Latest Headlines
- Merry Christmas! The Story Of The Greatest Gift Of All
- First Responders Put On Christmas Light Show For Children’s Hospital Patients (With Gallery)
- House Ethics Releases Scathing Report On Matt Gaetz
- Photos: Christmas Activities At Jim Allen Elementary
- Here’s The Christmas Closure And Trash Schedule You Need To Know
- Letters To Santa From Byrneville Elementary Third Graders
- Cause Of ‘Major’ Fire At Ascend Remains Under Investigation
- Letters To Santa From Byrneville Elementary Second Graders
- Fire Destroys Mobile Home Being Used For Storage Near McDavid
- Photos: Gingerbread House Day At Lipscomb Elementary
Senate Approves Ban On Public Funding For Abortions
March 29, 2011
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved on a party-line vote a measure that would amend the Florida Constitution to bar any public funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered.
The measure (SJR 1538) originally called for public funding only to save the life of the mother, but was amended in committee to add the extra exceptions.
“This does not take away the right of a woman to have an abortion,” said Judiciary Chairwoman Anitere Flores, R-Miami, who sponsored the amendment. “It simply clarifies that public funds will not be used to pay for that abortion.”
Abortion-rights advocates argue that the measure would strip women who work for state or local governments from being able to get coverage for an abortion, potentially putting the procedure financially out of reach for some women.
“Regardless of your views on abortion, health insurance for abortion is needed,” said Helen Strain with Planned Parenthood.
The measure still has two committee stops.
Comments
6 Responses to “Senate Approves Ban On Public Funding For Abortions”
If abortion IS murder, it should not be allowed. You don’t allow murder for convenience or to reduce risk or because the father was a rapist or a family member.
If abortion is NOT murder, it should not be hindered. Every pregnancy involves some risk of death to the pregnant woman. If she doesn’t want to take that risk and is not murdering anyone, that’s her business alone.
If there is doubt in anyone’s mind, he or she should not be forced to pay for it whether it is allowed or not.
As it stands now, women have the right to decide for themselves but others don’t have to take part in their decision. You might say they are allowed to be conscientious objectors. Those who believe in it are still free to contribute to the action, then live and die with the consequences.
David for certainty
Making abortion inaccessible to the most needy is cruel and heartless. No woman intentionally gets pregnant so she can have an abortion. This is real life and accidents happen, women and even young girls are raped, and find themselves in a losing situation. Sometimes abortion is the only way out of the situation. By not allowing or putting severe restrictions on the option of having the abortion means denying the woman the opportunity to move on with her life and hopefully have a better one. Not having the abortion means her life may be hell forever and that of the child as well. Until all fertilized embryos can be safely removed and replanted somewhere wanted, it should be up to the woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy to proceed how she chooses!!
CAROLYN: I GUESS YOU ARE RIGHT–WE COULD ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS AND USED A WIRE COAT HANGER IN AN ALLEYWAY. I FEEL THERE ARE ONLY THREE PEOPLE WHO CAN MAKE A VERY HARD DECISION LIKE THIS–A WOMANS DOCTOR, THE WOMAN AND HER GOD , HOW EVER SHE VIEWS GOD. IT’S EASY TO JUDGE, BUT I HAVE SEEN GIRLS 12/13 YOA WHO WERE GOING TO HAVE A BABY AND THE FAMILY KICKS THEM OUT. THIS IS TRULY A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO ADOPT A CHILD, SO THE CHILD ENDS UP IN FOSTER CARE THAT IS SOME TIMES GOOD/SOME TIMES BAD. SO MANY TIMES THE “MOTHERS” BECOME STREET WALKERS JUST TO LIVE. MANY TIMES THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO A PROBLEM IS NOT SO SIMPLE.
to Carolyn regarding: “They should not have made any exceptions. No tax dollars should be used to murder unborn babies.”
So, if you, your daughter or mother was RAPED, WOULD DIE if you went thru with the pregnancy, or if the fetus was already dead, you wouldn’t want insurance to pay coverage for your HEALTH?!
I think if you pay for health insurance, your HEALTH should be INSURED! REGARDLESS of what particular health problem it may be. Make sense to anyone else?
They should not have made any exceptions. No tax dollars should be used to murder unborn babies.
I could see not funding random abortions, makes sense. But if its a medical issue and the health of the mother is involved. Then I think it should be ok