abortion as close to illegal as possible" rather than safety, or health care costs, or what micro-reason they try to justify it with each time.

You see that is how an actual quote works. You take words that have actually been said or written somewhere, and then put quotations around them rather than putting whatever you want in quotes & then calling it twisted.

2/21/2010 3:06:14 AM

yes, but at the very least, posting articles with such inflammatory wording is disingenuous, just as posting a thread titled "Apex Council says No to Choice" when they did NO SUCH THING is also a twisting of words. Don't try to play the cop-out of "I just posted a quote." You CHOSE THE FUCKING QUOTE, and with good reason.

2/21/2010 2:00:15 PM

http://bluenc.com/small-town-politics#comments

Quote :

"As soon as Apex Town Council Member Bill Jensen found out the issue was driven by politics rather than settled law, he called on the Apex Town Council to take it up again. Last week at their February meeting, Councilman Jensen moved to have abortion coverage placed on the agenda. The lone Democrat couldn’t get a second to his motion. Not a single other Apex Town Council member had the courage to debate the merits of taking comprehensive healthcare coverage away from town employees. During the meeting, Mayor Weatherly admitted publicly that Apex has the authority to provide abortion coverage to its employees. He also admitted it was a moral issue rather than a legal one."

2/24/2010 3:40:08 PM

again, more twisted words. nice.

2/24/2010 6:04:20 PM

^How were the words in my last post twisted?

2/24/2010 10:13:31 PM

Quote :

"Not a single other Apex Town Council member had the courage to debate the merits of taking comprehensive healthcare coverage away from town employees."

no one was talking about taking away healthcare coverage completely. And to say that healthcare coverage is not "comprehensive" if it doesn't cover fetus murdering is disingenuous at best. Thus, it's twisting of words

2/24/2010 10:25:27 PM

i mildly agree with Burro in this issue.

Viewing abortion as morally reprehensible is not a completely illogical perspective, and it would be reasonable on purely non-religious moral grounds to oppose abortion.

But, this isn't really a case of that. These council members don't give a rat's-ass about morals or ethics. They are merely trying to flex their political muscles. They are trying to show the town and their voters that they are conservatives, and they aren't friendly to liberal policies, in an attempt to generate momentum of their cause.

If the democratic members want to fight this, they aren't going to do it by harping on the abortion policy. If someone can't scrape together the ~$300 or so it costs for an abortion out of pocket (according to Google...), then they really have bigger problems beyond their poor healthcare coverage.

If I were the lone democrat, I would scrutinize the activities or positions of the board to look for things that could be challenged on a legal ground in an effort to generate negative media reports and discredit the board, so that come election time, it might be easier to flip some seats. Harping on abortion is the worst thing any progressive politician can do. It's too small of an issue to lose support over.

2/24/2010 11:02:03 PM

I think you are misunderstanding the word comprehensive. Not having comprehensive coverage doesn't mean not having any coverage. Clearly the quoted person thought abortion coverage was a part of comprehensive coverage... perhaps the reason most municipalities in NC include it is because it is a standard part of the comprehensive plan for municipalities.

So again that is not me twisting words, that is a direct quote of someone using the word comprehensive correctly. Nice try.

2/24/2010 11:02:06 PM

and I'd say that's ridiculous. It's entirely possible to have "comprehensive coverage" without coverage for fetus murdering.

the wording says "taking comprehensive healthcare coverage away." Which suggests taking away all healthcare coverage, or at least the important stuff. Fetus murdering coverage is NOT important enough to no longer make coverage "comprehensive." Again, twisting words.

2/24/2010 11:05:46 PM

It is a part of the standard comprehensive plan offered to NC municipalities. Comprehensive here is not word twisting, it is the standard description, but we can agree to disagree I suppose.

2/24/2010 11:09:03 PM

and, again, taking fetus murdering away makes it no less comprehensive

2/24/2010 11:09:52 PM

http://www.carynews.com/2010/02/01/15838/apex-nixes-abortion-claims.html

"Although Blue Cross provided the town with a standard policy"

"It’s pretty much the standard language included in [Blue Cross] contracts"

"Apex’s decision to break from the standard policy raises new questions about local government’s role in abortion rights. “There’s very rarely a case when you have a locality tackling this issue,” said Williamjames Hoffer, a history professor at Seton Hall University and co-editor of “The Abortion Rights Controversy in America: A Legal Reader.” “These kinds of issues are usually taken up at the state and federal levels.”

Hoffer said Apex could risk legal challenges based on the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

In the news it is being called a reduction from the standard plan, from the opponents of this move it is being called a reduction from having a comprehensive plan. Depending on your stance on abortion, one may or may not see women's reproductive health, as a part of a comprehensive plan. But until this decision, most North Carolina municipalities as well as Blue Cross did view it as a part. At the very least there is a legitimate argument for describing it that way. And so it is getting kind of ridiculousness for you to accuse me of twisting words whenever I'm using a direct quote.

2/24/2010 11:32:44 PM

and, again, when you specifically choose a quote with sensationalist twisting of words, you are just as guilty as the original writer.

and, again, fetus murdering is not part of a "woman's reproductive health" 99.999% of the time. so let's not be silly here.

2/25/2010 4:39:55 PM

Quote :

"raises new questions about local government’s role in abortion rights"

Is it prohibiting women from having abortions? No.


There seems to be some confusion in the concept of a right going on around here.

3/3/2010 11:11:58 PM