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.
Perhaps you could get your speller to creak open,
when you're not to busy trying to run the lives of others.
Obviously you aren't.
but save your battles for the real problems. This isnt it.
There are few abortion related battles as important in this country as keeping our federal government from funding abortions. This is a precident in that battle. That's why this is news.
This quote, taken from the article shows the ignorance of the judge and those who support his "logic". There was NO medical evidence that stated the baby "had no brain". The REAL definition of anencephaly is as follows:
congenital absence of all or a major part of the brain
in most cases these children have a significant amount of the brain remaining. They are treatable and can survive.
This is clearly stated in the post to which I directed you (#36).
Fair enough. Perhaps what is needed is an improvement in diagnosis and lexicon to distinguish those in which part of the brain is missing but that which remains is adequately functional from cases in which the portions of the brain necessary for survival (e.g. respiration etc.) are absent?
I vote for my taxes to help the SOLDIER's WIFE out of a horrible position.
(I am aware of the "past-tense-ness" of this...but the precidence is current.)
NONE THE LESS: I do not appreciate having to pay for another family's support. IF I choose to assist another, I believe that it should come from me to those whom I chose. I believe in "helping hands," but I don't like the government snatching my hand away from me and shoving it over to hold up those who won't work!!!
WHEN I can help, I do...to the extent I know that I can...to those whom I believe deserve my help.
YOU MAY FEEL THAT YOU NEED TO "PUT SOMETHING BACK." GOOD FOR YOU. DO IT.
Meanwhile, I support my grandkids so that strangers aren't FORCED to do it WHILE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN FAMILIES TO SUPPORT.
There are many opportunities for these people with the US Government. The Postal Service immediately comes to mind.
I believe that you speak of a system in which lazy people can just opt out. They can lay down their tools and "take a break" on the backs of those who do NOT ride upon the theft of strangers (via welfare and taxation).
CHARITY...TRUE CHARITY...worked. BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ROBBED US at figurative gunpoint IN THIS COMMUNISTIC/SOCIALISTIC MANNER--When a neighbor needed help, a community circled the wagons and righted things for that needy neighbor.
Everyone needs a helping hand on occasion...but for anyone to EXPECT others to feed their non-productive selves, is abhorent!
There is so much more to say on this...so many more examples and wrongs...but I tire of this. And I anger at the symplistic manner in which you view this theft of workers' hard earned means. Don't you REALIZE that what is DEMANDED AND RIPPED from us might be NEEDED by us!
One judge has decided that she will decide what the scope of coverage of the CHAMPUS program is. Forget about the law passed by our elected officials [Congress].
We can all rest easy because Judge Nancy Gertner is now making decisions about the scope of CHAMPUS coverage. She wrote in her opinion:
I have concluded that there is no rational, legitimate state interest in denying coverage under these circumstances.
Judge Nancy Gertner has merely substituted her unelected, lifetime tenured opinion for that of the duly elected officials constitutionally authorized to make such decisions. All of you posting to this thread who support this decision are expressing support for flushing our FREE REPUBLIC down the toilet. The constitutional way to change the law is by getting a bill through Congress that is signed by the President.
If CHAMPUS didn't cover broken arms, does anybody believe that Judge Nancy Gertner would have held that CHAMPUS had a constitutional obligation to do so? Of course not. The case wouldn't have survived motions to dismiss it. This is merely Judge Nancy Gertner's way of expressing her opinion that the "constitional" right to slaughter an unborn child is more important than the Constitution itself.
Read her opinion yourself if you want to read what judicial "legislating" looks like:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/gertner/pdf/britellsj.pdf
BTW, this case was defended by the Clinton administration (Sec. of Defense Cohen was a named defendant).
THE .... BODY .... HAS ..... NO ...... B*R*A*I*N.
FURTHER....
IT ..... WILL ...... NOT ....... LIVE ....... OUTSIDE ....... OF ........ THE ....... MOTHER's ....... WOMB!
(sheesh...next they'll want to force the mother to carry it for the rest of her life because TO GIVE BIRTH IS A DEATH SENTENCE!)
...is it just me????
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.