Pro-Life Legislation Is Working

Rarely do we look back and analyze the effects of the laws we pass. Recently, I was given some incredible information that I wanted to pass along. After a long and controversial legislative battle, the Georgia General assembly finally passed the Woman

121 comments

  1. John Konop says:

    Eric,

    Are You Just Pro-Birth or Pro-Life?

    Sadie Fields from the Georgia Christian Alliance has been consistently out spoken about the rights of unborn children. Sadie has made it clear that pro-choice Americans are supporting a parent

  2. Paul Shuford says:

    John Konop,

    Why, exactly, should I be responsible for paying for someone else’s child’s healthcare? Especially when they make more than $50,000 a year (which would have made them eligible for coverage under the Democrats’ expansion of the SCHIP program)? Were you in favor of that expansion?

  3. I’m sure a lot of people talked about getting an abortion before this law went into affect and decided against it.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/interviews/joyce.html

    According to that study, in-state abortions in Mississippi went down after a 1 day waiting period by about 10%. In South Carolina there was no effect of a 1 hour waiting period (more similar to what Georgia has).

    I’m shocked that Republicans are against socialized medicine but they are for the state keeping tabs on the private medical decisions of Georgia’s women. Put it another way, I’d be shocked if the Republicans in this state would endorse keeping malpractice stats on every doctor that operates in the state (to deny licensing to those that repeatedly commit malpractice as some other states have done) but apparently when it comes to women’s private lives the state should keep detailed stats.

    I wonder if Eric and his gang will expand this to keeping tabs on people who are treated in other medical capacities as I know it’s hard to close the door to big government once it gets its foot in it.

  4. StevePerkins says:

    A waiting period on handgun purchases is an ATTACK upon my 2nd Amendment rights. However, a mandatory waiting period on a legal medical procedure is IN THE NAME “women’s rights”? Err, okaaaay…

    * Disclaimer: I’m fervently against gun control. I just hate how legislators always choose names for their bills that are the exact opposite of what the bill does.

  5. John,
    There is a fundamental difference between the “right to life” and health care. There is no right to good health. There is no requirement that somebody pays you for your health care. It is a privilege and the subsidies are due to a compassionate country and employers who see it as good business. If you want to see what I believe is wrong with health care, see my op-ed “Taxpayers Pay Twice For Health Care” at http://www.VoteJohnson.com.

  6. Senator,
    Individuals don’t make health care choices the same way that they purchase an automobile or tv set. Even with more individually purchased policies, the insurance company still pays the bills not you. Once you have the policy, your involvement with moneymaking decisions more or less ends (besides do I want to pay the co-pay).

    When a doctor tells a rational Georgian what they think they should do (whether it is get a test, get a prescription, get a surgery or whatever) I certainly hope the rational Georgian’s first thought is not “Is this test the reason healthcare premiums are going up?”

    I think there is a role for the market in improving health insurance and access to it, but I don’t see how the market alone can accomplish more health insurance at a cheaper cost without some sort of government/business intervention. Of course, your goal is to eliminate mandates in order to afford businesses cheaper policies for their employees but I doubt you’d admit that.

    As an aside also, employers “choose” to compensate their employees with health insurance in part because it is advantageous for the employee and the employer to divert some of their monetary compensation into health insurance. Under the current tax system, you would have to make employer provided plans extremely unwanted before people would start asking for monetary compensation to purchase health insurance on their own. Hence, eliminating mandates (as you propose) helps employers bottom lines but leaves their employees with less coverage than they had before.

    What a bargain! They really will pay twice when they have to supplement their healthcare coverage out of their own pocket if your plan becomes law.

  7. jm says:

    So the legislature cuts education spending and cuts healthcare spending but then encourages more babies to be born. I’m all for bringing the abortion rate down to zero, but lets do it by bringing about supporting the types of social reforms and economic prosperity that created America’s middle class after WWII. Let the babies that we save have a chance to enjoy all those wonderful things life has to offer, since, as babies, they never had a choice in their lot in life.

  8. Erick says:

    The problem of course is that the GOP would have been willing to go along with SCHIP with some modifications to it, but the Democrats wanted to expand the program dramatically.

    And let’s be honest

  9. michaellmcgill says:

    this legislation is total BS as is Eric Johnsons misguided and misleading post – the NUMBERs he refers to would probably be the same without repubs enforcing their way into our lives (although impossible to prove, but I have to think most women weigh the decision pro and con) – there is NO WAY to keep those numbers about who changes their minds about their choice – and it should be the CHOICE of the individual – not Eric Johnsons choice – get a CLUE — what we have here is a typical republican senator without an idea of individual liberty – and he DOES NOT represent me –

  10. Jason Pye says:

    Ron Paul is pro-life, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone who speaks about individual liberty with more passion.

    I am personally pro-life, but I have a problem with government getting involved with these issues.

