And now they have no birth control to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies:
Thousands of low-income Planned Parenthood of Indiana patients were left fending for themselves Tuesday to pay for birth control, breast exams, Pap tests and other medical services while a court battle continued over a new state law that eliminated the organization’s Medicaid funding…
Nicole Robbins, a 31-year-old single mother who has been a Planned Parenthood client for six years, said she had intended to visit a Planned Parenthood clinic in Indianapolis on Tuesday to pick up a 2-month supply of birth control pills. Then, the Medicaid recipient learned that the more than $100,000 in private donations the group had raised since May 10 had dried up.
Given that we know what Planned Parenthood actually does, this law has been designed in a way that is primarily going to hurt the poor for no good reason. In fact, why wouldn’t this increase abortions? If a person can hardly afford birth control, the rate of protected individuals is going to drop. And when some of those women get pregnant, it’s often going to make more sense to scrape together the cash in order to get an abortion. Think about it. In the first situation the choice is birth control and no or little cushion money or no birth control and a little money. People will take the latter risk. In the second situation the choice is pay for a child for the next 18 years or pay for an abortion. Some women who otherwise would not be pregnant will take the second option. This increases abortion.
And I’m fine with that. Cells with potential are not humans. If that were the case, sperm and eggs would be humans – That people wish to pick an arbitrary level of potential does not a human make. But it looks like Indiana wants to interfere with science:
The Medicaid de-funding measure took effect the same day that Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the law. But other provision of the law that gives the state some of the nation’s tightest restrictions on abortions won’t take effect until July 1.
Those include a ban on abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy unless there is a substantial threat to the woman’s life or health and a requirement that doctors ensure women seeking an abortion are told that life begins at conception.
Oh, well, if Indiana lawmakers declare something to be so, then clearly it is. This reminds me of that myth of some state legislature, perhaps Ohio, declaring that Pi equals exactly 3.14. Except this time the scientific intrusion is real.
Filed under: News | Tagged: Indiana, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood |
For the Sake of Science 
Once again the lunacy of religion forcing their arbitrary and inane rules on everyone. This violates the constitution and the Declaration of Independence “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Your comment that the combination of cell and egg” does not a human make” is one that bears repeating. When does life begin? Well way back when nature combined to spontaneously create the first living cell. Life has been evolving ever since. If we accepted life begins at conception, we are completely at odds with all we know about life. Laws against masturbation would be next as it is considered a sin by the Catholic church….were taught it is against the “Natural Law” . It would be just one more step to carry over it is against to legal law.
My definition of life’s beginnings is when a viable healthy fetus is capable of sustaining life on it’s own. Even then, it needs human intervention to succeed and to grow and evolve into a mature human living being and we have laws to prevent abuse and neglect of babies and children. The fact that they want to push these laws back to prevent a fetus raises the question of when do we have laws protect the mother? After all, there is no question she is a viable mature human being. What are her actual “human rights” vs. the fetus’s “potential rights”?
Pro-Lifers are for the most part ignorant religious bigots who want everyone to share in their superstitious beliefs of some sort of “Natural Law” promulgated by an invisible and completely unknown god. They want to extend this “Natural law” into “real law” What’s next..Masturbation”?..,,”Laws against birth control? Where does it end?????????
Michael wants to tell people they can’t smoke, though.
Bob, didn’t you just say that we pay for all smokers? In the same sense we pay for these women irresponsible decisions. I see very little difference when you get right down to it. Bad decisions = costs paid by the public, that is certainly true in the abortion situation and still true just a slightly less so in the case of smoking.
I’m just interested to see what your rational is behind supporting the right to have one but not the other.
Michael… Life does begin at conception, there is no controversy there. The controversy is at what point the life that has begun after sperm meets egg is human. At what point does it feel pain or having thoughts or whatever. Life is pretty simple, humanity is complex.
Howdy paul, I hate it when someone posts a comment in between the time I start writing one and the time I post it!
Pro-lifers have a different and entirely valid definition, it’s a stretch to call sperm and eggs a distinct life form before they come together, but entirely accurate once they do. The question again is when does it get a “soul”. Which is a valid question.
In the religious sense its pretty clear, but I think even atheists can use the term. At what point does it become “human” is strange, but the word “soul” has connotations that I think fit nicely here, even without believing in God or in “souls” in the proper sense.
Where do you draw the line Paul? Bob? Michael?
Birth? Viability outside the womb? First independent movement? Clear human features?
Just one more thought, You are assuming a few things:
1. That people won’t continue to use birth control if it isn’t free.
Probably not true. Part of the issue with condoms is they are so cheap, giving them away does little to get people to use them.
2. That people won’t change their sexual behavior based on the availability of services.
Also not likely to be true. Some people will keep doing what they are doing, either buying their own birth control or not using it. But many will change their behavior.
No regard to my own opinions on the subject, but I would project unwanted pregnancies to decrease, not increase. People aren’t entirely stupid you know.
Nate: Here’s a list of your false assumptions…and my analysis:
1) All unwanted pregnancies are results of wrong decisions…rape and incest? Wrong decision for perp but not for victim.
2) There is no controversy life begins with conception. Then why are we talking about the controversy?
3) Telling people not to smoke is the same as telling women not to get pregnant,
Does smoking cause unwanted pregnancy? Gosh…I would have never
guessed I’d be here but for the Camel Cigarettes my mother smoked.
4)When does the soul begin? When you can see the soul, let me know. “Til then we can talk about the developing brain…we can disect that but not a mysterious soul.
5) People won’t continue to use birth control if it is not free or won’t change their Sexual Behaviour based on the availability of services. Damn right for poor women…that’s why these services are so important…
1. I don’t care about those situations. Few people think that abortion shouldn’t be an option in them and as I understand it, they are still permitted under this law.
2. life is life, whether it is one cell or not, the question isn’t life but humanity.
3. If the government can tell you you can’t smoke, there is no logical reason why they can’t say no abortions. What happened to not telling people what to do with their own bodies?
4. Soul = what it means to be a human. I think it is a good stand in word for a much bigger explanation.
5. People always change their behavior. Don’t be willfully ignorant of that fact. While the law may result in more unwanted pregnancies in the near term, it is likely to reduce them in the long term. There’s really not much question there.
Cells constitute life, hence sperms and eggs are life individually.
Of course they are. That’s why I say the question isn’t one of life, but one of humanity, what constitutes a life. Sperm and eggs are part of the originating parent, when they combine they create something genetically distinct from either. When does that third bit of life become a human, that’s the question we need to answer.
..when it becomes a functioning healthy baby…..
And if it does not become functioning and/or healthy? Is it permissible to terminate the baby?
Yes….if there is reasonable explanation from the mother why she wants it terminated….
Baby is born and has down syndrome. You would support euthanizing them if the mother desires?
No…..only if he was in uterus and not ex uterus….
I’ve written on this in the past. There is no clear cut line. It’s a matter of which arbitrary spot is the best arbitrary spot? I say six months.
I was countering your claim that “life does begin at conception”.
New life begins at conception. I thought that went without saying. When the human begins, I say the same time, but as you say, draw an arbitrary line someplace and there you go.
Why 6 months? At the very least when survival outside the womb is reasonable.
In the sense that we have the formation of new cells, sure, new life begins at conception. And in the sense that conception marks the start of a process that leads to what we would unequivocally call human (eventually), sure. But we all know Indiana means more than any of this when they use the term “life”, as you do point out.
Well I’m not going to keep on dragging it out here.