You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Millions more women may be subject to abortion restrictions.
Correction, it's Pro-Life as opposed to the Pro-Abortionists.
Once again the pope insists on writing Catholic dogma into our civil laws. Perhaps it is time we sever diplomatic ties with the Vatican.
The editorial didn't cite which of our delegation voted in favor of this amendment. Assume the Republicans did....bad..bad..bad. But did any of those lofty valued liberals?
The StarTribune has been a cheerleader for government run health care. They should be careful what they wish for. This abortion debacle is just the first of what will be many political intrusions into peoples choices if this government takeover of health care comes to pass. Don't like your coverage from the government? They'll be the only game in town.
"The proposal is blatant government meddling in health care -- and it's wrong."
Doesn't this describe the entire health care bill?
Why should we be forced to pay for a procedure that many consider immoral? Abortion will still be available, this admendment is only a matter of who picks up the tab.
The Star Tribune never learns. Always wants the cake and to eat it too.
This radical measure would, in fact, prevent even women buying PRIVATE INSURANCE from within the exchange WITH THEIR OWN MONEY from having abortion covered. And as for the commenters suggesting that abortion is an immoral procedure, please consider the women in your lives--your mothers, sisters, daughters--who have had abortions. One out of three women will have one in her lifetime, including the women you know and love.
I'm 100% pro-life AND pro-choice. Those who would intrude on this
very painful & personal decision are "anti-choice" - nothing more,
As usual, everyone is jumping to conclusions without having actually read the amendment! (sound familiar???) Specifically, the Pitts Stupak amendment would prohibit the use of federal dollars to buy any policy offered through the exchange that covered abortions other than those related to rape, incest or danger to the mother's life. Supplemental insurance providing coverage for abortion may be purchased by the buyer. Federal dollars could still be used to pay for termination of pregnancies caused by rape, incest or if a mother's life is endangered. Federal dollars are prohibited from being used for elective abortion procedures. The facts are that 49.5 million abortions have taken place since 1973. What percentage of those abortions were performed because a woman's life was endangered or because of rape or incest??? Some estimates say only 7% or 3.5 million. That means that 46 million abortions were elective. I support a woman's right to choose...she may choose to exert her reproductive rights by choosing NOT to become pregnant!
your information is absolutely incorrect! And, yes, I am thinking of the women in my life...the women who might not be here had abortion been legal during their mother's pregnancies! I am one of those women. I have 3 children and 2 grandchildren whose lives would not exist if abortion had been legal during my mother's pregnancy with me. Is my life precious? Are the lives of my children precious? How about the lives of my grandchildren? You bet. I thank the Lord that abortion was not an option in 1955.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks