Jivin J’s Life Links 9-30-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- A Kansas law restricting insurance coverage of elective abortion will stand while a court challenge takes place:
Ruling in Wichita, U.S. Senior District Judge Wesley Brown found that the ACLU failed to prove that the Legislature’s primary motive was to create obstacles for women seeking an abortion.
The law bans private insurers from providing elective abortion coverage in Kansas unless the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life. The bill allows coverage for abortion, but women have to buy a separate rider at additional cost.
“On its face, the act does nothing to directly prohibit or restrict a woman from obtaining an abortion,” Brown wrote in his 19-page opinion.
- Scott Klusendorf shares his thoughts on Ray Comfort’s 180 film.
- A Planned Parenthood in Flagstaff (pictured left) is warning of future back alley abortions since women from the area seeking abortions are now referred to a Phoenix Planned Parenthood because Arizona’s law no longer lets nurse practitioners do abortions. The reality that PP can’t find an abortionist with a medical license willing to go to Flagstaff is somehow everyone else’s fault:
[Beth] Otterstein, the nurse practitioner in PP’s Flagstaff clinic, said her 30 years of experience suggests that women won’t stop having abortions but may opt for unsafe procedures, including late-term abortions caused by saving for travel expenses.
“I’m very sure we’re going to see illegal abortions crop up, which can be very serious because they can lead to deaths,” she said.
Yes, because we’ve never heard this scare tactic before. Oh wait… parental consent, waiting periods, etc.
- We know not much work is happening at the women’s studies department at Purdue. Here’s how one employee responded to the Genocide Awareness Project being on campus:
Laurie Graham, assistant director of women’s studies, said someone emailed her and told her about the protest. When she saw it herself on the way home for lunch, she was horrified.She returned with a sign supporting the right to choose. She and a colleague spent the afternoon receiving high-fives from passing students and gathering signatures of support.
“It’s not genocide; it’s not the Holocaust; it’s not racial lynching,” Graham said, referring to the graphic images. “I’m so offended by the whole thing. I thought I’ve just got to do something.”
[Photo via Cronkite News]

“The law bans private insurers from providing elective abortion coverage in Kansas unless the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life. The bill allows coverage for abortion, but women have to buy a separate rider at additional cost.”
A law banning private insurers from covering certain medical procedures as they see fit, passed by a Republican-controlled legislature full of people who probably give regular lip service to “free market principles” and economic deregulation to their constituents. Very nice.
Joan, I assume you’re in favor of the new regulations requiring private insurers to treat pregnancy as disease and provide contraception? Doesn’t that also violate free market principles?
Am I a Republican lawmaker?
What does that have to do with anything, joan? Why are you in favor of free market principles being violated if Democrats do it, but not if Republicans do it?
I was highlighting Republican hypocrisy, not making a statement about free market principles.
If Pc’ers are so concerned about poor women not being able to afford abortions, why can’t they get together and pay for them? There’s plenty of wealthy PC’ers, including most of Hollywood’s A-list. Also, why can’t abortionists — uh, I mean “abortion doctors” — donate their time or reduce their rates? The nurses and doctors who work at crisis pregnancy centers in many cases do so for free.
Here’s the ultimate hypocrisy, Joan. And stay focused here, please: YOU CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE BY KILLING YOUR BABY.
AND PS, to all you Democrats out there who are so ANNNNGRRRY about the injustices in the world but willing to spread your Gospel of hate and intolerance towards the unborn, tattoo the word “HYPOCRITE” right on your foreheads so that you’ll know each other by sight.
@Phillymiss–I’ll bet that coven they call The View (minus Elizabeth H) could pay for A LOT of abortions.
I don’t get how free market enterprise is being violated given that there is a way to get abortion coverage via an additional rider. What’s to stop private insurers from offering the rider to its customers? Doesn’t look like hypocrisy to me.
Why should insurance companies be forced to require their customers to purchase a rider for abortion coverage? It’s a burdensome and unnecessary regulation on both the companies and their customers.
