to put YogSosoth’s initial comment a bit differently: why do only religious people get to be married? why should non-religious people be restricted to “civil unions”?
What is the problem that deleting the word “marriage” from public discourse will solve? Throughout history people have entered into pair bonds and society and law evolved to recognize these bonds. As it developed, society understood these bonds to be called “marriage” and enacted laws providing for them.
But it set rules on who may enter into such a bond:
- Over a certain age
- Not already married
- Cannot marry a close relative
- (in most states and until recently, all) must be of the opposite sex
Now, last century Utah had a deal with #2 and ended up changing that. If we decide that #4 needs to be changed, why is there a need or even a suggestion to remove the word “marriage”?
Even if the government would do such a thing, people will still say that they are married, talk about getting married, say that so and so married so and so last weekend, and that those two people used to be married, but got a divorce (can we still use that word?)
Since people will be using the word in everyday discourse as they have for thousands of years, again, what is the point of the government pretending the word doesn’t exist?
About 67 years ago. An armed populace has been keeping them in check!
Elective first trimester abortions are in the $300-500 range. Medically necessitated, later term abortions (D&C for incomplete miscarriage, danger to mother’s health or life, severe fetal anomalies) carried out in a hospital can cost a lot more. Are insurance companies prohibited from covering those as well? If so this law has serious consequences for women who are trying to be mothers as well as those who are not.
Rape and incest makes for good soundbites, but health/life of mother and fetus account for ~10 times as many abortions as rape and incest (link).
I do not know a single religious right winger who would not be happy with a federal law against abortion. They are constantly talking about how horrible Roe v. Wade was, in the same way they talk about how horrible Engel v. Vitale was.
I mean, think about it. This law got passed because of religious right wingers. There’s no way free marketers or Democrats would have supported it, meaning the religious right is all that’s left.
Do you consider me a religious right winger?
And for that matter, I’m a Democrat, and I would like a federal law against abortion… if it had a snowball’s chance in Hell of actually working. But since it doesn’t, I favor measures like the ACA for reducing abortion, instead.
Re: I mean, think about it. This law got passed because of religious right wingers. There’s no way free marketers or Democrats would have supported it,
I’m a Democrat, and I would have supported the law, if I’d been a Michigan legislator. (To be more precise, I’m on the far left on economics and foreign-policy issues, and on the right on some of the cultural issues, including abortion, but in general, in spite of abortion, I have more in common with the Democrats than with the Republicans). A significant minority of Democrats are anti-abortion.
That said, while I’d like a constitutional amendment banning abortions (with a medical necessity exception), that isn’t on the table right now, and I think Democratic policies (particularly, an expanded welfare state, low cost child care, etc.) offer some hope of lowering the abortion rate.
Marley I strongly doubt that women favour the Democrats because of the abortion issue. Women are only very slightly more pro-choice than men (there isn’t much of a gender gap on the issue) and are actually a bit more likely to hold the extreme pro-choice position as well. Women Democrats are actually less likely to be pro-choice than men Democrats, so it’s more likely women lean (slightly) pro-choice because they are Democrats than the other way around. There are lots of other reasons women might favour the Democrats that seem more plausible to me.
Yes, but Hector_St_Clare, you support it as a way to reduce abortions. You’re clear about the intent of the law. That’s fine.
Hand-waving this small government nonsense is disingenuous subterfuge. The law was not made because of states rights or libertarianism, because it interferes in what a private insurance company can or cannot provide to customers.
And doesn’t ACA already take care of this by making it mandatory for insurers to offer policies without abortion coverage?
Medical insurance covers things that cost $500 or less so frequently that it’s pretty much routine.
Which is nothing at all similar to how medical insurance works, of course. One example is out-of-pocket annual maximums that are part of every plan I’ve ever seen. Another example is plans which have different deductibles for different types of services (ambulance transport vs. primary care, for example) which are also part of every health insurance plan I’ve ever seen. Another example is deductibles which are less than 500 dollars, which are not at all rare.
Is there such a term as “qualifying event” in terms of medical insurance? Medical insurance talks in terms of treatments and conditions, not events (the way other insurance does). The insurance company doesn’t ask how you came to be injured or sick or pregnant or deformed or asthmatic or whatever. They just verify the condition exists (sometimes), and the procedure or treatment is appropriate for the condition and covered by the insurance.
That’s why it’s more accurately called a “health plan”, since it’s mostly a pre-payment plan rather than insurance.
You’re paying for your routine medical costs monthly in advance. But this is not an essential policy interest that insurance companies should do this. Nor is it an imposition if a law prevents insurance companies from covering a routine medical cost.
Well, that certainly settles that!