# Liberals: Would You Support An Abortion Ban In Exchange For A UHC Bill and Immigration Reform **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276 "2010-03-21T22:45:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/61 "2010-03-22T00:59:05Z")
Health Net participates in both S-CHIP and Medicare in California. I don’t know if that’s what **Curtis** has, but I’m not inclined to pay attention on health care policy issues to someone who’s apparently never heard of S-CHIP. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/62 "2010-03-22T01:01:28Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > No it isn’t. If you take this literally it means that women and men should have equal rights in all areas including “abortion rights”. And when a man gets pregnant, I support his right to choose. A man’s right to choose does not extend to a woman’s uterus. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/63 "2010-03-22T01:02:37Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > If it’s clear they did not purchase health care plan not because they couldn’t afford it but because they didn’t choose to buy it than insurance companies should deal with them as they see fit. For instance someone who was poor and wanted health insurance but than developed a disease is different from a middle-class guy who could afford health insurance and only wants it now as he has developed a disease. In addition to Frank’s response… I don’t understand your comment. Have you changed your mind about a mandate for responsible people with sufficient financial means to buy insurance? Because that’s what the individual mandate boils down to. Irresponsible people with the means to buy insurance are permitted to pay a fine. It’s not like they’re going to jail. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/64 "2010-03-22T01:06:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No. Under no circumstances would I support a ban on abortion. Nor would I make a deal with the religious right for any reason, both because I find them disgusting in a multitude of ways, and because I don’t regard them as being remotely trustworthy or rational enough to be worth dealing with anyway. What about on unanimous bipartisan consensus issues (ie recognizing Japanese war crimes of comfort women)? > [@Frank](#): > > _sigh_ Certainly then, the insurance companies will not pay for their care. Just as certainly, you and I will. When they go to the emergency room, they _will_ receive necessary care. Their inability to pay for that care will be reflected in higher costs for you and me, at emergency room rates. If they’re wealthy enough they do not need to go to an emergency room unless they have a sudden heart attack or something. > [@Chronos](#): > > Apart from recommending that they be tied to a millstone and thrown into the sea, you mean? > > [Matthew 18:6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:6&version=KJV) > [Mark 9:42](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9:42&version=KJV) > [Luke 17:2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17:2&version=KJV) According to NIV it is “But if anyone _causes_ one of these little ones who believe in me to sin…” ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/65 "2010-03-22T01:08:58Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > In addition to Frank’s response… > > I don’t understand your comment. Have you changed your mind about a mandate for responsible people with sufficient financial means to buy insurance? Because that’s what the individual mandate boils down to. > > Irresponsible people with the means to buy insurance are permitted to pay a fine. It’s not like they’re going to jail. If people are wealthy enough to afford health insurance but don’t want it they should have the right not to have it. And the punishment doesn’t matter much-it sets a bad precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/66 "2010-03-22T01:11:39Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > What about on unanimous bipartisan consensus issues (ie recognizing Japanese war crimes of comfort women)? It’s hardly “making a deal” on my part if I’m not compromising with them on anything or giving them anything in return for something else. Where’s the “deal” in that scenario? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/67 "2010-03-22T01:14:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s hardly “making a deal” on my part if I’m not compromising with them on anything or giving them anything in return for something else. Where’s the “deal” in that scenario? Oh. Read and understood it wrong. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/68 "2010-03-22T01:18:45Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > If people are wealthy enough to afford health insurance but don’t want it they should have the right not to have it. And the punishment doesn’t matter much-it sets a bad precedent. They will continue to have a right not to have it. If they choose not to have it, they pay a tax fine. You may or may not like it, but the government already utilizes the tax code in all sorts of ways to encourage or discourage various behavior. So, there is no precedent being set: the practice has been in place for a long time now. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/69 "2010-03-22T01:25:10Z")
QUOTE=Curtis LeMay;12250337]If they’re wealthy enough they do not need to go to an emergency room unless they have a sudden heart attack or something. [/QUOTE] The simple fact that I can afford to purchase health insurance does not mean that I can afford to purchase health care. Checked out the cost of cancer treatment lately? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/70 "2010-03-22T01:33:17Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > They will continue to have a right not to have it. If they choose not to have it, they pay a tax fine. You may or may not like it, but the government already utilizes the tax code in all sorts of ways to encourage or discourage various behavior. So, there is no precedent being set: the practice has been in place for a long time now. You’re basically having people buy a certain product like it or not. > [@Frank](#): > > QUOTE=Curtis LeMay;12250337]If they’re wealthy enough they do not need to go to an emergency room unless they have a sudden heart attack or something. The simple fact that I can afford to purchase health insurance does not mean that I can afford to purchase health care. Checked out the cost of cancer treatment lately? [/QUOTE] That should be factored in also obviously. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/71 "2010-03-22T01:37:06Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > In response to a thread about how many religious conservatives object to a UHC bill because they believe it will fund abortions would you support a deal with religious conservatives to support an unilateral ban on abortion by constitutional amendment except if the mother’s life is threatened in exchange for a comprehensive universal health care bill and immigration reform? I have not read the entire thread so this may have already been offered by another poster. But since this is, at heart, a poll, I will give my answer. I would not support a unilateral ban on abortion, but I would consider a unilateral ban on federal funding of abortions. Since it’s the funding that those religious conservatives object to, that should be plenty. