The
article that I read was about a Texas lawmaker who introduced legislation that
would nullify a controversial the Abortion Affiliate rule, banning from
Medicaid programs that offer abortion along with other health care services to
low- income women. Rep. Lon Burnam, a House Democrat is against for those who
want to have abortion as part of Women’s Health Care because it will put in
danger access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, diabetes testing , STD
testing and birth control services for 50,000 of the state’s poorest
women. Burnam is preventing Planned Parenthood from getting excluded from the
program because of women getting abortion, but Government Rick Perry and Attorney
General Greg Abbott strongly support the Abortion Affiliate Rule. However, the
abortion affiliate ban will be a reason for the state to lose federal dollars.
The president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Ken S. Lambrecht said, “ Women’s health
care providers in North Texas and across the State are already reeling from the
Texas Legislature’s drastic and politically motivated cuts to women’s health
care funding.”
I agree with Burnam. Women should not use health care providers who also provide abortion. Health care should be used only to protect the health of women who rely on the Women’s Health Program. It is true that everyone has the right to abort anytime and anywhere, but I think there also people who care about the human being inside the women’s belly and any public health program shouldn’t cover abortions of women who feel differently; since it’s their own decisions, It should come out of their own pockets. I also think providing women with health care for abortion is like paying someone to kill a life. In conclusion Women’s Health care should only be covering the necessary of women.
2 comments:
In Mildred’s last blog post he began to talk about a Texas lawmaker who introduced legislation that would nullify a controversial the Abortion Affiliate rule, banning from Medicaid programs that offer abortion and other health care services to low income women. Rep. Lon Burnam (a House Democrat) disagrees with anyone who wants to let abortion be a part of Women’s health Care for numerous valid reasons. It will in danger access to cervical and breast cancer screenings, STD testing, diabetes testing, and birth control services for 50,000 poor women in Texas. I recently posted a blog response of another colleague who wrote about an article dealing with similar issues. Abortion is a very sensitive topic to get into. It’s also interesting to see what other people’s opinion on abortion is and what they justify as right or wrong. Please watch this video. It is about a beautiful young woman who survived an abortion attempt. She was not intended to live. If you think about it, abortion is a sick and disgusting thing. It’s literally killing a baby. That baby could have been a doctor, lawyer, professor, the possibilities are endless. But how would we know what the baby had the potential of doing if the mother decides to kill it before she even holds him/her. Mildred had a similar response to the article. He mentioned that women should not use health care providers who also provide the health of women who rely on the Women’s Health Program. I could not agree more.
Mildred, in her blog post “Abortion Affiliates”, seems to have misunderstood Ft. Worth Representative Lon Burnam’s position on the women's healthcare debate raging in the Texas senate currently. Burnam, a democrat, purposed a bill that would nullify a previous piece of state legislation that currently prohibits health clinics that participate in Medicare (I.E. those in low income areas) from being eligible to offer abortions. He is being fought by Governor Rick Perry, Lt. Governor Greg Abbott, and the rest of Texas house republicans. Burnam believes, as Wendy Davis and the myriad of protesters around the state believe, that offering abortions as part of a healthcare plan is not only right from a political perspective but a medical one as well.
With that clarification out of the way, let me say that I personally disagree with Mildred and agree with rep. Burnam. Firstly, abortions are frequently done for strictly medical reasons, as the life the mother is at stake if she were to carry the pregnancy full term. In these instances, such women are not currently able to get insurance coverage for the potentially life saving procedure that they need. Secondly, it is not the job of healthcare providers to impose their own political or religious views on the patients they serve. They are paid to provide a service in the name of their company, and if they disagree with the policies their company adheres to, they might be better served seeking a different employer. Thirdly, many women in the areas affected by the abortion ban are in a lower income socioeconomic bracket, and while a pregnancy may not put their personal health at risk besides general fatigue and malnutrition, the addition of a helpless child to their lives may push them below the poverty line or worse. Generally speaking, the quality of life for both mother and child is far lower if the mother is unable to provide than it would be for just the mother herself.
Post a Comment