Home | About | Donate

Abortion Access – No Matter How Much Money You Make


Abortion Access – No Matter How Much Money You Make

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas

At least you can say that Rep. Henry Hyde was honest.

In 1997, the congressman from Illinois introduced what would forever become known as the Hyde Amendment, the federal law that withholds federal Medicaid coverage for abortion. He was completely open about his intentions:

“I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the Medicaid bill.”


I can understand how some can be anti-abortion, but I can't understand why they are also anti-contraception. That is unless their intention is to control women's bodies, like the Taliban do.


What is unjust and immoral is the denying the humanity of the unborn child and justifying the its death.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Slavery was banned in the 1800s.

Forcing someone to labour for others, without pay, at risk of their own lives, is far more immoral than aborting a fetus. The rights of people who are already alive outweigh the rights of a potential person.


“I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the Medicaid bill.”

"While women of all economic and racial backgrounds have abortions, those most harmed by these bans are low-income women and women of color"

And then, under the tutelage of the likes of Frank Luntz, the right wing think tanks send their message squads out into Online forums to extrapolate from these incursions into women's basic rights, the twisted narrative that Feminists don't care about the poor.

Similarly, when the Koch Brothers' fund think tanks that support the odious likes of Paul Ryan and other political whores only too willing to cut the safety net to those most in need in order to please their corporate donor-sponsors, these same forum plants push the LIE that "The middle class hates the poor."

Sometimes I feel like wearing swamp boots just to venture out into the deluge of false narratives.


They are soul mates.


Let us cut to the chase.

Human Rights , all of them be it access to medical care or abortions, to an education or to water or to the Justice system have been and are being privatized. As far as what "rights" you can expect, that hallowed :"free market" will determine all based on the ability to pay.

The more money you got, the more rights you will get.


One first needs a soul to be a soul mate.


Oh, they have souls. But like the fictional character of Voldemort they've debased their own souls so much that they might as well have none.


That gives me hope that those who are not currently viewed as persons will some day be recognized by the law as they should be.


In order to be a person, you need to be able to live without the support of another.

Fetus' will never make that point. Ever.

Anyone can care for a baby, or a disabled adult. Only one person can host a fetus.

Shall we compare apples and oranges now?


If you want to take on false narratives, start with your own. Myself and conservatives I know, do not hate the poor. Rather we do not see the solution to poverty being government programs that take resources from those who earn them (through taxes) to redistribute as they see fit. Our objections to this model are:

1) by allowing government to redistribute, you open the door for "buying" votes through promising benefits, rewarding favored political through government benefits, punishing unfavorable political activity by denying benefits. If you want to get money out of politics, reduce the ability of government *(politicians) to reward benefactors.

2) Providing benefits to those who can work but do not, encourages an ongoing cycle of poverty.

3) Taxes, by definitions, take money out of the economy, slowing it down.


As for false narratives and the subject at hand. We (conservatives) do not wish to control women's bodies. we recognize that human life start at conception (fertilization) and the the unborn child is human (biologically / genetically) and should be accorded all the rights and dignity of a human being. Abortion is an affront to that dignity and a violation of the baby's right to life.

As for the claim we love the child until birth (which I will assume will follow shortly), We support charities that both try to help mothers through pregnancy and support them after child birth to creat a good life for themselves and their children, or to assist in finding adoptive parents to care for the children. As I mentioned in my last post, we do not support large government programs for the reasons I mentioned.


I've didn't realize you had to be "able to live without the support of another" to be a person. I always thought if you were a human being you were a person, but you keep adding clauses to the definitions to make sure you are correct. I'm not sure how apples and oranges come into this.