They'd be well-advised to heed the admonition of the Feminists for Life:
Posted on 12/31/2002 1:56:54 PM PST by Dallas
AUSTIN, Texas --
The state is not constitutionally obligated to pay for abortions for poor women who may have health complications from their pregnancy, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 8-0 ruling, with one abstention, upheld a state law that prohibits the use of Medicaid money for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger.
The state rules are patterned after federal law that restricts abortion spending.
The Texas court rejected a lawsuit filed by doctors and abortion providers who said the state should pay for abortions for poor women suffering from heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy and other complications that may present health risks during a pregnancy.
The restriction is unfair to women, because men on Medicaid cannot be denied any "medically necessary" procedure, argued Bonnie Scott Jones, a lawyer for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Attorneys for the state contended the law does not discriminate against women.
"It's only those women who make that ultimate choice to have an abortion who are treated differently," Jeff Boyd said.
Why do 'pro-lifers' consider these babies to be deserving of death?
Welfare moms are no longer rewarded for having large litters, and now abortions aren't so readily available. They're running out of options....
I suspect it's some kind of federal mandate linked to funding somehow.
Naw, the liberals always insist that "the right thing" is to be done with the money of the people who oppose that thing. Welfare, affirmative action, etc., you get it.
There's a distinction to be made when a woman is dealing with a pregancy that resulted from a crime, and one that resulted from her own poor reproductive choices. If abortions were limited to only true cases of rape and incest (where a perpetrator was identified, and sentenced appropriately), and saving the life of the mother, 99% of abortions in this country would disappear. That wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a damn sight better than the wholesale slaughter going on today.
Its not that those children are "deserving of death" as you put it, but a lot of people (myself included, an infant adoptee) would find it impossible to compound a rape victim's trauma with the forced continuation of a pregnancy. Politically, it is absolutely impossible to get to that level of restriction.
They'd be well-advised to heed the admonition of the Feminists for Life:
Now just who else in this society gets a government subsidy for what is clearly a hobby business? I thought the Dems solved that in the Clinton round of tax increases!
I guess I would just like people to re-think these exceptions they keep coming up with. The logic they are using is not pro-life, it is pro-punishment: irresponsible woman deserves what she got.
High court: State not discriminating against poor with serious illness
01/01/2003
AUSTIN - Texas may continue to refuse to pay for abortions for poor women with serious but nonlife-threatening medical problems, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday.
The decision overruled a lower appeals court ruling that Texas Medicaid policy regarding abortions unconstitutionally discriminates against women.
The top court ruled that state policy does not illegally discriminate but reflects an allowable policy encouraging childbirth over abortion.
An attorney for a group that opposes public funding for abortions applauded the ruling and deemed the lawsuit a backhanded attempt to circumvent the Legislature.
"The idea proposed in this case is outrageous," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. "Taxpayers have no constitutional obligation to pay for other people's abortions."
Lawyers representing a group of abortion providers and poor women had argued that all procedures deemed medically necessary by doctors are covered for impoverished men. But, they said, women must meet a higher standard - that a pregnancy is immediately life-threatening - before they can qualify for a state-paid abortion.
"It's not about a woman who just feels like having an abortion, it's about medically necessary abortions in cases that are not life-threatening," said Bonnie Scott Jones, a lawyer from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
The lawyers said pregnant women whose conditions are complicated by cancer, heart disease or diabetes are compelled to place their health at a higher risk than any poor man.
The 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin agreed and ruled that the state should pay for an abortion if a doctor deems it necessary, even in nonlife-threatening cases. But the effect of that ruling was delayed while the state appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
"I am pleased that the court has properly applied the law to the facts of this case and reached the correct result," said Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office represented the state Health Department in the case.
Kae McLaughlin, director of the Texas Abortion Rights Action League, said the decision will harm poor women and children.
"They have found it constitutional for the state to prefer child-bearing over abortion, even if the result is to jeopardize the woman's health and ultimately harm her ability to care for her family," she said.
The Supreme Court justices, all Republicans, delayed their decision an unusually long time - more than 13 months after oral arguments. The effect was to eliminate the case as an issue in the November statewide elections, in which five out of nine court seats were in play.
Eight of the nine justices joined in the opinion, written by Justice Harriet O'Neill. Retiring Justice Deborah Hankinson did not participate in the decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee public funding for abortions. Federal Medicaid funds nonetheless pay for abortions for women whose lives are at risk or who have been victims of rape or incest.
Abortion-rights groups have gone to state courts in Texas and elsewhere to argue that state constitutional provisions ensure broader abortion rights than federal law.
The Texas legal action centered on the Texas Equal Rights Amendment, which has no federal constitutional equivalent. That sex-discrimination argument has been successful in New Mexico and other states, about half of which pay for abortions above those paid for by the federal government.
Abortion opponents have said that funding more abortions for poor women could pave the way for abortions on demand.
Abortion-rights advocates have said that lifting the ban could produce 3,000 to 4,000 state-funded abortions annually for those with medical complications. That compares with 11 abortions paid for by the state in 2000 that fell under the guidelines of rape, incest or saving the life of the mother.
E-mail pslover@dallasnews.com
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.