WICHITA, Kan. - As reported here in the Kansas Free Press by Kari Rinker, Rep.Pete DeGraaf, (R-Mulvane) made the shocking comment that women better pony up and take out special rape coverage from their insurance providers. Or, just like the careless motorist who has a flat on the side of the road without a spare, women will regret their lack of planning ahead. Unless of course, they have a burning desire to give birth to the rapist's child which DeGraaf apparently heartedly endorses for women, especially his wife and daughter. What a guy!
Of course, the reason women are going to need to buy a "spare" to their original insurance coverage is all due to DeGraaf and his esteem colleagues who want to prohibit insurance companies from covering the cost of abortions in their regular healthcare coverage - even when those pregnancies are the result of rape .
As an associate pastor and Christian financial counselor one might assume that Rep. Pete DeGraaf would exhibit compassion for any woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, especially as a result of rape. Surely this financial planner for God would understand the financial difficulties and instability an unplanned pregnancy and violent assault would have upon a woman's life and see the wisdom of insurance coverage that would include rape.
DeGraaf of course, did not see the wisdom and his stupid statement makes perfect sense.
Yes, DeGraaf's callous analogy of a spare tire to a woman's potential rape, clearly illustrates what happens when religion and politics mix. Make no mistake about it, DeGraaf's religious beliefs (dare I say very stupid beliefs) are the driving force behind his actions and deeds against women and their reproductive freedoms. If you haven't noticed, more and more Kansas legislators are justifying their political positions based upon religion - not upon facts, not reality, nor common sense but religious bias they uphold as truth for everyone.
The mainstream press is never going to mention this truth since religion is the sacred cow in American society and everyone is afraid to speak up and break the silence. Let it be said here: No free woman should tolerate misogynist, stupid, and cruel religious beliefs no matter how accepted the institution of religion is in American culture.
DeGraaf and other conservative Christians want women pregnant, vulnerable, poor and dependent upon their patriarchal daddies. The more the religious daddies can push women into motherhood, the more power they have over women's futures and lives. Conservative, evangelical men like DeGraaf view feminism as evil because they believe that men must control the home and world. And, a woman's first duty is to have babies, lots of babies, for the good of their men and God.
DeGraaf 's beliefs are grounded in the mythical Christian utopia where men are lords and the women are only valued for the sons they produce. Christianity began with a rocky start thanks to an uppity, feminist, trouble maker. You remember that bad girl Eve, and how the male God destroyed her independent spirit and drive to seek out knowledge for herself. God was unhappy that Eve was figuring out a thing or two and doomed Eve to a life of continuous birthing and subservience to the sniveling Adam who became her master and overlord. "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
And that dear reader sums up perfectly the "family values, God Bless America, conservative Republicans" that Kansans elect to public office year after year - conservatives like Peter DeGraaf. The Cro-Magnon Man looks positively modern in his outlook and wisdom compared to DeGraaf.
So ladies, you are going to need that extra policy in your back pocket because if there is one thing we have learned this year from conservative Kansas legislators, it's how vulnerable women truly are in this state. Making women second class citizen in the name of the Lord is their brilliant strategy and in Kansas, it's working.
DeGraff didn't refer to special 'rape coverage'. He was talking about insurance for abortion in the event of an unintended pregnancy. Rape is a tiny portion of the causes of unintended pregnancies and by pretending he was only talking about rape, you've distorted the issue.
Actually, rape is not a "tiny portion". Please show me your statistics.
I have had an abortion. (Read more here)
If men don't want their "women" to have an abortion, then they don't need it. Don't tell me what to do with my body and I won't yours.
If you have cancer my religious beliefs may say that "God" wants you dead. Should I be able to say that your insurance company cannot pay for your cancer payment? I mean you would be going against god's will. Please see below for more comments.
Abortion on demand is legal in this country, and rightly so because we bill this as a "free" country. Until the majority of women of this country stop buying into the BS religious argument that there is somehow something WRONG with NOT bringing unwanted or unsupportable children into this world, we will continue to have the same BS laws passed and have to deal with the same BS arguments that we live with in this backwards political climate we call Kansas.
Because there is no way that any male of the species can ever possibly understand the singular responsibility that it is to carry and nuture a fetus to the birth state, they cannot understand what it means to abort one either and therefore have absolutely no right whatsoever to judge or interfere with a woman's RIGHT to choose. So I would argue that no man has the right to introduce or vote on any law that limits a woman's access to abortion.
