In the case of a 13 year old girl, I don't think she has to admit to anything. By definition, if she is pregnant, she has been raped, incest or not. It just gets more difficult after the age of consent. So the only option is to cover all abortions because the burden of proof is often too difficult to ascertain. I totally understand your argument. It's just in my personal opinion, I have a hard time justifying all cases. But if it must be done because it's the only way to cover legitimate reasons, then it's something that I'll just have to swallow.
However, I do understand why the provisions are in the bills. This reform is an extremely difficult thing to pass. The question is if it's worth not passing because not everything you like is in it. The country is split down the middle on abortion, so you will not be pleasing half the people if you go all the way to one side. My belief is that this bill should not have been one bill. It should have been a series of bills that were voted on individually. This all or nothing approach seems too risky and overreaching. If it doesn't pass, a lot of good things don't get implemented. If it does pass, some bad things will get implemented. They should have created a bill with all the things both sides of the aisle agree on and just passed that right away. Then they could have created additional bills to deal with the more controversial stuff like abortion, public option, and immigration that they could have argued about without affecting the core of the reform.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: ...and more about abortion
Date: 2009-11-22 08:26 pm (UTC)However, I do understand why the provisions are in the bills. This reform is an extremely difficult thing to pass. The question is if it's worth not passing because not everything you like is in it. The country is split down the middle on abortion, so you will not be pleasing half the people if you go all the way to one side. My belief is that this bill should not have been one bill. It should have been a series of bills that were voted on individually. This all or nothing approach seems too risky and overreaching. If it doesn't pass, a lot of good things don't get implemented. If it does pass, some bad things will get implemented. They should have created a bill with all the things both sides of the aisle agree on and just passed that right away. Then they could have created additional bills to deal with the more controversial stuff like abortion, public option, and immigration that they could have argued about without affecting the core of the reform.