|
Begging The Question
|
||||
|
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
I'm about to post a thought that occurred to me about the House health care bill, and more specifically the Stupak amendment that secured its passage. I'm not going to weigh in on abortion as a practice. Honestly I doubt it's even in my top 10 issues I care about when it comes to politics, and I think the bill is horrible regardless of how it's dealt with. However, many liberal blogs are unsurprisingly outraged about it. Over at the Tapped blog there are many posts railing about the amendment, and there is a great deal of effort to refer to the issue as "reproductive health". After all, if it's got health in the name, it must have to be included in a health care bill.
But the question I have has to do more with the basic nature of insurance itself, at least as we currently know it. Insurance does not cover elective procedures. If it's not medically necessary, insurance doesn't pay for it. My Lasik surgery payments are proof of that. Abortion, except in obvious exceptions, is essentially an elective procedure. It's right there in the name of the supporters, Pro-CHOICE. In most cases, it's a choice made by the woman or couple based on lifestyle choice, not on medical health. So why should insurance cover this particular elective procedure and not others? |
Recent Posts Milbarge's links
How Appealing
Volokh Conspiracy Crescat Sententia Sugar, Mr. Poon? SCOTUSblog E. McPan Southern Appeal Stay of Execution S.W. Va. Law Blog CrimLaw Sentencing L&P Begging to Differ Prettier Than Napoleon Favorable Dicta The Yin Blog De Novo PG: HtSoM Centinel Hot Librarian Blonde Justice Althouse PrawfsBlawg Concurring Opinions Crime & Federalism Orin Kerr Is That Legal? Prof. Bainbridge Frolics & Detours AppellateLaw&Practice Right Coast Abstract Appeal Clearly Erroneous Fresh Pepper? Side Salad The Wishbone Jeremy Blachman Overheard/Office Naked Drinking Coffee Legally Blonde Legal Underground WSJ Law Blog The Slog Trivial Pusuits Still Angry Crooked Timber The Conglomerate Heldman: Ignatz Don't Let's Start Screaming Bean Heidi Bond Stag Blog Legal Quandary Divine Angst ObsessiveLawStudent Things Thrown The Imbroglio Signifying Nothing Stuart Buck Legal Fiction Under. Robes NRO's Corner New Republic Balkinization Election Law Blog Legal Theory Blog Legal Ethics Forum Ernie the Attorney Intel Dump Disability Law Bag & Baggage Between Lawyers Becker-Posner Lessig Blog Crim Prof Blog White Collar Crime Tax Prof Blog Grits for Breakfast All Deliberate Speed Adventures of Chester College Basketball Blog College Football News Nomination Nation Inter Alia Stateline The Note Wonkette The Onion Slate Atlantic RJYH: Fanopticon Freakonomics Vice Squad Indiana Law Blog Field of Schemes Questionable Content Dilbert Blog Toothpaste for Dinner Pathetic Geek Stories AIM: milbargebtq Yahoo: btqmilbarge Milbarge Recommends ![]() Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas
Site Feeds
Search
Disclaimer The views presented here are personal and in no way reflect the view of my employer. In addition, while legal issues are discussed here from time to time, what you read at BTQ is not legal advice. I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. If you need legal advice, then go see another lawyer. Furthermore, I reserve (and exercise) the right to edit or delete comments without provocation or warning. And just so we're clear, the third-party comments on this blog do not represent my views, nor does the existence of a comments section imply that said comments are endorsed by me. Technical Stuff
| |||