Religious belief is separate from law--no law should ever be based on a religious belief. I am not interfering with anyone's religious beliefs by passing a law that they object to for religious reasons because they are still free to believe and practice THEMSELVES while not forcing their beliefs on others. And until the majority of citizens of this state get THAT through their heads, we will continue to live in an oppressive climate with regressive policies.
"So I would argue that no man has the right to introduce or vote on any law that limits a woman's access to abortion."
That's a VERY slippery slope. Denying individuals the right to participate in the democratic process because they lack certain personal experiences? So only gun owners should be allowed to decide 2nd amendment issues? Surely you see the potential problems that could be created by applying your logic to all legal questions.
FYI - my statistics in response to comment #2 are being held in moderation because the post included links to the sources.
Schlyer, there are no comments being held back in the "to be moderated" list(or moderation queue). If you have statistics to add to these comments, with links, please feel free to add them.
1.2 Million terminated pregnancies
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html
90,000 rapes per year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
Assume a high number of conceptions - say 50% from rapes, and you get 45,000 rape related pregnancies - which works out to 3.75% - a tiny percentage.
For many, a normal, healthy birth is a happy ending to a pregnancy that had a tragic beginning. The rape victim who goes all the way through her pregnancy and gives birth is showing strength of character and unselfishness that most people cannot begin comprehend. Such an individual gives hope – hope for the married couples that are unable to conceive and are desperately trying rescue through adoption. The abortion culture will never be persuaded through politics, the judiciary, or religious virtue. Hearts must be changed, because within the individual’s heart lie the untapped compassion needed to put an end to the madness of abortion.
Editors Note: Parts of some of these comments and some actual whole comments have been deleted or edited on this page. While the topics of reproductive rights and women's rights can bring on some emotionally-based remarks, this site honors every writer's desire to write with passion, emotion and concern. Therefore, no comments have been edited or deleted here simply due to the opinions of the writer or the emotionality of the language.
However, the comments that were indeed changed were edited due to the "ad hominems" included. In other words, whenever disparaging or attacking remarks are made about another writer (or commenter), these are disallowed by policy.
As stated, we honor the passion of all writers and commenters but encourage everyone to focus their passions and words on the issues - and not on one another. Though it can be challenging, we encourage everyone to refrain from remarking directly about one another's character.
For more information about our policies prohibiting "attacks against others" please read these sections of our FAQ page here:
What kind of comments or commenters will get barred?
You have a "no jerks" rule - but, what does that really mean?
Thank you to everyone for this lively give and take debate (sans the ad hominems)!
I have three comments to make: First, It is pure propoganda every time an anti-abortion person talks about "abortion on demand". No such thing exists. Even in the first trimester women in most states have waiting periods, parental notification requirements and viewing a sonogram before they can obtain their fundamental right to an abortion, but no woman in America can just walk into a clinic and be served up an abortion on demand. Please stop stating such an inaccurate and clearly bogus phrase that is used to rally those who do not know the difference but it is a huge lie that is used again and again as if it is fact. By the second semester, their are even further restrictions and of course, by the third trimester it is illegal to obtain an abortion unless it is to save the life of a mother and/or severly deformed fetuses that doctors must weigh the risks to continue the pregnancy further. Those are the facts. You may not agree with any of these stages set up by Roe, but the state most certainly intervenes. Therefore "abortion on demand" is just a lie. Second, women are not baby machines. It is not a woman's duty to give birth so that another couple can benefit from her tragedy-unless of course, she makes the choice to do so. And, that is what choice is all about; every woman and every pregnancy is unique and therefore every woman must make her choice about what she is most physically and mentally prepared to accept. How arrogant for anyone to assume that "hearts need to be changed" and that every abortion is an act of madness. It is madness and irrational for anyone to believe they have a right to interfer with a woman's health and force women into giving birth. That's what totalitarian state's or in our case religious fanatics think is just fine. And third, yes I have a right to critically access and point out anything in religion that is cruel and without merit. I realize that people who embrace their faith without questioning are offended, but I'm totally offended every day by religious teachings that I consider false and ridiculous. However, in America you can believe what you wish and have the freedom to do so. My issue is when someone uses their faith to make public policy based upon their faith. Once that line is crossed, I have every right to call an official out on their beliefs and challenge that faith because they have brought it into my business by mandating laws I must follow due to their beliefs.