  11. Jason Pye says:

    Konop, you are crazy. You have completely bought into this populist BS. You have done a 180 since last year, or maybe you were just lying.

    Healthcare is not a right and the Massachusetts plan was heavily subsidized and Clinton’s plan will cost upwards of $150 billion, maybe more.

    One thing is clear to me, John. You are a fascist, I can’t put it any other words.

  12. John Konop says:

    Senator Eric Johnson,

    In all due respect I am confused by your response not caring about kids that are born. How can a two month year old kid control his parents being responsible enough to buy health insurance if they can afford it?

    Are you against mandatory car insurance? Is it not true if someone hits my car and hurts my family or property did they not take away my rights?

    If someone can afford health insurance and does not pay for the healthcare did they not just take away my rights since i am paying the bill? That is the fastest growing group of uninsured.

    As far as people who cannot afford healthcare is it not cheaper to practice preventive medicine (10 to 1)? Why not do what is best for the kids and the parents and save money?

    Does a healthy kid need a healthy parent?

    At the end it seems you are using the pro-life movement to gain votes but bottom line you do not care about kids once they are born!

  13. John Konop says:

    Jason,

    You want it both ways!

    The truth is guys like you are not taking the risk when you do not buy healthcare, guys like me who pay are taking the risk. Bottom line you are advocating using tax payers as an emergency healthcare plan.

    The truth is people like you advocate stealing from the community, so it makes harder for us to help the less fortunate.

    If you had read the father of free market system Adam Smith you would understand he was for Public education and human rights for all unlike you!

  14. John Konop says:

    Paul Shuford ,

    I Think I told you before SCHIP program is a band aide on a gushing wound! My original post is what I am for. The reality is people most pay who can afford healthcare and those who do not must pay a portion they can afford it.

    We also must have a system that promotes preventive medicine. No one denies we would save a ton of money! And that can only happen if insurance companies cannot exclude people and everyone is in the system.

    As far as it being private or public why not let them compete. All I know I never heard a Congressman complain about his or healthcare!

  15. Jason Pye says:

    John,

    You are so full of it. You are confusing The Wealth of Nations with Mein Kampf.

    The best health plan offered by any candidate has come from Rudy Giuliani. You want socialized medicine.

    The truth is guys like you are not taking the risk when you do not buy healthcare, guys like me who pay are taking the risk.

    I have health insurance.

    What does public education have to do with this discussion, John?

    Adam Smith believed in what John Stuart Mill later called the “harm principle.” You are a collectivist, John. The scum of political philosophy.

  16. John Konop says:

    Jason,

    Have you in your short adult life ever gone without heath insurance?

    And if you or you friends ever did you are a socialist or a freeloader?

    At the end us who did pay would of paid the bill if you did not have the money.

  17. Jason Pye says:

    Have you in your short adult life ever gone without heath insurance?

    Yes, John…and I paid my doctor bill when I had to go.

    And if you or you friends ever did you are a socialist or a freeloader?

    Is that a statement or a question? If it is a question, then the answer is “no.” If it’s a statement then it one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

    If a kid or adult gets sick and cannot afford the healthcare are you for letting them die?

    This is more of that populist crap that you have been spouting off lately.

    Government has made insurance too expensive. Programs like Medicare and SCHIP actually drive up the cost of health insurance. Government is giving tax breaks to businesses, when they should be giving them to both businesses and individuals. An overwhelming majority of kids who were originally eligible (60%) for SCHIP and who would be eligible for coverage under the the expansion (77%) already had private health insurance.

    I don’t mind lending a hand to a kid that truly cannot afford healthcare, but damn…when does it stop? When government has completely taken over the system? Is that what you want, John?

    You can keep spouting this populist bullshit all you want, but in the end you are passing the dollar along to the taxpayers and increasing our already staggering entitlements ($49 trillion in unfunded liabilities).

  18. jm says:

    I hate it when, instead of arguing a point that makes sense, people say “You want socialized medicine” as if that was a valid argument. Guess what, I’d rather spend several billion dollars on healthcare and make sure every hard working American, and every American child, and every American veteran, and every American disabled worker had access to the medicines and treatments they needed, than to spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to turn a bunch of dust into a democracy.

  19. ondichliberty88 says:

    I just wish our country would start returning to our founding principles of Personal Freedoms, Limited Government, a Non-Interventionist foreign policy instead of mandating State-Ran Healthcare and Trying to turn a every isolated authoritorian to some fantasy democracy. We a Constititonal Republic, not a Empire.

  20. dorian says:

    I’m not really pro life or pro choice. I’m pro “not getting knocked up” in the first place. Either way it is a problem. You folks do understand that socialism with no resptraints on reproduction is a system that is doomed to failure? The responsible working class grows at a much smaller rate that the irresponsible breeding class. How about teaching if you can’t afford to have kids, don’t? Am I wrong? I thought the point of socialism was to help those who COULD NOT help themselves, not people who WOULD NOT? How about we shift our paradigm away from this whole pro-choice/life thing which seems to ailenate people one way or another and teach them to be responsible instead?

