Abortion: the punch and cookie report
Dear Ms. Nazareno,
The real issue on abortion is whether people who insist that no abortions should be allowed and at the same time refuse to take these unwanted children to raise are willing to increase the welfare benefits in this state to support these children.
You can find my position on this issue on my web page at johnworldpeace.com (go to the political page).
The major reporters with the big five state newspapers refuse to touch this issue. They refuse to take my comprehensive position and ask Tony Sanchez or Rick Perry about the issue. The reason is that neither Sanchez nor Perry have anything more to add to the issue other than shallow and moronic soundbites against abortion.
Your article was a nice thorough punch and cookie report, but it didn't really cut into the real hard core issues that drive abortion did it?
Pretty soon all the major newspapers are going to degenerate into expensive National Enquirers and the real news is going to come from internet sites where there is no fear of confronting truth. The question is whether the population, due to little george's education policy which put Texas 48 of 50 nationally, is too dumb to understand more than sound bites, or if the newspapers are a part of the problem by their refusal to write articles which will make people think.
The population is going to sleep with the aid of the press and their bed time stories and when that happens, ignorance prevails and people like little george become King George as he unilaterally does away with civil liberties in the name of one undeclared war or another by wagging the dog.
The next governor of Texas.
November 30, 2001
Local advocates mirror abortion argument in state
By Analisa Nazareno
Express-News Staff Writer
Web Posted : 11/30/2001 12:00 AM
As Texas Supreme Court justices ponder the constitutionality of taxpayer-financed abortions for poor women with risky pregnancies, local advocates disagree not only on that issue but on how many abortions would result if the state allowed it.
Wednesday, the court heard arguments for and against public funding for "medically necessary" abortions. It could take months to rule whether the state ought to finance doctor-recommended abortions for women with conditions such as AIDS, diabetes, breast cancer, drug addiction or suicidal depression.
The state Medicaid program finances a couple of dozen abortions annually in cases of incest, rape or to save the life of a pregnant woman, but not for complicated or health-threatening pregnancies.
Particularly in San Antonio, where 41 percent of births last year were funded by Medicaid, high levels of poverty, obesity, drug abuse and domestic violence can complicate many pregnancies to the extent that doctors might suggest abortions, public health officials say.
"The consequences are profound and serious, and some of those situations could be life threatening," said Dr. Fernando Guerra, director of health at the Metropolitan Health District.
A child born with fetal alcohol syndrome or other problems caused by the mother's substance abuse, he said, requires treatment and can suffer from deformities and other complications.
While doctors at publicly funded clinics do not recommend abortion for women with high-risk pregnancies, they refer them to gynecologists or specialists who may give them that advice, he said. The women make their own decisions to continue or abort their pregnancies.
"There should be a choice for women that are in some of those situations who are poor and qualify for Medicaid," he said.
Abortion opponents in San Antonio said that in the nearly 10 years that the courts have argued over "medically indicated" abortions, they've reached a truce with abortion rights advocates by urging prevention of unwanted teen pregnancies through sexual abstinence.
But while some who oppose abortion believe it may be acceptable if the mother's life or health is at stake, many believe abortion is unacceptable in almost any case.
"There are those of us who feel there are a lot of good options outside of abortion who would rather not have the government pay for abortions," said Martha Breeden, executive director of the Pregnancy Care Center, a Northwest Side clinic that tests women for pregnancy and advises against abortion.
"A large majority of people really don't want the government to pay for anything outside the basic things that provide services for everyone, like firefighters and the police," she said. "They want to see tax dollars going to these kinds of things and not to specific special interests — period."
Some abortion rights advocates say the number of Medicaid-financed abortions could reach thousands, but they offer no specific estimate. Greater Austin Right to Life puts it at up to 27,400 per year.
In California, where the population is greater than Texas and the state's Medi-Cal program covers abortions for any reason, the state spent $17 million for 54,885 abortions in 1998.
Breeden said "quality of life" issues, such as the public cost of providing therapy for children born with birth defects or treating women whose depression may be pregnancy-induced are not reasons enough to use tax money to finance abortions.
Abortion rights advocates here argue that because middle-class women can afford medical treatment, including abortion, poor women ought to have the same access.
"A woman with insurance who has breast cancer, what she will probably want to do is end that pregnancy, get that chemotherapy or radiology treatment, become cured and then elect later to become pregnant," said Jeffrey Hons, chief executive officer for Planned Parenthood of San Antonio. "Poor women ought to have the same choices."