Ms. Editor: I’m sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that my above comment was laced with a personal “ad hominem” attack. There was no such thing, and I was careful not to do so. And now with another writer engaging in a rebuttal against my comment that has been two thirds removed, other readers will be left with an incomplete thought. One has to wonder whether or not the person behind the delete button is hiding behind your ad hominem policy because they vehemently disagree with the textual content. For the sake of consistency, may I recommend that you consider reinstating my comment back to its original form? Regards, Jonathan.
First of all, I wasn’t the one using the term “abortion on demand” in my above edited comment, so are you sure you’re talkin’ to me? But since you’re accusing me of engaging in some propaganda, allow me to try and educate you. Legally, America is an abortion-on-demand country. It has been so since the Supreme Court decreed it in 1973. Many people do not like this and have worked to change the law, but the brute fact remains – within the first 6 months pregnancy, a woman can have an abortion for “no” reason, but in the last 3 months she can have it for “any” reason, with no further cost prohibitive restrictions. This is abortion-on-demand, yet unfettered abortion is not enough for many advocates of “choice.” Anyone who believes that abortion-on-demand does not exist in this country truly is being a little more than naive.
Call me arrogant if you want for trying to peacefully change hearts on the abortion issue, but it’s a whole lot better than vandalizing abortion clinics, don’t cha think?
Observation and question: With abortion still safe and legal in this country, and after reading your above article and comment, you sound angry and bitter – why?
There have been so many comments I was simply addressing points from various comments and not just your comments alone. However, I will address a few of your recent points: Name calling is not approrpriate but it is what anti-abortion people usually resort to and this time the name calling is that I sound "bitter". Sorry,that tactic won't work either. I understand it's meant to incite a response from me. The real issue is the war on women and especially the efforts by conservative,religious fanatics to make access to abortion as difficult as possible. Roe may still be the law of the land but just barely. As for "educating" me, I'm afraid you would have received a failing grade in my class for your inaccurate understanding of Roe. Abortion on demand is a phrase meant to incite your base of believers. Your comment that women can obtain an abortion for "no reason" is a subjective statement that again shows a lack of knowledge since women always have a reason for an abortion. You just don't agree with the law that allows women to have the freedom to reason why they should or should not seek an abortion.
Pamela - is your ad hominem rule only for the comments? These entire 2 paragraphs in the main article are entirely ad hominem attacks. They still stand, but when I comment about them, it gets removed?
She's injecting religion into the argument by misrepresenting statements about Christians in general and by speculating on DeGraaf's personal beliefs. Raising that issue is not an ad hominem attack.
"DeGraaf and other conservative Christians want women pregnant, vulnerable, poor and dependent upon their patriarchal daddies. The more the religious daddies can push women into motherhood, the more power they have over women's futures and lives. Conservative, evangelical men like DeGraaf view feminism as evil because they believe that men must control the home and world. And, a woman's first duty is to have babies, lots of babies, for the good of their men and God."
"DeGraaf 's beliefs are grounded in the mythical Christian utopia where men are lords and the women are only valued for the sons they produce. Christianity began with a rocky start thanks to an uppity, feminist, trouble maker. You remember that bad girl Eve, and how the male God destroyed her independent spirit and drive to seek out knowledge for herself. God was unhappy that Eve was figuring out a thing or two and doomed Eve to a life of continuous birthing and subservience to the sniveling Adam who became her master and overlord. "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
I will not name any contributors, but this issue is highly sensitive and personal, and many times we are prone to go overboard in the discussion. I take no offense to anyone or their comments on this issue. I appreciate our editor and monitor. She has an overwhelming responsibilitiy to try keeping content and context on this sight civil, respectful, and on point. My skin is thicker than most, so I'm not afraid or intimidated by anyone's attacks on my contributions. I sometimes have to bite my fingers to keep from displaying my honest opinion of some individuals contributions, whether they are in agreement with my opinions or not. I'm willing to bite my own fingers instead of making our editor clean up my offensive dialogue.
Somehow, Degraaf's idiotic analogy of pregnancy and spare tires has spawned an abundance of comments on this sight, face book, and all other communication systems. And, rightly so! Anyone, public official or otherwise, who is so insensitive to the physical, emotional, and spiritual nature of human reproduction as Degraaff's understanding seems to be, should put question in the voters mind as to his qualification to be a legislator. Your position on sexual orientation, pro life, pro choice, civil rights, etc. is not an issue here.