  21. Harry says:

    Like all other necessities, health care should be the responsibility of the individual – not the government. Only when the individual, the family, the church, and the community can’t preserve and protect life, should the state and federal come to be involved.

    To paraphrase what someone said with better words, every benefit gained is a freedom lost.

  22. Remember, there’s nothing more expensive than when it is free. Health care is perfect example. Want to see what “free” health care looks like, John? Look at Grady. Look at Veterans care.

    Good discussion. I’m outta here , heading to ATL and pulling for the Cowboys!

  23. Paul Shuford says:

    So, John, you’re for eliminating the 60% of children off the current SCHIP rolls who were insured previously to SCHIP? As you’ve said, people must pay when they can afford healthcare, and these people obviously can afford healthcare (they had it before SCHIP).

  24. John Konop says:

    Paul,

    I am for reforming the healthcare system not arguing over the size of the band aide. Statically I make more money than 99% of the people on this blog. If I cannot get good healthcare how can a family making 59k a year get it?

    My wife and I joke we pay and the insurance company fights!

  25. John Konop says:

    Senator Eric Johnson ,

    You are making my point why we need mandatory pay system. I never said it had to be private or public.

    Why not let me buy the same policy you get?

    Why should we not have more competition not less?

    The program you advocate is a slow bleed for County hospital like Grady.

    Why not fix the root of the problem?

    Many conservatives like former Treasury Sectary Paul O Neal agree we must move toward mandatory pay system to stay competitive.

  26. Paul Shuford says:

    It’s a free market, John. Get a different insurance company, there are plenty out there. Do some online research to see which ones don’t fight claims. It’s not that hard, and the service you’ll get will be a damn sight better than what you’d get under socialized medicine, aka “Let’s let the DMV run our healthcare system.”

  27. GodHatesTrash says:

    Jason, who would have paid the bill if you had ended up in the ER, and a hospital stay, and a year or so of rehab, and long term health problems? Say your bill had been $500K instead of $1K – why the rest of us, of course, or the doctors and hospitals that would have had to forgive your bills.

  28. Holly says:

    Can I be honest? I think the worst argument in the world is when Dems / libs try to equate paying for health care with the war in Iraq for two reasons:

    1. U.S. military is authorized by the Constitution; health care is not.

    2. It seems to me that you have no valid argument to support your claim if you must result to changing issues.

    Now, do I agree that the Iraq debate and funding for the war is a serious topic? Yes. But I think it severely undercuts arguments pro-SCHIP when you try to divert the issue to war spending.

    Yes, government spending is out of control. There are many things that could be cut to help us with the budget. But let’s really look at this legislation.

    My biggest problem with it is that kids well over the age of 18 could be covered. Why? If a kid is in college, they can get health insurance through the schools.

  29. Jason Pye says:

    I was uninsured of eight months right out of high school. I’ve been insured ever since. My doctor bill was…maybe $350, not including medication. I had mono and missed almost three weeks of work.

    Had I’d been offered a tax credit to buy health insurance, like Mr. Giuliani is currently proposing, I could have afforded a reasonable health insurance policy.

  30. StevePerkins says:

    I’d like to see BOTH sides of the abortion debate not change the subject and try to divert attention elsewhere. Being pro-choice isn’t about “health care”, any more than being pro-life is about “a woman’s right to know”. Both sides just want to make other people’s decisions for them, which is why I have a hard time taking either side.

    Abortion comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception or not. If you believe that it does, abortion is murder. If you don’t believe that, then it’s not. I personally believe that life begins when a fetus could survive apart from the mother’s body, so the status quo seems about right to me. However, I’d love to see both sides trying to win people over to their view on that point, rather than muddying the water with a lot of other junk.

  31. ondichliberty88 says:

    Here is philosophy around here with you guys “Do as I say, not what I do”. Well we have a Republican State Senator and a Former Democratic State Chairmen telling everybody off. Just for once I wish this post quit sounding like Fox News and CNN. I can watch mainstream media to hear the 2 party system babel at each other and ridicule and peg 3 rd party supporters and independents as outsiders. In nationwide approval ratings both parties are in the toilet. Bush and GOP 30% and Pelosi’s Congressional Dems 11%. This is the first time in recent times that the American public are showing dissatisfaction with both established political parties. I predict it will remain a trend until third parties and Independents really get elected in Washington, DC.

  32. John Konop says:

    Steve,

    Birth is only 4% of childhood.

    So are you 4% PRO-LIFE?

    Let me get your logic straight, you are for forcing an irresponsible person to have a baby, yet after the kid is born so be it if the kid dies or the parent?

    Why do you the health of the baby and parent has nothing to do with life?

  33. John Konop says:

    Paul Shuford

    I have shifted companies many times and all of them have been bad!

