To get back to the subject, Health Insurance.

One of the big sticking points regarding the proposed health insurance bills is how to deal with (and I really hate to broach the subject) abortion.

I had an inspiration about 30 minutes ago that might be a good compromise. It isn't well thought out, but perhaps the Fool Moon participants could comment on it.

Suppose that covering abortions was not required to be covered by insurance at all--either private or government provided. Instead, the government would loan any woman wanting an abortion enough to cover it. The proviso would be that she could not get another such loan until it was paid back fully. (Maybe some exceptions for rape, etc.)

The objective, of course, is to not have all of us paying for what is--in some cases--simply using abortion as a birth-control method. One time might be 'an accident' and I don't think that making the consequences harsher on those without the ability to afford an abortion than on those to whom it would be just a minor expenditure would be just.

Your thoughts?

I was once the "Insurance clerk" at an OBGYN partnership of three doctors. The oldest MD was very much against 'abortion on demand,' the middle MD (the one who hired me) was more concerned with prostitute's health and brought returning patients into the clinic.

The third did abortions on demand. He was told by the senior doctor to counsel the patients, but he really didn't. He caved to whoever came into his office. To him, an abortion was an abortion was an abortion. His counselling was to the mothers of the pregnant girls rather than to the girls themselves.

That said, I can see, I think, what you're trying to get at. I'm not sure how the latest 'health care reform plan' deals with abortion rights--or doesn't deal with them. I can see, however, why you're trying to come up with a way to keep the government out of the 'abortion by right and on demand' situation.

Your solution is to allow a woman one abortion for which she has to 'borrow' money from the government. Her pregnancy can be due to any number of things. She will not get any more 'abortion' money until she's 'paid back' her government loan for the first. Am I correct so far?

I'm not sure, but I think this only addresses one reason for women seeking abortions. (Isn't that an ugly word?) I know that if my daughter's birth mother had chosen that route, we wouldn't have our beautiful and loving daughter.

But, I'm off track

Abortion is legal in America, and is a medical procedure, and so should have a place in any national health bill. The question of whether or not the abortion is being used as "birth ontrol" is difficult. People will probably wrestle with this question forever.

I'll answer it this way. As I said, abortion is legal. The objection to abortions, especially first trimester abortions, is mainly religious. Religious argument within a political framework violates the constitution. Therefore, abortion coverage should be part of the health package of those women who accept goverment insurance.

The argument that people don't want their tax dollars used to support something that they oppose is specious and ridiculous. Our tax money is always used to support some things we don't like. I hate Dick Cheney, yet my tax money is still going for his secret service protection and so on. Do I want to pay people to protect Dick Cheney? Certainly not. But it's legal and it's done.

Pro life voters have the choice of voting for a candidate who supports their views. See? Choice again.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele found out recently--from a reporter--that RNC employees Cigna coverage included elective abortions and had since 1991. I wonder how many bills having to do with abortion have been blocked by the Republicans in the interim?

Needless to say a much "chagrinned" Steele has ordered the immediate removal of that portion of the coverage.

Lizbeth and Dax:

I think the key words in your two posts are "legal" and "elective".

Dax's position is that abortion is legal in the US and should therefor be covered by insurance. Lizbeth refers to some insurances already covering elective abortions.

IMHO, no "elective" procedure should be a required coverage; whether in government or private insurance plans. My daughter would like to have liposuction on her thighs and under her chin so that she would "look better". I don't see why everybody should pay for something that is not required to provide health simply because the procedure is legal.

There might be some situations where a procedure needed for maintaining mental health should be covered. Plastic surgery for the severely disfigured, abortions for the victims of rape, bone shortening to cure a severe limp, or repair of a cleft palate, for instance.

Of course trying to define the line between an elective procedure and a medically needed procedure would be a challenge. What differentiates repair of a broken nose from straightening a congenitally ugly nose? Should insurance cover surgery to shorten my 1" longer leg (a fact) when it isn't noticeable and doesn't interfere with mobility? What if it is affecting my spine and causing neurological pain? Should plastic surgery needed for a model in order to meet the requirements of the job be covered? Is there some fundamental difference between repairing the results of an accident and making one's appearance "better" (e.g., Michael Jackson)? What about a pregnant 13 year old runaway or essentially orphaned prostitute?

If we don't cover abortions resulting from "accidents" that are the result of engaging in a potentially dangerous activity should we then not cover injuries incurred from motorcycle riding or not wearing a seat belt?

There are a lot of really gray areas here.

I don't see where these decisions have anything to do with religion.