I can't think of any context that would allow such an outrageous comment. Pregnancy, whether intended, unintended, result of rape or whatever, can't be compared to spare tires.
Degraaf is a public official and his comments and opinions are ligitamet fodder for public discussion.
Vickie--Thanks once again for standing up for women and against those who think women should not be able to make their own decisions about their pregnancies. I shudder to think of women being forced to give birth against their will. Further, anyone who thinks giving a baby up for adoption is an easy solution to an unwanted pregnancy has never had to deal with such a situation.
People who are opposed to abortion should not have abortions or encourage others to have them. Part of the problem I often saw when I did clinic support for patients of Dr. Tiller is that some of the sidewalk harassers had had abortions--one woman had six or seven, according to her, before she decided she was wrong to do so--think it's okay for them to have the procedure, but no other woman should be free to do so.
One of my acquaintances who had an abortion and told me about it, accused me of being a "baby killer" when I talked about the March for Women's Lives that I attended. When I reminded her she'd had an abortion, she said her case was different and she really needed to get an abortion so her husband wouldn't divorce her.
Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion becomes criminalized, women will still have abortions. They did before Roe v. Wade. Women will always figure out a way to control their reproduction. For women controlling reproduction is the route to freedom.
Vickie, thanks for getting info out there about the other occupations of Rep De Graaf. Well said!
"I can't think of any context that would allow such an outrageous comment. Pregnancy, whether intended, unintended, result of rape or whatever, can't be compared to spare tires."
But that's not what DeGraaf did. He compared the need for insurance for unexpected medical events to how we prepare for the unexpected event of getting a flat tire. That's not outrageous at all.
Are we really ready to say that someone who uses a bad analogy is no longer fit for office. Analogies are by their very definition imprecise - but they can be a good way of getting people to think of a very specific emotional issue in a different context.
Schyler--I can't believe that you can't see the difference between having a spare tire for your car and buying a rider insurance coverage for an abortion, whether it's for a pregnancy caused by a rape or not. What if he had said the same thing about someone needing an emergency appendectomy? What if we had to buy a rider for every unexpected health situation that arose? No woman plans ahead of time to have an abortion. Women who have abortions do so because of circumstances they couldn't foresee. Having a flat tire is a foreseeable circumstance. Even so, nowadays most spare tires are adequate only to get the driver to the nearest mechanic where a new tire will have to be bought.
The comment was insensitive and showed his lack of understanding of what women go through. I would like to know what his wife and daughter really think about this issue. I doubt if they're as sanguine about what he said as he thinks they are.
I would say someone who shows such a lack of sensitivity for at least one half of the constituency he's working for is unfit for office. But I think most of the people running the state into the ground right now are unfit for office.
"What if we had to buy a rider for every unexpected health situation that arose?"
It would of course be burdensome. But abortion isn't like an emergency appendectomy - its an elective procedure except in the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and that caveat already exists. Should blanket insurance policies cover elective procedures? I don't think they should.
Editorial Note:
Schlyer, you asked if "ad hominems" were permitted to be used by writers. Yes, with restrictions. A writer at this site may lob a "personal attack" against a public figure (such as a legislator) provided that it is clear that the writer has designated the "ad hominem" as her opinion (as opposed to fact) and is doing so, not with malice, in order to primarily further an understanding of a public issue, public policy or other point that has importance to the public. Ms. Stangl's satirical opinions and policy-oriented comments here do indeed qualify as approved "ad hominems."
The type of "ad hominem" that is not acceptable is the kind that Ms. Stangl makes mention of above when she rightly points out to one of the commenters, "Name calling is not approrpriate but it is what anti-abortion people usually resort to and this time the name calling is that I sound 'bitter.'" Ms. Stangl is correct. The line is crossed when writers or commenters use name calling or personal characterizations of other writers or commenters.
So, Schlyer, what we are asking is that commenters at this site refrain from attacking other writers. Public officials, on the other hand, are free game. As Ken Poland rightly points out above, "Degraaf is a public official and his comments and opinions are legitimate fodder for public discussion."
I assure you that the policy is not arbitrary and nor is it directed at one side or the other.
Also, please keep in mind, as we have stated in the site policies, we have a lower threshold of tolerance for name calling by anonymous writers when that name calling is directed towards writers using their real names. So please keep in mind that both "Jonathan" and "Schlyer" are veiled behind anonymity while other writers on this page (Stangl, Wahto, Poland, etc.) are using their correct identities. For example, if Jonathan chooses to publish a derogatory statement about the personality or character of one of our non-anonymous writers - he is unfairly slandering her while remaining hidden.
