Posted on 06/01/2002 3:48:59 AM PDT by mdittmar
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.
If only you were as willing to read as you are to shout. See the link in the post if you have any interest in replying meaningfully. Anencephaly is a condition where part of the brain is missing. In addition, there was NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE submitted in this case that the baby in question did not have a brain, nor does any medical technology currently exist to definitively determine what the child's prognosis will be.
Says who?
If we are going to decide who may be born, who lives and dies, we are not far from Dick Lamm's "Old people have a duty to die and get out of the way" or the eugenics of Hitler and Planned Parenthood. Who has the right to decide that this child or any other child shall live or not?
If it's a threat to the motehr's life, that's one thing -- self defense, if you will. But I still shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
I don't believe I stated my opinion on the subject of abortion. Traditionally, I find it abhorent. I believed that this was more of an issue of who would pay. I also see that the Reg. states that abnormalities of the child are not grounds for a financed abortion. I believe that when we see a rule/law in which we do not agree, we are free to disagree with the same.
Regarding my viewpoint on THIS abortion: I am just happy that I never had to make their decision. I believe that one can not truly know what they would do until the tragedy becomes theirs.
I guess that, in this discussion, I am coming to see that I am not totally against all abortion. I don't know what I would do here, but I am seeing that I would like the option--in such a case as this.
I might just cherish the time, and love him/her all the more. I might not.
I believe that my arguement throughout this thread was directed by another aspect: The rights of soldier's dependents to medical care without a "big brother" interference. Since this family had a tramatic event upon which to make a terrible decision, I don't believe that they should have to do battle against a bureaucracy.
These people are not welfare recipients, and I am afraid that people often view them as such. I believe that they deserve the BEST medical care. For them, it is NOT free.
So people keep telling me...but I place this strange value on my own soul, which in turn demands compassion for tiny, innocent humans. Call it a character quirk!
Nice try. Your statement is a complete fabrication. Anencephalic babies are alive in the womb. They do not die until delivery - if they die at all.
or one with NO chance of survival.
Another obvious fabrication. The examples posted previously show that anencephalic babies can survive.
In addition, from your statements it appears that you support the concept that all people with "no chance of survival" should be killed. So, according to your logic, if someone is diagnosed with terminal cancer, they should be killed. According to you, if people are old and infirm and are diagnosed with "no chance of survival" they should be killed.
Ultimately, we all have no chance of survival - death is inescapable. According to you, since we all have no chance of survival, we should all be killed.
Sick.
Too bad you beleive that emotions trump logic. They don't.
Have a nice day.
Don't be too flattered by the silence to the bombastic hypotheticals you pose. Sadly, the discriminatory debate qualifications you set render your comments unworthy of response.
And yes, the baby may die on its own. The point is, that fact does not excuse murdering it.
The baby has a father and a mother, so your sexism is stupid...in 1853, would you chastise abolitionists by saying, "Easy for you to make these kind of decisions when you have no plantation?"
Clearly, there is no point in maintaining a mortal risk to the mother. Where such exists, truly, not one of these "emotional health" claims but a truly mortal risk, it is reasonable to induce delivery and care for the infant post-natally.
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.