U.S. Military Must Pay for Abortion

A federal judge has ordered the U.S. military to pay for the abortion of a fetus that was developing without a brain.

U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner ruled Thursday that the government could not refuse to pay for the abortion on moral grounds. But the decision applies only to fetuses with anencephaly, a condition in which the baby has no brain and survives for only a few days.

The case involved Maureen M. Britell, whose husband was in the military when she had an abortion at New England Medical Center in 1994.

"I'm happy. I'm just hoping that it will stick," said Britell, a former Massachusetts resident who now heads Voters for Choice in Washington, D.C.

Britell was covered by the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Service, known as CHAMPUS. A 1970s law bans federal funding of most abortions, and CHAMPUS does not pay for abortions unless the mother's life is in danger.

"Some people are going to need help. I know that burns you, but it is the truth."

The only thing that "burns me" here is that you view welfare as a RIGHT!.

THE GOVERNMENT IS US...and WE don't OWE you that which WE earn.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

I'm really enjoying this discussion, but I'm confused on a couple of things. Is it your opinion, or that of your adversary, banny, that forcing a man to pay for acts, issues, beliefs, etc. he despised is tyrannous, a la T.Jefferson?
Or is that the opinion of both of you?

Bannie believes it is tyrannical. I have no love for large government either, but because of the loss of cultural values there will be those who will have to be cared for by the state. Do I like this? No. But I live in reality and can recognize that it is an inevitable byproduct of ditching concrete morality based on divine law for moral relativism.

Also, if this is the case, is it justifiable for a citizen to simply refuse to pay taxes for such activities, of which there seem to be so very many in these days of the nanny state?

If you refuse to pay the tax you are in essence saying that you don't give a dang about what happens to others when the need help. I will not behave as such.

Also does this issue turn solely on which of the two options, (live birth followed by fairly speedy natural death, versus abortion) is more expensive than the other, or is there not a lot of much higher principle at stake?

I live by examining my conscience in accordance to God's will. If the baby costs me a little more I have only lost a little money, but have championed the value of human dignity and worth--which is, in my eyes, priceless.

just curious... thanks.

You're welcome.

"THE government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend upon the support of Paul."

I am just tired of those people who view taxpayers (via the government...via THAT WHICH TAX-PAYING CITIZENS WORK HARD TO EARN!) as RESPONSIBLE for catching them as they fall (or JUMP!)...and then supporting them in GOVENRMENT HOUSING...with FOODSTAMPS...and GOVERNMENT CHILDCARE...and, basically, with WORRY-FREE LIVING!

The defense seems to be, "Just wait until you need it."

I have needed it, and I have received it by that which is offered as charity...which I have worked hard to replenish when I have been able to.

I DISAPPROVE OF A GOVERNMENT WHICH BECOMES "ALL" TO HER CITIZENRY.

It may seem symplistic, but I believe that this became the "bone" between us.

I never said welfare was right. I said it was a byproduct of our culture ditching moral truths based in divine law for moral relativism. There is a huge segment of the population who now only lives for themselves. It has created the need for the government to step in and take care of people [albiet in a lousy way] when people shirk responsibility. You can work for reform, but in the mean time, you still have to take care of those who are in need by paying your taxes. Unless, of course, you just don't care what happens to those people.

This case is about CHAMPUS benefits, which are health care benefits for military personnel and their dependents. Are you saying or implying that benefits for our uniformed services personnel and their dependents are welfare?

I'm a little confused by your stance. If you are so against the government handing out money, why do you support the court-ordered handout in this case?

This woman has already had her abortion. Apparently she somehow found the funds to have the procedure and is now asking for a government handout to reimburse her.

Her legal fees to litigate this case are probably several times the cost of the abortion, where did she find the money for that? If you can't see that she had an ulterior motive you are blind.

"Bannie believes ...But I live in reality and can recognize that it is an inevitable byproduct of ditching concrete morality based on divine law for moral relativism...If you refuse to pay the tax you are in essence saying that you don't give a dang about what happens to others when the need help. I will not behave as such."

WOW! I must be some immoral, God-less woman!

Well, dear...you see the ills of the ways, yet you "deal with reality" and determine to just defend the system about which you disapprove?

LOL!

I haven't yet had the guts to quit paying my taxes...I like my job, and there is this little EXTORTION game of the system. IF WE DON'T PAY, THEY TAKE OUR MEANS OF SUPPORT...FORCING US TO BEG TO THEM FOR THE LOVE OF BIG BROTHER TO FEEEED US.

I'd rather keep some freedom and give to my grandbabies the best I can, considering the circumstances.

Good. I'm confident that I agree with you on all points.

The principle that the government shall not pay for, or sponsor in any other way, the practice of abortion is far more valuable to me than the fantasized "hundreds of thousands" of dollars for the temporary survival of the baby,(which I seriously doubt is actually much more than all the corollary costs etc. of an abortion, especially if the abortionist knows he's sending his bill to the government) no matter what kind of shape "it" is in.

