If Bart Stupak's account of his conversations with democrat advocates of abortion coverage are correct, they (the people writing the bill), view abortion as a means of cost control. He's quoted in today's Wall Street Journal as saying he was told, "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing,".
I am opposed to abortion on demand, in all its forms. It's not a gray area for me. That said, there are those widely divergent views that run the gamut from "it's a woman's right to choose" to social engineering and eugenics where undesirables are removed from society. Abortion as cost control is eugenics, pure and simple. Any other reason for promoting abortion on demand is simply intellectual dishonesty.
There are many reasons for a woman to have an abortion. That discussion should be between her and her physician. The federal government and the abortion industry have no business being involved. NARAL and the like opened themselves up to opprobrium when they federalized the issue of abortion on demand.
The reason abortion is still so hotly debated 40 years later is that American society was, and still is, unprepared for the consequences of a decision by the US Supreme Court that the court was unqualified to make in the first place. There are no penumbras in the US Constitution, only those imagined by an activist judiciary.
I am opposed to this health care scam they're trying to ram through. It's bad enough they're going to enforce their mandate via the tax code. Abortion should have never been a federal issue, and I'm going to raise nine kinds of hell if this bill passes and they force me, as a taxpayer, to pay for abortion. It may still be safe and legal after health care reformm but I doubt very seriously that it will be rare.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, even for those who hold intellectually dishonest moral and political positions,