    Ask people in the real world if they like their insurance if they are not a government worker.

  34. ondichliberty88 says:

    Right now there is no third party that is realistic enough to get elected. One third party wants almost no government at all , other third party wants militant social conservative policies . Forget Mike Bloomberg and Unity 08 that is a media handpicked unrealistic moderate group. They have flaws also, but we need a realistic third party that has moderation that is more in line with American People, not based around Billionaires or a ardent variation of a ideology.

  35. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Senator Johnson, with the decrease in abortions, shouldn’t this increase cheap labor and descrease the need for illegal immigrants? At least that’s what Nancy Shaefer told me.

    Also, why are you not a Saints fan you traitor!?

  36. Rick Day says:

    OK..now that I have read everyones ‘words of wisdom:

    1.Pro-Life should mean that you oppose murder on all levels of life, including the Death Penalty. Period. No exception. Either you are PRO LIFE or you are not.

    Sen Johnson: I didn’t like you very much because, well, you are a right-wing Christian Kissing NASCAR shagging Republican.

    But…

    if you are a Cowboy fan, then you are OK by me. (except for your abuse of power and talents to dictate unwanted ‘family values agendas’ upon us Georgians).

    I sit in Sec 123 row 5 next to the team tunnel. Come on to a game and sit with the heathens in 123. Maybe ‘Me-Angelo’ or ‘throw me mo’ balls Crump’ will toss you a sweaty arm band on the way back to the locker room.

    Cowboys 35 Colts 17

  37. BubbaRich says:

    Senator,

    I hope very much that your bill also forces doctors to lay out the medical risks of continued pregnancy and childbirth. Otherwise, it’s dragging doctors into a political war, and dishonestly.

    The latest pregnancy mortality rates that I have found say that, in the United States, there are about 17 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births (the traditional way to report that statistic to evaluate a healthcare system). Also in the US, the CDC reports fewer than 10 deaths from abortions, out of over 800,000 abortions reported in those same states.

    I hesitate to compare these statistics directly, but even this gross comparison shows that carrying and giving birth to a baby is MUCH more deadly for a woman than an induced abortion. And that’s only the deaths caused by pregnancy. There are many non-fatal risks of pregnancy, some of them permanent.

    To be kind, I’ll assume that the Georgia law forces doctors to tell women about ALL of these risks. I’d hate to think that you want to kill that many more women just so that you can force them to carry a zygote and can force them to give birth to another child that they do not want or cannot afford.

    As a possible alternative, have you considered funding better sex education? This is known to greatly decrease the number of abortions. You want to educate women, right?

    I hesitate to distract this to medical coverage, but I and my child have both had good, inexpensive medical care in Finland, where the medical system is nearly entirely socialized. Oh, sex education is much better than here, and the abortion rate is much, much lower than in the United States.

  38. John Konop says:

    Jason,

    Adam Smith and I would forgive you unlike Rand who would have let you die had you not had the money for healthcare. This article may help you understand that greater good and capitalism can live in harmony.

    The Adam Smith Solution

    The founder of modern economics, Adam Smith, takes a different approach by trying to incorporate both concepts in his “system of natural liberty.” Smith and Rand are in agreement about the universal benefits of a free capitalistic society. But Smith rejects Rand’s vision of selfish independence. He teaches that there are two driving forces behind man’s actions–in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, he identifies the first as “sympathy” or “benevolence” toward others in society, while in his Wealth of Nations, he focuses on the second, “self interest,” the right to pursue one’s own business. Smith believes that as the market economy develops and individuals move away from their community, “self interest” becomes a more dominant force than “sympathy.” But both are essential to achieve “universal opulence.” (Smith 1965:11)

    Adam Smith is famous for making a statement that sounds Randian in tone: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” (Smith 1965:14) But this statement is often taken out of context. Smith’s self-interest never reaches the Randian selfishness that ignores the interest of others. On the contrary, in Smith’s mind, an individual’s goals cannot be fully achieved in business unless he appeals to the self-interest of others. Smith says so in the very next sentence: “We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” (Ibid.) Moreover, he writes earlier on the same page, “He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour….Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the mean of every such offer.” (Ibid.) Smith’s theme echoes his Christian heritage, particularly the golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (See Matthew 7:12)

    Perhaps a true capitalist spirit can best be summed up in the Christian commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22:39) Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises would undoubtedly agree with this creed, but apparently Howard Roark and John Galt — and their creator — would agree with only half. And that’s a great tragedy for the greatest novelist of the 20th century.

    http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0101aynrand.html

  39. Jason Pye says:

    Here we go with the article. John Konop can’t make a point on his own, he has to post an article to do it for him.

    You are twisting Smith’s words. Skousen has it right, but you are blinded with populist rhetoric.

    Capitalism is the absence or near absence of government intervention in the market. You advocate a planned state and intervention in market. You are a statist, John. Not a capitalist.

