chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 24, 2011 7:52:31 GMT -5
Kansas Rep. Pete DeGraaf: Being impregnated during a rape is just like getting a flat tire By Peter Rugg, Mon., May 23 2011 at 7:21 AM Rape is often called the ultimate violation of self. A crime of absolute contempt for personal integrity, leaving the women caught in its wreckage to labor under the trauma for years. What reprehensible event could possibly have the same consequences as the spiritual dead zone rape victims are left in? Well, getting a flat tire, according to Kansas state Rep. Pete DeGraaf. Last Friday, Kansas legislators approved a ban on insurance companies offering abortion coverage as part of their general health plans. The one exception: when a woman's life is at risk. DeGraaf, who is in his first term and who is an associate pastor, also called for banning coverage for abortions of rape pregnancies. (Women could get around this if they purchased separate, "abortion-only policies.") click the link for the rest of the article. blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/05/pete_degraaf_rape_flat_tire.php
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 24, 2011 7:54:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on May 24, 2011 8:09:39 GMT -5
I did not see the connection with the flat tire statement. He is saying one can purchase separate abortion insurance. Everyone buys insurance to protect against risk and catastrophe. Just lunatics twisting the story and his words.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 24, 2011 8:14:43 GMT -5
from the AP link: And Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
During the House's debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 24, 2011 8:17:51 GMT -5
Yep. We know tires don't last forever. Sooner or later, one will go flat. We also know we're going to die. What we don't know is whether or not we're going to be raped. I'm all for planning for the future based on real data. This, however, is ridiculous.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 24, 2011 8:18:45 GMT -5
Its a win for the pro-life crowd and insurers. Now they can sell abortion only policies. It is sad for some Kansas women because now they need to come up with more money in case they are a victim of a particular crime.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on May 24, 2011 8:24:31 GMT -5
And existing health plans will become less expensive, and someone who is in the late 50s, 60s and 70s, will not require abortion coverage.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on May 24, 2011 8:44:10 GMT -5
Right, like they pass the savings on to you and not their pocket.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 24, 2011 8:48:42 GMT -5
Insurance companies are not about to drop the cost of insurance for people over 50 because they won't be getting abortions. To believe they would do so is ... well, we'll leave it at that.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 24, 2011 8:51:41 GMT -5
Insurance companies are not about to drop the cost of insurance for people over 50 because they won't be getting abortions. To believe they would do so is ... well, we'll leave it at that. fixed.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 24, 2011 8:53:18 GMT -5
... What we don't know is whether or not we're going to be raped. I'm all for planning for the future based on real data. This, however, is ridiculous. However, half the population realizes, at least on some level, that the chances of them being raped are statistically unexisted. They also know that if they are raped, they have zero chance of being pregnant. And existing health plans will become less expensive, and someone who is in the late 50s, 60s and 70s, will not require abortion coverage. How about requiring that, for it to be covered, one has to buy a special separate policy for prostate cancer.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 24, 2011 8:58:07 GMT -5
Yep. Some of us know we won't get pregnant if we happen to get raped. We still pay the same price for our insurance, however. There's no discount given those who aren't going to get pregnant.
I really like the analogy of prostate cancer, billis. It's certainly out there. It's a possibility for anyone with a prostate gland, just as pregnancy due to rape is a possibility for anyone who can become pregnant. Yup. Fits to a tee. ;D
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 24, 2011 9:27:03 GMT -5
Not really.Covering abortions is cheaper than not covering them. So now republicans are in favor of telling insurance companies what and what not tocover?
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,396
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on May 24, 2011 9:35:24 GMT -5
That's such a stupid idea!!!! Unbelieveable that someone in government actually thinks you can "plan" for a rape.
I've never met anyone who "planned" to get cancer, or planned to get hit by a drunk driver, or planned to be robbed either!!
