U.S. Military Must Pay for Abortion

ABC NEWS ^ | June 1 | Associated Press

[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.

[mdittmar]

Our tax dollars at work.

[steve50]

A fetus without a brain. Such a waste, it would have gone far in American politics

[Always Right]

Hard to argue in this case. The baby has no hope and can only endanger the mother.

[wita]

This would almost be a no-brainer if her husband was still in the military. What makes her think she had no choice when the "operation" was originally performed. Soooooo we follow the money, and find that "choice" wasn't reeeaally what she wanted was it. Of course I can understand her mindset vis-a-vis the "full" medical coverage in the military, if that truly is her mindset.

[SarahW]

Absolutely. The government would pay for a molar pregnancy and chemotherapy, it would pay for ectopic pregnancy, it should pay for this.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Our tax dollars at work.

You won't get very far arguing that the government is wasting money in this case.

An abortion is much cheaper than is the alternative, which is several days in intensive care before death.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"A fetus without a brain. Such a waste, it would have gone far in American politics ."

Too late. Ted Kennedy and Joseph Lieberman have already proven your theory.

[anniegetyourgun]

Today it only applies in this case.....tomorrow.....

[libertylover]

Just how smart does a baby have to be before it's allowed to live?

[ikka]

Who appointed the judge? I have a guess.

[anniegetyourgun]

And once that is determined, will the mother be forced into an abortion because we deem those children to be burdensome to society?

[verity]

Be brutally honest! It is not the money, right?

[SlickWillard]

Bump.

[JMJ333]

I think you're right. Our government should just kill all those who they don't deem worthy of life. Maybe we can even get Peter Singer to be president.

Just another product of the devaluing of life. The materialists and relativists should be proud.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

This is the thin end of the wedge - hard cases make bad law! - Liberals know this it is their best tactic.

[Cicero]

It's a very dangerous precedent. We all know how the culture of death works. First the "hard cases," such as rape and the health of the mother, and then before you know it 40,000,000 babies have been slaughtered.

How much did this abortion cost? A few hundred dollars? How much money did this women spend on legal fees to seek government reimbursement?

Did Planned Parenthood and NARAL perhaps help her with the legal fees? Did a pro-abort lawyer work "pro bono"?

I'm sure there is much more behind this case than what is written in this article.

[JMJ333]

*

[Paul Atreides]

"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.

What a completely moral-deficient.

[Ohioan]

I agree that this is not a case that one should argue from the standpoint of the fight against legalized abortion (see Considerations In The Debate Over Abortion). But there is another legal question here, as to whether the Military should pay for this non-service related problem. That is a legitimate issue in its own right. I would have ruled against the reimbursement, that has apparently been ordered, even though I would never condemn the mother for the decision she made under these circumstances.

This case involves a real tragedy, and it is a pity that anyone would want to use it as part of a debate on a public issue. Thus while I do not condemn this mother for her original decision, I most certainly condemn her for the use she is making of it now. You do not prove a point by politicalizing your personal tragedy. (Sarah Brady is not the Joan of Arc of modern America.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site