    Smith would not have supported government action to force individuals to into being charitable or government taking from individuals and redistributing income.

    Adam Smith and I would forgive you unlike Rand who would have let you die had you not had the money for healthcare.

    I had mono, not cancer.

  40. John Konop says:

    dorian

    I understand it easier to say what you feel instead of educate yourself with facts.

    At the end you and Jason cry socialism yet have used tax payers as an emergency insurance policy. BTW did you use the internet, go to a public school, and drive on roads

  41. Paul Shuford says:

    So, because you’re not satisfied with your health insurance, and won’t go out and do any real research to find health insurance that is better, then that means that I should be on the hook for anyone’s health insurance that 1. doesn’t like their health insurance, or 2. doesn’t want to pay for it. Yeah, that’s a real winning philosophy there, John. Next, you’ll be telling me that I need to pay for everyone’s groceries that aren’t satisfied with what they’re able to put on the table, or just don’t like paying for it in the first place.

  42. John Konop says:

    Paul

    My last company I had an HR department that did research. I also have many friends who complain about this issue in the business world.

    You must be a government worker or you would not argue this obvious problem!

    My point is if private out does public than business owners like me will stay with them. Why should I not be able the buy into the system lawmakers get? I know why because the lawmakers will pay more or experience the poor service we get in the real world!

  43. Quoting Bubba

    “I hesitate to compare these statistics directly, but even this gross comparison shows that carrying and giving birth to a baby is MUCH more deadly for a woman than an induced abortion. And that

  44. ondichliberty88 says:

    I did not think John Konop was a Centrist Republican like U.S Senator Norm Coleman or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. His campaign for Congress against Tom Price in the Georgia 6th Congressional District last year sounded like the Jim Gilchrist American Independent Party 48th District of California Special Election in 2005. John Konop, I do not understand that your now towing Party over Principle compared to last year’s primary. This why I do not have undivided loyalty to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.

  45. Nicki says:

    Abortion comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception or not. If you believe that it does, abortion is murder. If you don

  46. GeorgiaValues says:

    100 % of precincts reporting
    PR=Precincts Reporting
    TP=Total Precincts

    KONOP PRICE
    10,322 47,925
    17.7% 82.3%

    “Ouch”

  47. StevePerkins says:

    John Konop:
    > Steve,
    > Birth is only 4% of childhood.
    > So are you 4% PRO-LIFE?
    > Why do you think the health of the baby and parent has nothing to do with life?

    John, do you even bother READING people’s posts before you assume they’re right-wingers and just start babbling leftist crap at them? I made it pretty clear that I was pro-choice (at least up until the third trimester or so).

    As for your insistence on linking abortion to the health care debate… in law school we study a concept called “proximate cause”. That’s a polite term used to tell someone that their claim is frivolous and full of crap. If I have a car accident which slows up traffic, and you yourself get into an accident a half-hour later, you can’t sue me claiming that you wouldn’t have been there at that point in time if traffic had been moving at normal speed earlier. If you didn’t apply common sense to compartmentalize issues, they would ALL bleed together because everything has SOME degree of cause-and-effect relationship with everything else.

    So yeah, health care IS related to “life”… as is preserving the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms in defense, streamlining government regulations which hold back prosperity and lower living standards, and a million other issues. However, it’s just as retarded to try and squeeze any of those issues into the “abortion” compartment.

  48. John Konop says:

    Steve,

    I am not a brilliant lawyer like you who is skilled and trained at the art of spin for clients for fee.

    Can you help the non-lawyers understand this question?

    If a person is pro-life and forced a woman to have the baby via the preservation of life are you now saying after the birth that the preservation of life ends?

  49. StevePerkins says:

    I’m sorry, I’ll try to hold back my “brilliance” at spin.

    Almost every political issue can be tied in with every other political issue. The war in Iraq can be tied into health care because the money we’re spending on it could damn near finance nationalized health care. At the same though, if we don’t win then the islamofascists will take over and they don’t seem to like nationalized health care. I’m being tongue in cheek here, but that’s my point… if you don’t use common sense to separate issues, they all blur together and you can use one issue to argue either for OR against some other issue. THAT’S where the real “spin” comes into play.

    Argue about abortion if you like. Argue about nationalized health care if you like. Just don’t pretend that they’re the same issue, and that your opinion on one has to correspond with a particular opinion on the other. Is that dumbed-down enough for you?

  50. John Konop says:

    Steve,

    As a skilled lawyer you avoided the question and change the topic, please tray again!

    If a person is pro-life and forced a woman to have the baby via the preservation of life are you now saying after the birth that the preservation of life ends?

    Also as a skilled lawyer you are calling mandatory pay for private and public health insurance nationalized health care. Do you think mandatory car insurance is nationalized car insurance?

