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.
True virtue is not anemic or self-centered.
WELFARE IS NOT CHARITY...it is THEFT:>
albeit, a very sad, and difficult condition.
That's not for judges to decide, it's for the legislature. Tell Congress to change the law. Lobby, buy off your Congress critter or whatever. I think that's the way it's done in a FREE REPUBLIC.
Is this still a "conservative" forum or am I lost?
"value and dignity of human life."
The baby DOESN'T HAVE A BRAIN,
as brain dead as a friggin doornail,
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, either way, no brain.
Also, aren't you rather free with YOUR advice about what others should do with THEIR "pocketbooks"
Gee Wally, from the self righteous tone of most of the posters,
I'd say you've taken a wrong turn.
Sounds like the Taliban, same page, but different book.
You simply state FEELINGS. The feelings upon which you should act are those based upon facts. You do not deal with the factual aspects in this case...I believe that you cannot allow yourself to see the wrong of welfare because you can not accept that your family survivied on the backs of people whom your parents accepted as unwilling oxen.
I also believe that you have already "dismissed" me.
Perhaps the actualities are not pleasant things with which to deal.
You can't get around the fact that if it isn't a human at conception than the woman isn't pregnant. Have a little mercy on those who can't defend themselves. I know it will piss you off that I ask you to back off on the innocent, but that is what I am asking you to do.
Assuming arguendo that it true.
What this case was about was a fetus without a brain, if this fetus ever had "Human Life",
a dubious proposition at best, but neverless assuming he did, he sure as hell didn't when he grew without a brain.
I do, however, realize that my solutions--which DO work for me, daily--are painful for you because you have already taken from those who may have not CHOSEN to give.
You do not seem to understand that...I HAVE "been in your shoes." There ARE better ways. My family and community DO live on a "give and take" keel.
You will remain a captive of the government of you believe that THE GOVENRMENT IS YOUR MOTHER, YOUR FATHER, and YOUR ONLY FRIEND. You seem to believe that, WITOUT THEM YOU WILL PERISH!
To quote many of today's kids, "Think outside of the box." YOUR box seems to be the one into which the government has apparently sealed you.
I don't want someone who has no mercy on the innocent and defenseless deciding who gets to live or die. No thanks.
I, you , and everyone can have as much mercy as possible and still, a fetus without a brain is not going to live.
Then let him die peacefully. Leave him alone. He still has worth in my eyes. Full intrinsic dignity.
I am a mother who raised her children...without welfare and, mostly, without child support. I used my GI Bill (EARNED!) to complete my education. I asked for no governmental assistance to raise my children for me!
I am now assisting my daughter in raising her children...one of whom needs considerable medical assistance...for which I am paying--NO WELFARE!!!!.
My siblings and I are also working together to assist our parents who are in their 80's...and THEY help by occasionally caring for their great-grandchildren.
I know that you are going to pick that apart and tell me how it wouldn't work for you...SURE, your situations is "different." Everyone's is! SO WHAT! Quit looking for big brother to hold your hand and "make everything right."
Or is that the opinion of both of you?
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?
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?
Just curious... thanks.
Please explain the danger you fear for the mother. I don't think you'll be able to because there is none. I don't understand this "logic". If the baby is going to die anyway, why do you need to murder it? Why do you think a mother would feel better knowing she was the cause of her child's demise rather than mother nature? Why not let this woman deliver her baby, and give it some love for the short time of it's presence on earth?
I know this wasn't part of your argument, but there wouldn't be a lot of medical costs to allow a birth in a case like this. If death was truly eminent, there wouldn't be any extraordinary life-saving measures taken.
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.