Posted on 08/30/2024 12:17:32 AM PDT by Morgana
POTTERVILLE, Mich. — Former President Donald Trump said in an interview with NBC News on Thursday that if he is elected, his administration would not only protect access to in-vitro fertilization but would also have either the government or insurance companies cover the cost of the expensive service for American women who need it.
"We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment," Trump said before adding, "We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay."
Asked to clarify whether the government would pay for IVF services or whether insurance companies would do so, Trump reiterated that one option would be to have insurance companies pay "under a mandate, yes."
Abortion and IVF have been political liabilities for the GOP this year. Democrats have blasted Republicans over IVF in recent months, saying GOP-led restrictions on abortion could lead to restrictions on IVF, as well.
In a statement, Sarafina Chitika, a spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign, said that "Donald Trump’s own platform could effectively ban IVF and abortion nationwide" and that "because Trump overturned Roe v. Wade, IVF is already under attack and women’s freedoms have been ripped away in states across the country. There is only one candidate in this race who trusts women and will protect our freedom to make our own health care decisions: Vice President Kamala Harris.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
He’s done this before, so I don’t think he’s being fed these ideas.
Remember when he had COVID and received that experimental antibody treatment and said it cured him, then said the government would pay for everyone to get that treatment. Nothing came of that.
How old must an embryo be before you consider killing it child murder?
I believe that life begins at conception.
During the IVF process there are more embryos conceived than are implanted. The ones not used are discarded. Even if parents choose to store the unused embryos for the future, many do not survive the cryogenic freezing process.
Some clinics even allow the parents to choose the gender of the child. This is done by conceiving multiple embryos and killing the ones that are not the desired gender.
Maybe you justify your position by putting an age before which abortion is ok. Maybe it is 24 weeks or 12 weeks or 6 weeks. I don’t know. But if you support killing human embryos at any point beyond conception then, in my opinion, you support child murder.
Why is Trump promising to shut down the Department of Education? Why is he promising to lower taxes?
The legislation would only make it a right have access to IVF? Not even any money involved and they still voted against it? Wow.
Do you think only unmarried women use IUDs?
And this doesn’t even include the abortions performed in connection with IVF.
He also said in April that he would release his plan for regulating mifepristone next week, and nothing came of that.
“Do you think only unmarried women use IUDs?”
Of course not. That’s ridiculous. Many (probably most) of my married friends had IUDs in the ‘70s and ‘80s.
If the time came to start a family, and there were problems due to the IUD, none of them would have expected taxpayers to pay for their procreation.
IMO, IUDs seem to be bordering on barbaric — that metal thing in “there” 24/7. (Do people even use them any more? I don’t know.) Single women, and married couples can employ abstinence as a method of birth control.
Absolutely.
It is unbelievable how people that claim to be pro-life can support it.
Oh, you said it was too bad some of the women who had IUD problems didn’t consider abstinence, which me made me think you were referring to single women.
No. Not at all. I can see how you interpreted it that way, though. I should’ve been more specific.
i dont believe in aboration at all, never have.
I know all about the IVF process, never had to have it done.
but people have free will to choose for themselves.
dont give a fig when the catholic church has to say on the issue anyway.
You sound exactly like far-left militant secularists posting on the Guardian or somewhere.
If you condone IVF, you condone killing human embryos. It is part of the process.
I don’t believe in abortion at all, never have.
I believe life begins at conception, always have.
I believe intentionally killing a living, human embryo is murder, always will.
Regarding not caring what the catholic church has to say - neither do I. I didn’t post that link because of the source, I posted it because the facts (not opinions) in the article are accurate. There are tons of other sources with similar information.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6911130/
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/03/ivf-alabama-embryos-discard-why
https://news.gallup.com/poll/646025/americans-back-ivf-divide-morality-destroying-embryos.aspx
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/taming-ivfs-wild-west
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2023/11/ivf-frozen-embryos-are-new-orphan-crisis/
It is not simply “embryos that do not take”.
That would imply that there was an attempt to implant those embryos and for whatever reason, it failed. While this happens with IVF, it is not the entirety of the story.
Embryos that are not wanted, because the parents had enough “take” and don’t want additional children are destroyed.
Embryos that are not the desired gender are destroyed.
Embryos that the parents don’t want to use immediately are frozen and many do not survive the freezing process.
It is not just about embryos not making it. It is about people actively taking steps to destroy human lives.
“It is not just about embryos not making it. It is about people actively taking steps to destroy human lives.”
Look, I’m didn’t want to get into the whole “life begins at conception, even IF that conception occurs “out of the womb”” discussion. Especially since I don’t know the answer to that question and neither do you. All we can do is speculate, based on what we “think” is the truth. I don’t really think an embryo outside of the womb has a soul. God said ““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”. God did NOT say “I knew you in a freezer “before” I formed you in the womb”. That’s all I have to go by here.
What you are calling “destroying human lives” by a couple attempting to carry their own child by using medical science/unnatural means may or may not be considered a sin by God. But if I was one of those parents, I would probably take that chance and answer for it when the time came to be judged by God. My God would probably not judge them harshly... or as harshly as some humans would and apparently are judging them.
I just don’t think we have the authority or the ‘right’ to judge people based on these criteria. That said, I absolutely do not think that this procedure should be funded by taxpayers via big government taxes on everyone. But that’s a completely different issue.
The quote you use to justify your position falls short in several ways:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
First, these were the Lord’s words to Jeremiah. Since Hilkiah and Jeremiah’s mother obviously weren’t using IVF, I think it is safe to say that Jeremiah was formed in the womb.
Beyond that, it does not say that the Lord knew Jeremiah once he was formed in the womb. Nor does it say that the Lord knew Jeremiah upon forming him in the womb. It says that the Lord knew him before he was formed. His soul existed prior to be formed. To me, that removes a lot of the significance of the location of formation, as it already establishes that he exists to the Lord prior to that point.
In my belief, life begins at conception. I believe that is the moment when the Lord gives a soul to an embryo. I recognize that others do not share this belief.
Some believe that it happens with the first breath of air, justifying with the “breath of life” from Genesis 2:7, and argue that a baby has no soul before birth.
Some believe that it happens with the beating heart - hence the 6 week limit on abortions. I’m not really sure what the foundations of this belief is to be honest.
Some believe that until the baby can survive outside the mother, it is not a separate life and use this to justify 24 week abortions.
The argument that anything goes as long as we can justify some benefit out of it falls flat in my opinion. There are lines you don’t cross, even if there would be great benefit to some if you were to cross it. Sacrificing one healthy child to harvest organs so that several others could live would be looked upon with horror by most people.
I believe life begins at conception, regardless of the location of that conception. Any willful attempt to destroy that life after that point is murder.
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.