However, even if everyone used their real names, "ad hominems" lobbed by one writer against another are still never tolerated.
If this does not clarify things for anyone, feel free to ask more questions about our site policies or refer to our FAQ page here: Frequently Asked Questions.
"A writer at this site may lob a "personal attack" against a public figure (such as a legislator)"
I appreciate your policy, and I understand comment moderation is a very difficult job. However, I believe Ms. Stangl's ad hominem's are not limited to Mr. DeGraaf.
DeGraaf and other conservative Christians...
The more the religious daddies...
Conservative, evangelical men like DeGraaf...
I believe she has painted with quite a broad brush. Lobbing attacks not only at DeGraff, but at conservative Christians in general. But let me be clear - I don't have a problem with her saying that, so long as I'm free to criticize it in a mature without having my comments removed. I don't believe I attacked Ms. Stangl, rather I attacked her ad hominem statements
Schlyer, thank you for your response. Allow me to repeat that Ms. Stangl has not violated any policies here by criticizing a public figure. She is also free to use a broad brush in criticism against groups such as conservative Christians. She is free to express her opinion about 'groups' like "evangelical men." Those types of characterizations do not violate our 'ad hominem policy.' If she had made a criticism or negative evaluative statement about a writer at this site (who was using his real name), that would indeed violate the policy but I do not believe that has occurred.
Nor can I specifically remember whether or not you, Schlyer, have attacked anyone with an ad hominem statement. And, yes, of course, generally speaking, you are free to criticize statements (not people) without having your comments removed. Thank you again for your response.
Schlyer, I understand what analogies are.
Please help me see the connection between, pregnancy, flat tires, and insurance. There is no logical or analytical comparison or connection.
We can buy towing coverage for automobiles, so I guess you might say insurance can enter the picture for flat tires. What do you think about the State Legislature telling insurance companies that they can't cover towing in case it is necessary to get to a repair shop for your flat tire? I have never had to call for towing service for a flat tire. If my spare is flat, I've just ran on the rim. So if I don't need towing insurance, then you should not be able to buy it either. After all, I'm paying for the service but never intend to use it. The insurance company is using my premium along with yours to pay for your towing service. (You are welcome to tell me, thank you.)
It doesn't make any difference whether I am 'pro choice', 'pro life', or consider the situation to determine where I stand on the issue. Using the analogy of pregnancy and spare tires is insensitive and I will have a hard time approving any legislators who use any analogy similar to it.
I am a male and I will never recommend or encourage anyone to abort a baby. But, I respect the female species of the human race and it is her ultimate decision, not mine. My theology is that the God I worship does not force anyone to worhip HIm. Neither does He relegate authority to me to pass judgment on anyone who does not accept my God or interpret their relationship with Him the same as I do.
You can find my email address by clicking on "Meet our Journalists" at the top of this page. You can vent your rage or frustration with me and make all the insulting or judgmental comments you feel inclined to make. Please do not insult or expose our readers to your frustration. I am not ashamed of who I am or what I believe. I'll not bite back nor will I threaten to sick my God onto you.
I support Vicky, Diane, Kari, and others of our regular identified contributors in their right to express their views and beliefs. I also support Schlyer's, marciahalster's, Jonathan's, and others and their right to free speech and their opinions. I find points of agreement with all of you. However, I am a member of the contributing authors on this site and we are generally liberal and progressive. You determine for yourselves what those labels mean or infer.
Schyler--I worked full time for 35 years. Every insurance policy I had, and paid for in part out of my own paycheck, covered elective procedures. I don't know if you've ever had insurance coverage, but you might take a look at your policy to figure what's covered with it.
Another problem with the legislature telling insurance companies what they can and cannot cover is that it violates the "get government off our backs" mantra that right-wing Republicans campaigned under. That's also the cry of those who don't like Pres. Obama's health care reform bill. What is the difference between the federal health care reform law and what the Kansas legislature just did? No difference.
Most of us are indeed thankful to all of our writers and commenters, including Schlyer, marciahalster and Jonathan as well as our regular writers. All and all, despite the heated nature of the reproductive rights debate, all have done admirable jobs of stating their points, backing them up with source material or logic, and in avoiding the ad hominem attacks. The few mild times that people did lapse into ad hominems (personal attacks on another writer) simply served as opportunities for us to reinforce our philosophy about "sticking with the issues." All and all, this has been a good debate and all commenters have been welcome and appreciated.