In fact, even if you took these hundreds of thousands of hypothetical, for the argument, dollars and divided them by the millions and millions of taxpayers, each of us would be contributing pennies for that purely imaginary cost.

In short, the principle that the government never, ever pay for abortions is so much more important than Bannie's outrage over these pennies (is he some kind of libertarian or something?) that I'll have to side with you on this one.

Not solely out of sentiment either, but out of simple cold-blooded logic. If I were a libertarian I would feel even more strongly on drawing the line here on this particular issue, but thank God I am not.

In fact, I've found that God has very very little to do with the pseudo-philosophical rantings of the Libertarians. For them it's all about "Me and my wife, my son John and his wife, us four and no more."

All the best

GEE WALLY!!!! HEAVENS NO!!! You are mixing another arguement I am having with this disparate subject!!! PLEASE go back and read all of my posts before you judge me!!!

During the end of the Viet Nam War, my husband and I joined the United States Army!!!! PROUDLY!!! I belong to patriotic organizations, and I Love My Great Nation and those who serve her!

If you look back you will see that I have stated that, when the government hired her husband as a United States Soldier, part of the bargain was health care for him and his family!!!!

I completed my education via the GI Bill!!! (Which was also in my agreement, and which I believe that I earned!)

When I became pregnant in Germany, I came home so that my son would be born on Soil of This Great Nation!!!!

I doubt that you will find another with MORE red white and blue in her blood!

PLEASE never consider that I would deny a soldier or his/her family the very best!!!

I don't believe that it is a "government hand out" to pay for the medical costs of a dependent of a soldier of any branch of military service in the United States Army.

Her husband had contracted to a job with the government which included full medical coverage for him and all of his dependents. Welfare is NOT part of a contracted JOB.

I want to CHOKE when I compare the benefits contractually earned by a soldier who stands ready to GIVE HIS LIFE with that of a WELFARE TAKER!!!!!!!

You are mixing another arguement I am having with this disparate subject!!!

part of the bargain was health care for him and his family!!!!

I don't think I've misunderstood the discussion. You don't want your taxes paying for the costs of carrying the child to term and caring for it during its brief lifespan. JMJ333 and Maturin are saying they'd rather pay those costs with tax dollars if it keeps tax dollars from funding abortions.

Your statement that military personnel get health care for the service member and his family as part of the bargain assumes that payment for the abortion in this case falls within that description. It does not. The position of JMJ333 and Maturin is what Congress has enacted into law at 10 U.S.C. § 1093(a). CHAMPUS does not pay for abortions unless carrying the unborn child to term would endanger the life of the mother. Under the Constitution, Congress gets to make those determinations, not the courts.

The Founding Fathers, according to their correspondence among themselves and with others, tended to abhor the idea of abortion because one could not know what one was killing. Admittedly, it seems to us that what is being killed in the case of a "brainless" fetus is "an amorphous tissue mass."

But that sounds sickeningly like what a pro-choice fanatic thinks of a child under the knife of a partial birth abortionist.

Therefore, because I do not know what we're paying out tax dollars to kill, based on an ultrasound and little more, I will gladly let the government pay the hospital costs for the minutes or hours it takes these creatures to perish.

Mother nature seems to take care of it...

Yes, God Bless America and our troops, all of them.

Good night and all the best to you...

Yup! You followed it. I do, however, believe that this circumstance is an extenuating. Further, it may be so rare that a specific legal determination would be intrusive. "Sensically," however, it seems to me that it deserves a consideration as unique as the problem.

(p.s. I don't believe that I would have chosen the same route.)

it seems to me that it deserves a consideration as unique as the problem.

There is no doubt that these are extenuating circumstances. But these very circumstances were considered in the regulations implementing the CHAMPUS program. The regulations state:

Abortions performed for suspected or confirmed fetal abnormality (e.g., anencephalic) . . . do not fall within the exceptions permitted within the language of the statute and are not authorized for payment under CHAMPUS.

I am no fan of the federal bureaucracy, but this regulation is consistent with the statute barring payment for abortions under CHAMPUS.

Please do not fall into the trap of accepting rule by judicial fiat because you happen to agree with the outcome of a particular case. Judges are unelected and hold their positions for life. They must be held to strict constitutional limits on their authority.

Her husband had contracted to a job with the government which included full medical coverage for him and all of his dependents. Welfare is NOT part of a contracted JOB.

I think you are being disingenuous about your real viewpoint in this issue. The government would have gladly picked up the tab to care for this unfortunate infant after it's birth, and according to your statement above the cost should be no object since her husband is deserving (which I agree with, btw).

This woman made the decision to abort her child, knowing that it was not part of the coverage, then turned around and filed suit to get the policy changed. An abortion does not treat an illness or malady, it merely kills the patient, therefore it is not a legitimate medical procedure that should be covered by an insurance policy, especially one funded by the taxpayer.

Why not be honest and admit that your stance on this issue is driven by your sympathy with this woman's cause - Voters for Choice?

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.