SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

From The Herald Online:

South Carolina taxpayers would not pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest, according to a budget proviso unanimously approved by a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.

The proviso, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, would only allow state taxpayers to pay for an abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Lawmakers have tried, and failed, to pass this proviso for at least two years.

The proviso — which means a temporary, one-year law — would only apply to people covered by the state’s health insurance plan, which covers 417,000 people. But it has come to represent the broader abortion debate in general, sparking passionate debate in the House and Senate while slowing the budget process.

The dispute focuses on the definition of “victim.” Supporters, like Bryant, say the unborn child is a victim who has rights that must be protected.

“We’re focusing on the rights and the liberty of an unborn child, and I can’t understand why the life of a child that’s a victim ought to be terminated,” Bryant said.

I wish they would focus on the rights and liberties of the already born victims.

Comments

9 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.
  1. I generally like to ask people who claim that restricting abortion is necessary to save the lives of innocent li’l children if they’re also in favor of giving the government the power to force them, against their will, to donate a kidney to save the life of someone who will die without it.

    I’ve never had a single person say that they would support that law, but when asked why stripping their bodily autonomy to save another person’s life (and in this case, it’s an actual fully-formed human instead of a blob of cells) is different from stripping a woman’s autonomy to save a fetus they can’t seem to come up with a good answer. Funny, that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

  2. Obligatory posting of “THE ONLY MORAL ABORTION IS MY ABORTION”

    http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • Nowax,

      Great link!

      Yes, I have a Christian conservative sister-in-law who had an abortion at 14. Mind you — besides the fact that she was an out-of-control 14 year old, doing hard drugs and very heavy drinking at the time, and the father ended up being murdered later in life — one can only think the kid would have had a horrible life. But she now talks about it as if she had no part in the decision. (My spouse remembers the situation quite differently. It was her decision.) Instead of being glad that she didn’t put a kid through that kind of hell, she now decries how her parents “forced” her to have an abortion and portrays herself as a martyr for the anti-abortionist cause.

      Ironically, my Christian in-laws are pro-choice. Maybe because they were alive during the pre-Roe years and know that women will always need — and get — abortions, whether they are legal or not.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  3. Okram,

    This is the same senator who posted on his official website ~2008 “the difference between Obama and Osama is just a little B.S.”
    Wooo!…South Kakalaki!…[shoots guns in air]
    One day I’m going to move to a blue state.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • Rounhouse,

      You’re welcome here in New Jersey, but it’s not what it is cracked up to be. Maybe Oregon? Washington?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  4. Mr. Sparkle,

    It’s the South, aren’t a good number of children born out of incestuous relations?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0


Creative Commons License