Posted on 09/30/2010 4:49:12 PM PDT by markomalley
(CNSNews.com) -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in certain cases, should be repealed, and also said “there’s no evidence” that increasing access to abortion services encourages people to get abortions.
At an event on Capitol Hill sponsored by the Center for Reproductive Rights to call for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Schakowsky, “So, increasing access to abortion, you think, does not encourage some people to get abortions?”
Rep. Schakowsky said, “No, there’s no evidence of that around the world, where access to abortion is more available but somehow women are more inclined to get one.”
“What happens is that women who don’t have access resort, as we heard today, to very dangerous, self-inflicted kinds of things in order to end, terminate the pregnancy,” she said. “And so, you know, we go back to back alley abortions. We go back to coat hangers. And, I mean, is that what we want?”
She continued, “Women who are desperate enough to do that to themselves are going to somehow – going to try to abort that pregnancy. We don’t want to do that. We don’t want to put women at greater risk.”
Terry Sallas Merritt, vice president of Whole Woman's Health, said during the event on Capitol Hill that abortion is 10 times safer than childbirth.
CNSNews.com asked Rep. Schakowsky if she agreed with Merritt.
“I’m assuming that was on a scientific finding that the insistence of mortality or illness or whatever is an adverse health affect is much more common in childbirth,” the congresswoman said. “There are many more things that can go wrong than a first-trimester abortion, but, as was pointed out, in order for poor women to afford an abortion, it may take them a long time to get the money together. They’re put in a more precarious health situation, the risks increase as well as the cost.”
“We want to make sure this very safe, outpatient procedure is available and accessible to poor women,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “That is not to say that we don’t want to also increase the availability of family planning, of birth control, which again, there’s sometimes discrimination even in that.”
“The very same people who vociferously oppose abortion often are not in favor of sex education, they’re not in favor of easy access to contraception,” she said. “None of it makes sense, and it’s all discriminatory against women and their children.”
CNSNews.com also asked Rep. Schakowsky if it is morally right to use the taxpayer funds of pro-life Americans to pay for abortion services.
“If we start down that path, then we say that people who don’t want to fund wars don’t have to pay taxes,” she told CNSNews.com.
“You know, there are a number of things that are policies of the government in which many of us may disagree all over the map and, so, I would say that, you know, if as the Supreme Court did, decided that this is a right that women have, then we need to fulfill that obligation and make it accessible to all people,” said the congresswoman. “Choice is about choice.”
The Hyde Amendment, created in 1976, is attached each year to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and prevents any program under HHS, such as Medicaid, from paying for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.
She stopped too soon before concluding that it "doesn't make sense" or that it's "discriminatory against women." The "very same people" she talks about also urge the men to keep their little head safely zipped in their own pants until they're married, and to care for their progeny once they are married.
Even if a Supreme Court justice DID say, it's still absolutely not so. There is NO such thing as a "right" to someone else's services, property or money, especially to those of taxpayers who are adamantly opposed to abortion. And whether there are incentives involved or not is ENTIRELY beside the point
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." – Thomas Jefferson, Statute of Religious Freedom, 1779.
Irrelevant. A big share of that money's been confiscated from people who don't want it to fund abortion.
Jan is a Communist air-headed bitch. Don Wade dangles her on a string every couple of weeks and it she is an idiot of the lowest order.
Abortion Kills People.
After all .. babies are just brand new people. It doesn't matter how old or young a human being is .. they're people.
They don't care about babies ... babies are some kind of eucharistic host/sacrifice to them.
People, on the other hand need to be protected, welfared, educated, and a host of et-cetera's.
Abortion Kills People.
Quite a nice observation. One missing detail is that for the hypothetical pregnant woman in question to keep her clothes on and not get pregnant in the first place would be safer than either pregnancy or abortion. Another missing detail is that adoption is far safer for the baby than abortion, although even abortion does have a non-zero survival rate, thank God.
Well over 95% of all abortions end in the death of the unborn, perhaps well over 99%.
I challenge Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs Merritt to do the math on that and conclude abortion is safer than childbirth, much less 10 times safer.
Just another RAT child abuser and molester. Abortion is drilling a hole in the baby’s skull and sucking the brain out. THAT certainly molests the child.
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), thanks markomalley.
Conclusion: Despite their protests to the contrary, they want to increase the number of abortions.
Why, you might ask? Money. Money. Money.
Abortion may be safer for the (potential) mother than child delivery on a statistical basis, but only when later complications of the abortion are disregarded. Among these later consequences are an increased risk of delivery of premature babies (which entails higher infant mortality and morbidity), and increased risk of breast cancer, and an increased incidence of various psychiatric problems.
So there could well be a price to pay for abortion years down the road, which is neglected in Schakowsky's simplistic thinking.
It would be nice if we had a better shot there.
She has to make sense now? Kinda demanding aren’t ya? ;’)
Whatta maroon! Over 40 million babies dead isn't enough 'evidence'?
Hey with the way this election cycle is going, you never know. If the RAT bloodbath exceeded 1994 levels and we took 100+ seats, we could wake up and discover Joel Pollock is the new Congressman for the IL-09 and Isaac Hayes is the new Congressman for IL-02.
The districts are overwhemingly RAT, but never say never. Both Pollack and Hayes have been running excellent campaigns and stayed focused on the prize.
Check out Joel Pollak’s new campaign ad, featuring his wife Julia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdTV15j6PbI&feature=player_embedded#!
Quite a contrast to sneering marxist Jan Schakowsky and her convicted felony hubby, wouldn’t you say? :-)
A Joel Pollock would be spectacular.
Yes, and nuclear annihilation is safer than diplomacy.
You (need to) go girl!
What percentage will Joel receive? I live about two miles north of that district, and my only prediction, for that race, is that Joel will do much better than the Republican did, in 2008. That Republican got 26%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.