  51. StevePerkins says:

    Dude, while I do enjoy the verbal handj*b, I’m not a “skilled lawyer”… I’m only in my third full semester of law school. I’m not much more qualified at “spin” than you are, I’m just better at critical thinking (and probably was even before starting school last August).

    To answer your question, it depends on how you use the term “pro-life”. If you use that term broadly, to mean someone who seeks to preserve all life, then it has all sorts of crazy ramifications. There are Buddhist sects out there that walk around with little bells on their shoes, to frighten away insects and avoid stepping on them. That’s pretty damn “pro-life”, and THAT kind of pro-life philosophy is impossible to promote without running into all sorts of contradictions.

    However, in the United States today the term “pro-life” is commonly used only to describe those people in the abortion debate who oppose the “pro-choice” people. We could use the label “anti-abortion” and “anti-life”, but groups generally like to be named for what they favor rather than what they oppose.

    So if “pro-life” is a label used to describe one’s opinion on abortion, it doesn’t have anything to do with how they feel about health care, ethanol subsidies, vegetarian eating, or whatever.

  52. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Oh boy! Konop used the required auto insurance line (similar logic from the junior Senator from New York: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20819827/ )

    This argument breaks down very quickly. I am not required by state law to have to insure damage to my own car, but I am required to have liability insurance – BIG difference there.

  53. BubbaRich says:

    Ray:

    In an early-term abortion, there is no baby. In very early-term, such as emergency contraception that some anti-abortion people for some reason oppose, you have one cell. Mouthwash kills a lot more cells than that. Even later, the fetus still does not have brain function, which many people think makes it alive or more human. I think a good argument on behalf of the fetus can be made after the brain is functioning, where it would need to be considered before performing an abortion.

    You can have your own spiritual beliefs about the single-celled zygote being a “person,” if you don’t want to use emergency contraception, and you can also have your own beliefs about a 3-month fetus. In fact, I would oppose any efforts to make you abort a 3-month fetus you were carrying.

    But making laws to make your mystical ideas force women to harm their own health, and possibly die, and then bring an unwanted or unable-to-be-supported child into the world, well, that’s just sick. Feel free to think that something without a brain is a human being. It might even qualify as a Republican politician.

    Perhaps, if you really would like to decrease the number of abortions and the number of undesired births, you might spend some money on sex education. Over half of the women who have abortions every year report using some method of birth control, but many had errors or inconsistencies in their use. Are you in favor of better sex education to increase and improve birth control use? It would, after all, result in fewer abortions, which you seem to think is murder. The Senator has not yet responded to this question, so maybe you could be the first.

    A republican candidate in favor of better sex and birth control education! You would certainly stand out from the crowd, which seems to be against improving education.

  54. StevePerkins says:

    I would agree that a great many pro-life people are really just anti-women. That’s why many of them turn me off. However, if you have a good-faith belief that too much government intervention makes the health care system worse rather than better… that’s a completely separate issue from whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. I reject the premise that if someone opposes abortion, they logically MUST favor increased government intervention in health care. That’s like arguing that pro-choice person MUST oppose gun control.

  55. ConservativeCaucus says:

    I repeat my earlier post for John Konop’s pleasure:

    Oh boy! Konop used the required auto insurance line (similar logic from the junior Senator from New York).

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20819827/

    This argument breaks down very quickly. I am not required by state law to have to insure damage to my own car, but I am required to have liability insurance – BIG difference there.

  56. John Konop says:

    ConservativeCaucus

    If you do not have health insurance and you get sick and go to a County hospital tax payers are stuck with the bill. Also if God for bid you have a major illness and you do not have the money, insured or not you will file bankruptcy passing the cost onto others. Over 5o% of bankruptcy are health related and two thirds had insurance.

    This is why exclusion and not covering major medical only pushes the expense on everyone else who pays. This must stop!

    This is why everyone must pay who can afford it and we must make people contribute what they can. Also we must push preventive medicine that will save tax payers $1 on $10.

    I do not understand why a fiscal conservative who is for pro-life would not agree with this concept?

    Unless you think the pro-life movement ends at birth?

    BTW the idea of mandatory healthcare coverage came from REPUBLICAN Romney!

    Healthcare is a bipartisan issue.

  57. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Not a big fan of Romney… and I am not a blind supporter of the GOP: we have spent too many years compromising our principles to be more like the other party. I am a conservative (low taxes, limited government, personal responsibility) first. I happen to vote GOP most of the time because they come closer to my views than do Democrats.

    Although it is clear that changes need to be made in the healthcare arena, I am not convinced that the Government should force me to have health insurance because they think I can afford it.

    Your straw man argument that the pro-life movement ends at birth is a little off. First, it is true that the pro-life movement has, at times, not communicated as demonstrably as it should that we value life at all levels, not just the unborn child in the womb. As someone who considers himself pro-life, I believe that we should protect life from conception until natural death.