Because the rest of us do not want to subsidize other people’s abortions. My boyfriend paid for mine; I paid for my oral contraceptives. It is called taking responsibility.
Abortion is not a “normal” medical procedure; it will never be acceptable to vast numbers of insurance consumers.
You folks are all about “choice”; don’t try to redefine “choice” as “duty” – it is bad enough that you have convinced so many that “choice’ is a synonym for “abortion”.
I have had to shop diligently to make sure my insurance company does not pay for abortions.
Because, Joan (stay with me here), abortion is not HEALTH CARE.
“Abortion is not a “normal” medical procedure; it will never be acceptable to vast numbers of insurance consumers.”
In that case, they can find a different insurance provider. That’s how the free market works, right? If you don’t like the services one seller offers, you can purchase from a different one. Instead, the “solution” here appears to be using the hand of government to force sellers in that particular market not to offer a particular service, or if they do, to require the purchase of an additional rider for it.
“Because, Joan (stay with me here), abortion is not HEALTH CARE.”
Apparently the health insurance carriers offering abortion coverage disagree.
Similarly, Joan, if a consumer wishes to purchase abortion coverage, they can do so. And if an abortion meets the definition of “health care” under the Kansas law (to save the life of the mother) then it is covered. Yay free market enterprise!
Why don’t you move to Kansas start an organization that offers to pay for an abortion for anyone who wants one? Given all the abortion devotees out there, I don’t think you’ll have any shortage of donors.
I sure wish Catholics and Catholic employers had the ability to purchase insurance that doesn’t mandate free contraception coverage, but if Obama et al get their way that won’t be an option. What’s that about free market enterprise, again?
Then, Joan, they have mis-defined their terms. They, and you, are wrong. Any words you express here contrary to the truth that abortion is killing and the vitriol with which you spew it, cannot make them any other than wrong. Call the sky green all you want; at the end of the day, it is never green.
Same goes with “choice” and fetus. We still know you’re talking about a mom killing her baby.
“Similarly, Joan, if a consumer wishes to purchase abortion coverage, they can do so. And if an abortion meets the definition of “health care” under the Kansas law (to save the life of the mother) then it is covered. Yay free market enterprise!”
Then with that logic, any government regulation on a product or service that falls short of completely banning it is entirely within the boundaries of free market enterprise. Instituting artificial price controls on gasoline would be fine, because as long as you’re willing to pay $15 a gallon, you can buy as much as you want. I think the takeaway from this discussion is that for many conservatives, certain arbitrary regulations on free market transactions (specifically the ones that dovetail nicely with their religious and moral beliefs) are swell, but others are socialist and horrible and wrong, and they will decide which is which on a case-by-case basis. Not exactly a sterling display of ideological consistency.
Buying gasoline is health care now? Wow, joan, is there anything you DON’T think is health care?
It’s an analogy. You know what those are, right?
It’s a very flawed analogy, joan, given that health care is a completely separate field, with completely separate issues, than transportation.
Question: do you also believe that insurance companies should be mandated to pay for cosmetic plastic surgery?
Because that nose job could make me A LOT happier, and I could stop taking the meds.
Tut! Aren’t those pesky activist judges annoying. Bringing their personal prejudices to bear.
This clown should be removed from the bench.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure which has a positive health outcome for the women who use it and should be as freely insurable as any other such procedure.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure which has a positive health outcome for the women who use it and should be as freely insurable as any other such procedure.
“Positive health outcome” can be (and is) disputed, especially given recent scientific studies that reveal that post-abortive women have higher suicide rates, drug use rates, etc.
However, this “legal medical procedure” has a nearly 100% lethal outcome for all the unborn children who are subjected to it.
It seems to me that your above definition would also apply to cosmetic plastic surgery. Should that have mandated coverage too?
“It’s a very flawed analogy, joan, given that health care is a completely separate field, with completely separate issues, than transportation.”
