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.
As the saying goes: Hard cases make bad law.
But I think that framing our argument around saving money ["our tax dollars at work"] is a losing argument, and does not emphasize the importance of all human life the way you did in your post.
Stay Safe !
Exactly .. as I feel sorry for this women and her baby .. the Military or any part of our government should not be paying for abortions
These women want an abortion I cannot stop them .. but I don't want my tax dollars to pay for it
That might not have been the best possible choice of words, considering the circumstances in this particular case....
If you did so intentionally, nevermind.
-archy-/-
" So, you would rather the military laid out a couple of hundred thousand
dollars to let a baby without a brain linger for a few weeks?
Nevertheless, my view is "I don't want my tax dollars to pay for it."
I'm not sure how a baby could survive *at all* with no brain. However,
anencephaly : congenital absence of all or a major part of the brain -- Webster's III.
I thought morality didn't matter in abortion cases. This opens a whole new door.
Is mass murder of the pre-born moral? What is the definition of moral? It certainly isn't tearing a human life from the womb now is it?
Morality has now set a legal president in a court of law. Is it moral for a woman to kill a mans unborn child? It's half his. Is it moral to steel that life from another?
Fine, just don't expect me to cheer your spending the taxpayers' hundreds
of thousands so you can amuse yourself with your opinion.
Faith Aminah Shabazz - Faith was diagnosed with anencephaly while still in the womb. Her mother, Margo, chose to carry her to term. Faith was born in March of 2001. Faith is still alive today.
There are more at this link.
Just because a child's life is inconvenient for the parents (or society) or shorter than the parents (or society) would like, is no reason (or excuse) to murder an innocent child. According to the "logic" used by this judge (and his supporters) we should kill anyone who can be shown to have a "projected life span" of only a few days. That is evil.
It is, they do, they do, and it is.
This is the kind of case that could just as easily be used to justify partial-birth abortions where the goal is to violently scramble and suck out the normal-sized brains of living, healthy unborn children.
Well, I'll leave now before Laz comes and accuses me of injecting an "irrelevant" partial-birth-abortion-of-healthy-babies post into a taxpayer-supported-abortion-of-unhealthy-babies thread.
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.