    Where you and I disagree is the role of the government. Big government believers think that the government should determine how I spend my money – that usually looks like higher taxes and the government deciding how to spend it.

    I assume from your logic that I should be required to not only have liability insurance on my car, but total coverage? Also, if my house is paid for, should the government require that I maintain insurance on it? Should the government forbid me from gambling? Should the government tell me what stocks I should buy?

    Where does Government’s reach end in your argument?

  58. John Konop says:

    Conservativecaucus

    The reality is we do not let people die if they do get health insurance and not enough money. So at the end if you do not buy it you are using us who pay as your emergency healthcare coverage.

    And now the people you pay get worse coverage or pay more because we are dong the right thing.

    This issue does cross over from personal responsibility and to much government. At the end unless we let people die we all must pay. And life is grey sometimes.

    I do think abortion cheapens life. I also think it would be hypocritical for anyone who believes like I do not to consider the health and life of a child and parent.

    Call me what you want, but I do think God would agree with me. And at the end that is more important than any label or insult thrown at me.

  59. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Just to be clear, did I label or insult you?

    I appreciate your candid response. Although we may not agree, at least we are clear on our lines of disagreement.

    I would like you to respond to the ending of my previous post:

    “I assume from your logic that I should be required to not only have liability insurance on my car, but total coverage? Also, if my house is paid for, should the government require that I maintain insurance on it? Should the government forbid me from gambling? Should the government tell me what stocks I should buy?

    Where does Government

  60. Jason Pye says:

    BTW the idea of mandatory healthcare coverage came from REPUBLICAN Romney!

    Yeah, and it is creating problems in Massachusetts.

    Forgive me while I pull a Konop:

    Last year, then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and a Democratic legislature enacted a health-care plan with very similar elements to the one proposed by Sen. Clinton. Everyone has to purchase insurance. The government regulates the product design. Companies cannot deny a policy to anyone (guaranteed issue) or charge rates based on health or lifestyle (except for smokers). Businesses must offer insurance to employees or pay a fine. Low-income residents receive completely free or highly subsidized plans.

    While Mr. Romney has moved on, Bay state residents are still feeling the aftershocks. Of the 115,418 people who have enrolled in the new plans, more than 90,000 have signed up for the 100% free option — free to the enrollee, if not to taxpayers. The plans for which people must pay close to full freight have been about as popular as wool sweaters in August. As of Sept. 1, only 7,164 people had signed up for these new plans, despite the July 1 mandate; that’s a mere 4% of the estimated eligible uninsured population.

    Experts predicted that upwards of 70% of enrollees in the plans with subsidized premiums would be under 45, and fewer than 15% older than 55. In fact, 27%-40% were older than 55, depending on the plan. This is not surprising, since older people are more likely to be heavy users of health insurance. The flood of these enrollees is called adverse selection. This causes costs to spiral upward and coverage to dwindle.
    […]
    In Massachusetts, more than 200,000 people have been told that their existing health plans aren’t good enough to pass muster. They had until July 1 of this year to buy up or face fines commencing next year.

    Romney’s healthcare plan is a joke, as is the one Clinton is proposing.

    I’ll say it again, Giuliani has the best healthcare plan of any candidate that I’ve seen to date.

  61. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Why is the government trying to stop women from having abortions? That is not the responsibility of the government…nor is it the position a true conservative should take. If modern economics has taught us anything it is that fewer abortions leads to higher crime rates.

  62. Jason Pye says:

    The difference between Hillary plan and Romney is it put the mandatory coverage on the individual instead of business.

    Oh my God, have you even read the damned proposal?!

    Business have to offer coverage to their employees or pay a hefty fine.

    Do you understand if the insurance company does not cover it the rest of us pay?

    Which is why the idea of allowing a group of individuals join together and share the cost voluntarily is a decent idea.

    Rudy

  63. ondichliberty88 says:

    John Konop on God and Universal Health Care. State Mandated Religion and State Ran Health Care. Watch Out NEW GOP in Town. The NEW GOP Bi -Partisanship. this is not my cup of Tea. Ron Paul Revolution Forever.

  64. John Konop says:

    ConservativeCaucus

    You make all valid points. The problem is you have people like Jason that use tax payers as an emergency healthcare plan. And the crazy part is they do not get that have taking away rights from people who pay. And because Jason beat the system and did not get an expensive illness he really thinks he took the risk.

    As I said the issue is grey because my general felling is less government is better. Yet when you have people like Jason that abuse the system we must have rules.

    Also if tax payers are left with the bill from people who cannot afford the full cost or people like Jason who are just irresponsible we must make them pay what they can afford.

    As far as insurance companies they would not have a problem with no exclusions and plans that do not stick the tax payers if someone cannot afford the bill if it was a level playing field.

    At the end someone has to pay! And right now the incentive is to punish people who play by the rules.

  65. John Konop says:

    ondichliberty88

    Please show me when I have ever advocated State Mandated Religion and State Ran Health Care? Mandatory pay coverage is not State run anything. Do you get the person can buy private?

