Why don't anti-choice groups want children's health insurance?

Question

for details, see:

Anti-Abortion Democrats Criticize Group For Silence on Child Health Bill

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/10/antiabortion_democrats_critici.html

Answer 1

Many of them also are anti-birth control, and then they go and preach adoption but they never have and most likely never will adopt a child themselves.

They say how much the love life, but at the same time they have been known for murdering doctors that perform abortions and anyone who walks into an abortion clinic. Isn't that hypocritical?

Answer 2

Because political views are generally taken case-by-case rather than in a coherent system. In this case, abortions are seen as a moral issue and health care as an economic one. If you were to project a coherent strategy, you'd probably end up with some sort of Social Darwinism.

Answer 3

The cynic in me believes that the opposition to children's health care, abortion, and birth control really has nothing to do with morality. It actually has to wanting to keep a large segment of the population down so the people have few other choices in life aside from taking menial jobs or going off to fight wars. Notice how it's mainly poor people who are being targeted? This is so that they end up having more children than they can possibly afford and those children then grow up in poverty. Then they take the jobs that wealthier people won't do and they go off and fight the wars the rich people start but won't send their own family members to fight.

Answer 4

As I see it, everyone has a right to pick a "pet issue".

For example, let's say you have a neighbor who doggedly donates a huge portion of his salary to cystic fibrosis research, and also gives a great deal of his time to work for a cystic fibrosis charity. You do not have a right to go up to him and complain to him that he doesn't do the same for muscular dystrophy or cancer. Though by fighting against cancer AND muscular dystrophy AND cystic fibrosis, he would essentially be fighting for the same things...to save people's lives...he still has EVERY right to pick and choose certain issues to devote himself to, if he wants. It's HIS money and time and energy.

Ultimately, if a person fights doggedly for every single effort that saves people's lives, then they would be spread too thin to do any good. So, it makes more sense for people to pick only one or a handful of things to support wholeheartedly. And, in the case of PRO-LIFE (NOT anti-choice...they don't go around call you "anti-life", do they? Don't twist words; it's childish) groups, the same applies. They care very much about the lives of the unborn, and they have every right to do so. People who think they have any right to question someone else's passions are idiots. As I see it, the reasoning behind devoting a great deal of effort to save the lives of the unborn, but not so much to those already living, is because they see something especially tragic about a person who never even had a CHANCE at life, compared to those who did/do...

Also:

"Douglas Johnson, NRLC legislative director, says the group has remained neutral on the bill because the House and Senate refused to support an amendment that would codify a Bush administration policy that considers unborn children and their mothers to be eligible for the insurance program."

You've pretty much got a specific answer right there. First of all, it's not like they're OPPOSING it...they've remained neutral. Secondly, they've made it clear what their problem with it is...that it doesn't include unborn children and mothers. Since they are, after all, a group that fights against perceived injustices to unborn children, then it makes sense.

Also, if you still think this is hypocrisy then look towards what hypocrisy the democrats are showing. They constantly state that abortion should be a woman's choice and that no one should be able to interfere with what she does with her body, yet they are morbidly opposed to the idea that, in the near future, women may be able to abort fetuses based on traits of that particular fetus (i.e., it's the wrong gender, or it's gay, or it's deaf, etc.). As I see it, if you're going to support a woman's right to CHOOSE what happens to her own body, you've got to support it in ALL cases, not just those you think are okay.




Having said all that, I would like to point out that I am quite pro-choice. I just can't resist pointing out hypocrisy, whether it's on the other side or my own.

Answer 5

Read the article. Duh. You actually listed the source for the answer to your question.

It was because they also wanted unborn children and their mothers to be eligible for the insurance program also(they wanted above and beyond what it provided).

And to all the hateful reactions... learn to read. It's pretty embarrassing when the Real answer is quite the opposite of your knee-jerk response.

Answer 6

I don't know what is going on in your country; the rest of us are stymied. Suffice it to say that the US is the only developed western country not providing universal access to medical care to its peoples. Hell, there are plenty of non-western, underdeveloped authoritarian regimes who provide free access to medical care for their citizenry.

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure.
What's your country's excuse again???

Answer 7

I've said this lots of times- to them once you are born you are on your own.