Vote this moron out of office!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 24, 2011 9:36:11 GMT -5
Not really.Covering abortions is cheaper than not covering them. So now republicans are in favor of telling insurance companies what and what not tocover? I have no clue what an abortion costs although I know a hospital birth is thousands of dollars. It still could be a win for insurers. It would be an interesting consequence if insurance rates went up instead of down. If it only goes up a little, only large companies may complain to the legislators.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on May 24, 2011 10:19:53 GMT -5
Ummm I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. That about sums it up for me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 10:34:40 GMT -5
I think, as in JMO, all the abortion legislature happening right now is in preparation for Obamacare-- if it happens-- when there will be tax payer subsidized insurance. People are trying to close the holes that will allow tax money to be spent on abortion. Same arguments as in that long abortion thread. It's no coincidence that all this abortion stuff is happening now. It is Obamacare looming. You guys wanted it, it was poorly written concerning abortion, now all this will happen as states try to protect themselves from what MAY be ahead. Unintended consequences-- it could turn out harder for the pro-choice crowd than BEFORE Obamacare.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on May 24, 2011 11:56:12 GMT -5
Allowing abortion for mothers health is a big loop hole. Many doctors will sign off that it would affect the mothers mental health and no one can prove different.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 24, 2011 12:03:11 GMT -5
Miscarraiges are a big loop hole.We will need to investigate every one for possible murder charges.
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on May 24, 2011 12:06:36 GMT -5
His stupidity obscures the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 12:09:19 GMT -5
Yeah, handy. AZ is one of 12 states that use Medicaid funds BEYOND Hyde, and allows mental health abortions. BIG taxpayer funded loophole.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 24, 2011 12:23:12 GMT -5
iI don't think it is about tax money,krickitt.I think it is more about abortion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 12:31:34 GMT -5
I disagree. All this abortion stuff has kicked in to high gear since Obamacare. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Unintended consequences, as I said.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,739
|
Post by Cookies Galore on May 24, 2011 12:40:36 GMT -5
I disagree. All this abortion stuff has kicked in to high gear since Obamacare. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Unintended consequences, as I said. Abortion has been at the forefront since the midterm elections. It has everything to do with politics.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 12:55:43 GMT -5
But the challenge is not Row v. Wade. It is tax payer funded abortions. IMO, Obamacare gave people that would like to challenge Roe v. Wade something to work with. So it seems to me.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 24, 2011 13:02:45 GMT -5
But the challenge is not Row v. Wade. It is tax payer funded abortions. IMO, Obamacare gave people that would like to challenge Roe v. Wade something to work with. So it seems to me. the challenge at the moment. IMHO, all of the smaller challenges have been an attempt to chip away at Roe v. Wade overall.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 13:05:29 GMT -5
I won't disagree with that, but Roe v. Wade is here to stay, I think. The people that wrote Obamacare didn't do the pro-choice crowd any good at all, that's for sure.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on May 24, 2011 13:09:32 GMT -5
I wonder what the collective cost to insurance companies is for abortions for rape victims.
I heard on the radio that 95% of elective, first term abortions are out-of-pocket, and cheap.
What we are really talking about here are second trimester abortions of fetuses with significant health problems. It would be cheaper for an insurance company to abort a severly disabled fetus than to cover that child for one year.
I don't see this as a savings issue at all - this is really a victory of morals for pro-lifers. Insurance companies could possibly lose, big-time. If women don't come up with the money to do the procedure out of pocket, the number of (for example) downs syndrome babies might jump. (Going off the dateline stat that more than 80% of women who discover they are pregnant with a DS baby opt to abort.) Nobody will argue that health costs are cheap for babies with cystic fybrosis or spina bifida or celebral palsy. These account for the vast majority of terminations that occur after the first trimester.
|
|
frep
Established Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 6:44:34 GMT -5
Posts: 386
|
Post by frep on May 24, 2011 13:22:02 GMT -5
Yep. We know tires don't last forever. Sooner or later, one will go flat. We also know we're going to die. What we don't know is whether or not we're going to be raped. I'm all for planning for the future based on real data. This, however, is ridiculous. I don't really agree with the idea. Yes we don't know whether or not someone is going to be raped. I don't know if I'll ever get cancer, or break a leg, but I have health insurance. I don't know if I'll ever get hit by another car but I have car insurance. Most people don't know if they'll ever be in a nursing home but many people have long-term care insurance. Almost any insurance is for the "unknown". Breaking out portions of health insurance into separate policies I don't see as completely irrational.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 13:25:39 GMT -5
As I posted many times on the long abortion thread, there are agencies out there that EXIST to pay for abortions for people that can't afford them. All donated money. That is the way to go if people cannot afford insurance that covers abortion and they get pregnant. All you have to do is google free abortions.
|
|