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/72 "2010-03-22T01:42:06Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re basically having people buy a certain product like it or not. That’s precisely what governments are for. I “buy” a share of the public road network, even though I don’t have a car. I “buy” the services of our military, even though I think we spend way too much on it, and shouldn’t be in the wars we’re in. I like having government-funded schools and police forces, but even if I didn’t, I couldn’t opt out of those, either. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/73 "2010-03-22T01:42:53Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > If people are wealthy enough to afford health insurance but don’t want it they should have the right not to have it. And the punishment doesn’t matter much-it sets a bad precedent. Ok. But that means that you must find it acceptable for insurance companies to deny coverage to the sick. (Equivalently, they can deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions). I’ll repeat my argument: > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > There is widespread support in the public for permitting those with pre-existing conditions - the sick - to buy health care. As Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who require a doctor, but the sick.” > > But if that happens, insurance companies will face customers who buy health insurance _only_ when they get sick. This is untenable. It is like a homeowner who buys fire insurance only when his home is engulfed in flames. Such a situation would destroy the insurance market – as citizens cancel their plans, insurance companies would raise their rates – which would cause more citizens to cancel their plans. The technical term for this is an adverse selection death spiral. > > What to do? Well here is where the individual mandate sets in. If Curtis LeMay opposes mandates -if he thinks it’s ok for freeloaders to pass over health insurance, but get medical care later- then he must also favor the status quo, where insurance companies turn down the sick. This of course is ungodly, or at least contradicts the gospels. Now personally, I don’t have a problem with modern conservatives who refuse to follow Christ’s teachings. Some of my best friends are Republicans. But Jesus of Nazarath came to earth as a healer – for the benefit of all of humanity. Those standing against Him deserve not punishment, but clear identification. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/74 "2010-03-22T01:42:55Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Lol. Holy christ, is it comedy hour in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/75 "2010-03-22T01:48:59Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > You’re basically having people buy a certain product like it or not. It’s incentivizing people towards purchasing a certain product, just as the tax code incentivizes people towards purchasing a house or away from purchasing cigarettes. There is nothing unique or new-fangled about what’s going on here. If you object to this particular use of the tax-code, that’s up to you, but it is not setting up any sort of precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/76 "2010-03-22T01:56:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That’s precisely what governments are for. I “buy” a share of the public road network, even though I don’t have a car. I “buy” the services of our military, even though I think we spend way too much on it, and shouldn’t be in the wars we’re in. I like having government-funded schools and police forces, but even if I didn’t, I couldn’t opt out of those, either. It’s a _private_ product/service. A health care plan is for yourself but a road network applies to all so does the military, schools, and police. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Ok. But that means that you must find it acceptable for insurance companies to deny coverage to the sick. (Equivalently, they can deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions). I’ll repeat my argument: Now personally, I don’t have a problem with modern conservatives who refuse to follow Christ’s teachings. Some of my best friends are Republicans. But Jesus of Nazarath came to earth as a healer – for the benefit of all of humanity. Those standing against Him deserve not punishment, but clear identification. If they wanted insurance before they developed such conditions or it was inborn but didn’t get it because they can’t afford it I support them being provided insurance but not does who were wealthy enough, didn’t buy health insurance, and developed conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/77 "2010-03-22T02:03:22Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > It’s a _private_ product/service. So that wouldn’t bother you as much if it were a government insurance program? Sometimes i don’t get you conservatives. OK, most of the time. OK, never. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/78 "2010-03-22T02:07:12Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > If they wanted insurance before they developed such conditions or it was inborn but didn’t get it because they can’t afford it I support them being provided insurance but not does who were wealthy enough, didn’t buy health insurance, and developed conditions. Do you have any idea what kind of bureaucratic nightmare this would create? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/79 "2010-03-22T02:07:12Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So that wouldn’t bother you as much if it were a government insurance program? > > Sometimes i don’t get you conservatives. OK, most of the time. OK, never. I meant private as in applying only to yourself and/or your family. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/80 "2010-03-22T02:16:42Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > I would not support a unilateral ban on abortion, but I would consider a unilateral ban on federal funding of abortions. Since it’s the funding that those religious conservatives object to, that should be plenty. I don’t think so. First, because they object to abortion being allowed at all; so eliminating one type of funding won’t make them happy. And second, because the result will be women hurt or killed because they’ll take it as an excuse to harass and sue any hospital or clinic taking federal funding that takes care of women. They’ll accuse them of engaging abortion on the sly; any woman having a miscarriage will risk a fundie lawsuit accusing whatever institution was taking care of her of abortion. They’ve done that sort of thing before, with the “Mexico City Policy”. So, the likely result will be that anyone with federal funding will try to find an excuse to not take care of pregnant women for any reason. Just like what happened with the Mexico City Policy. Ultimately, the war on abortion is a war on women, and the anti-abortionists will always choose the strategy likely to cause the most harm to women regardless of whether it stops abortions. A classic example would be the ban of so-called “partial-birth abortions”, which didn’t actually forbid abortions at all. What it did do was forbid the safest method of late term abortion, forcing doctors to use more dangerous techniques - and that was the whole point for the anti-abortionists. Not to stop abortions, but to hurt women as much as they could get away with. That’s all the vast majority of them really care about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276.md?page=5)