None of those separate issues are relevant to the distinction you’re trying to draw between them in order to discredit my analogy. Remember, the analogy I’m drawing is only in regards to arbitrary government intervention in a free market setting. If you want to attack that analogy, you’re going to need to do so in a way that is directly responsive to that commonality.
“Question: do you also believe that insurance companies should be mandated to pay for cosmetic plastic surgery?”
I’m not making the argument that insurance companies should be mandated to pay for anything. The provision at hand is specifically dictating to them what they cannot cover, or what they must charge extra to cover.
I’m not making the argument that insurance companies should be mandated to pay for anything. The provision at hand is specifically dictating to them what they cannot cover, or what they must charge extra to cover.
Actually, yes, you are. You’re saying that the state cannot tell an insurance company which elective surgeries can and cannot be covered under primary insurance. You’re saying that they HAVE to pay for abortions as a medical procedure when the abortions that are not covered are purely elective in nature and not medically necessary. You really believe that insurance companies should be forced to cover elective surgical procedures?
Regarding gasoline, there’d first have to be a distinction between mandatory gasoline and elective gasoline for your analogy to work.
Abortion, this time YOU, REALITY, is NOT health care. It stops a human beating heart. It’s a legalized killing. That’s like calling the Holocaust a “cleansing.”
The REALITY: look at what abortion does. LOOK AT IT. If you are NOT horrified, tahen you haven’t been paying attention.
“Actually, yes, you are. You’re saying that the state cannot tell an insurance company which elective surgeries can and cannot be covered under primary insurance.”
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that it is incompatible with the free market principles espoused by conservative Republicans (who control both the state legislature and the governor’s mansion in Kansas) to do that. I’ve made this clear from my first post in this thread.
“You’re saying that they HAVE to pay for abortions as a medical procedure when the abortions that are not covered are purely elective in nature and not medically necessary.”
No I’m not. I haven’t once said that insurance companies have to pay for anything. How much more clear do I have to make myself? I’m referring only to the actions of the state of Kansas as it relates to arbitrarily interfering in the insurance marketplace.
“recent scientific studies that reveal that post-abortive women have higher suicide rates, drug use rates, etc.” – they found an association, not a cause. Some may have been suicidal or drug-users before their abortion, no link has yet been shown.
“You’re saying that they HAVE to pay for abortions as a medical procedure” – no, she didn’t. joan said that the insurance companies shouldn’t be told that they can’t.
“Abortion, this time YOU, REALITY” – wanna put that in comprehensible language.
Yes. I’m calling you out for your wickedness.
Are you? ‘wickedness’, how cute.
But what does “Abortion, this time YOU, REALITY” mean? I find it incomprehensible.
I seek to be cute. Thanks, Reality.
However, my ability to tell wickedness from goodness is not what makes me cute; rather it’s discernment, a gift of the Holy Spirit. Have you two met?
Oops, I said “Holy Spirit” Yes I did!
I am calling you out, like I did Joan. But it was your turn. YOU, Reality. THIS TIME.
Calling me out? On what? How?
Discernment of wickedness from goodness – ha ha, I think you mean subjective interpretation.
How can I possibly meet that which doesn’t exist?
I don’t think it was an ‘oops’. It was intentional, be honest :-)
I prefer the spirit of the grape myself.
Reality–I like a glass myself every now and then as well.
Don’t be wicked. Seek Him out–he’s there, and He loves you. I promise.
I have sought ‘him’ out. I even thought I’d found ‘him’ at one stage. Then I realised that I was wrong about that. Logic, reason, weight of evidence; all that stuff.
You can promise no such thing. You can merely wish it and believe it for yourself.
Oh, and I’m not wicked.
I’ll catch you all later.
I’m off for a few days of dispensing a little ‘social justice’.
Stay hale and hearty!
It seems reasonable that elective surgeries need not be covered by insurance.
There are some ‘elective surgeries’ hippie which are not life threatening but have a huge impact on peoples’ quality of life