  66. John Konop says:

    Jason,

    Face it you did not have the money if you had a major illness when you did not have health insurance. . So at the end you became a socialist ready to stick tax payers like me with your bill. If people like you could understood that you are a free loader, we would not need the rules. YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT!

  67. Jason Pye says:

    Konop, the only point you are proving is that the voters of the Sixth District made a wise decision last November.

    You avoid every question posed to you and go after pointless details and hypotheticals. End the end, I paid my bill.

  68. ondichliberty88 says:

    Doesn’t Mandatory Pay Coverage sounds like part of a Health Care Plan Al Franken would campaign on.

  69. ondichliberty88 says:

    Mandatory Pay Coverage has never been supported by the GOP until this decade. John Konop stance on Health Care is no Different From George W. Bush stance on Civil Liberties. It’s nothing but Government.

  70. John Konop says:

    Jason,

    You avoid the truth that you are a socialist when it fits your needs. And you point fingers at others with righteous tone, when at the end you should look in the mirror.

    Face your hero Rand with her

  71. ondichliberty88 says:

    Come on John Neo-Con Konop quit the Ron Paul and Libertarian Bashing. Your starting to Sound like Bill O’Reily

  72. ondichliberty88 says:

    So what If I believe the Federal Government should not be involved in imposing more regulations on or discouraging Abortion entirely. The women’s right to choose should be between the women and her doctor. On Health Care I believe in a system based on the individual needs, not mandatory coverage policies. Why would single man need pre-natal coverage. most of the current coverage mandatories in a insurance policy waste the individual policy holder’s and insurer’s money. I am a true Independent, Not LP member or any third party that may have similar issue stances like Me.

  73. Jason Pye says:

    Once again you avoid the questions I’ve asked. Instead you focus on something that happened almost ten years ago and throw in a pointless hypothetical.

    Put up or shut up, Konop.

  74. John Konop says:

    Jason

    I did answer your question.

    The problem is clear people like you are too irresponsible to understand when you do not buy health coverage that you are using tax payers as an emergency plan. Also if you buy a policy without proper coverage tax payers are still on the hook.

    At the end we either make you pay or let you die if you do not have the money. I think like car insurance we must force you to be responsible person even if you cannot understand the concept.

    Is this a perfect situation? No it is not perfect, yet what else can we do with people like you who free load off the system and do not get it?

    As far as people who cannot afford it, they need preventive medicine which keeps them healthier and saves tax payers money. They also must contribute what they can afford.

    This could be private or public, yet it must happen.

  75. Jason Pye says:

    I think like car insurance we must force you to be responsible person even if you cannot understand the concept.

    As I’ve already pointed out, a mandate doesn’t not mean that someone will take coverage. Twenty-five percent of drivers in California don’t have coverage and they have a mandate to have car insurance. That kind of throws this whole idea out the window and it leads down the road to socialized medicine.

    At the end we either make you pay or let you die if you do not have the money.

    That is way over the top.

    Is this a perfect situation? No it is not perfect, yet what else can we do with people like you who free load off the system and do not get it?

    Here we go again…I paid my bill. I did not “freeload.”

    The problem is clear people like you are too irresponsible to understand when you do not buy health coverage that you are using tax payers as an emergency plan.

    Again, Konop…30% of the insured can’t pay their bills.

  76. John Konop says:

    Jason,

    Let me help you understand business. As more people pay nothing or do what you did and op-out for a while you drive up the price for everyone else. In the business world you would just loose the revenue you would not have to keep providing the service. The problem gets worse because people who do not pay or have bad insurance use the most expensive way to deliver healthcare ie emergency rooms and no preventive medicine at tax payers expense. This is a business model guaranteed not to work and punishes people who play by the rules.

    Also the fastest growing groups of free loaders are people like you who think you are taking the risk when at the end you were gambling with tax payer

  77. Jason Pye says:

    Let me help you understand business. As more people pay nothing or do what you did and op-out for a while you drive up the price for everyone else.

    Government intervention in the market, like what you want, is what drives up cost for everyone else.

    Health insurance is a commodity, it is not a right.

    You keep proofing my point why we need to force people like you to pay because you do not get that you are being irresponsible.

    You are such a fool, Konop. You keep going on about this. But Ive already proved to that health insurance does not mean an individual has the ability to pay.

  78. John Konop says:

    Jason,

    Nice talking points now let’s deal with facts!

    1) If people pay nothing and still get the service that is a double loss.

    2) Preventive medicine and not using the emergency room as primary care saves $1 vs, $10.

    3) If people cannot afford it they must pay something to off-set the cost.

    4) People like you do not understand that when you did not pay for heath coverage someone in your statistical pool did get an expensive illness and left tax payers with the bill. That is what I meant when I said you are gambling on tax payer

Comments are closed.