Ken - I've tried to show you the connection between pregnancy, flat tires and insurance, and I'll try again. Both pregnancy and a flat tire can be unplanned occurrences. I don't think that's a controversial statement.
Even though a flat tire is rare, and some folks will never have the experience, most everybody who drives a car plans for such an occurrence by carrying a spare tire.
There is no exact equivalent for a spare tire when talking about pregnancy. But seeing that pregnancy is a medical issue, DeGraaf made a reasonable inference that the way to prepare for it - even though it might happen at an unknown time - would be the same way we tend to prepare for all medical problems, through insurance.
Diane - I'm well aware of what my insurance policy covers.
"What is the difference between the federal health care reform law and what the Kansas legislature just did? No difference."
That's plainly false. To make it 'no difference' the Kansas legislature would have to have MANDATED that you go out and buy separate abortion insurance. Instead, they've defined the market and now everyone has a choice as to how they will pay for an abortion (out-of-pocket, rider policy, etc) should they decide to have one.
"Another problem with the legislature telling insurance companies what they can and cannot cover is that it violates the "get government off our backs" mantra that right-wing Republicans campaigned under."
Absolutely agree. The slew of mandatory coverages, and carve-outs, that now exist due to the medicaid policies of each state continue to make buying insurance a confusing (to the extent people truly shop for it and don't just take what their employer offers) and expensive (lots of folks are covered for conditions they would opt-out of if they had the opportunity - such as substance abuse therapy. The forced inclusion of those coverages drives the prices up for everyone)process. Government should get out of the way.
schlyer: Unplanned pregnancy is not necessarily the "controversial" part of DeGraaf's statement. What's controversial is a man so blythely stating that RAPE is a "forseeable occurance". Really, sir? Then why make it MORE difficult for women to have access to healthcare?
Except DeGraaf never said that rape was a foreseeable occurrence.
Here's the exchange from the original McPherson Sentinel article. Its been chopped up a little bit and its meaning has I think been changed in the way it was explained both here and by Pitch.
*****
And Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
During the House's debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."
*****
Look at my very first comment to this article. Bollier was not just talking about rape, she was talking about a whole range of unwanted pregnancies. Some may have inferred that his comment was about rape pregnancies, but the question asked of him clearly included the broader range of 'unwanted pregnancies'.
schlyer writes: "Bollier was not just talking about rape, she was talking about a whole range of unwanted pregnancies."
Wrong. Bollier was talking about a very narrow range of things that could go *wrong* with a pregnancy, and she clearly was emphasising rape as one of those: "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
There are only a few things women "have no control over with a pregnancy": 1) rape, 2) the development of the fetus, and 3)how a pregnancy might affect our own health that we couldn't forsee before getting pregnant: preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, etc., etc., etc.
Whichever one of these three scenarios one considers, for DeGraaf to insist that it's somehow okay for state government and private insurance to make it *more difficult* for any woman to have to deal with any one of these circumstances is offensive and ridiculous. I do not need government nursmaiding me when it comes to *my* body and *my* pregancies, thank you very much.
Does anyone have Bollier's actual quote? The articles I've read all all just paraphrased until the point DeGraff says "We all need to plan ahead".
Hit submit too fast.
And if the paraphrases I've seen are correct - "crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims" - then the presence of the word OR in that statement isn't consistent with a narrow reading. Bollier may have intended something different, but its going to depend on how she worded it.
Taking a look at these comments one more time, I have a comment to make about DeGraaf's boneheaded analogy. I've been pregnant three times and have three wonderful children to show for it. I've also had a few flat tires in my life. I can attest that being pregnant is nothing like having a flat tire. Planning ahead for an abortion, no matter why a woman has one, is nothing like carrying a spare time in your car. If DeGraaf ever gets pregnant, maybe he'll understand the difference.
What would be the effect if the same government that mandates coverage for abortion be available only with the purchase of a seperate insurance policy "rider" also mandated that one must be a licensed medical doctor in order to change a tire? What good would a spare tire do you in that case? Wouldn't that force everyone who fears suffering banckruptcy to now purchase flat tire insurance? Personally I would never be willing to pay thousands of dollars to get a flat fixed, and then have to listen to some doctor whine about the cost of "maltirerepair insurance"!