From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:42:09 GMT

<phil.722110508@seidel> (Philip Papadopoulos) writes:
>> Get as many abortions as you want.. Just don't ask me... to pay for it"

<1992Nov18.212720.21716@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> Do your tax dollars go to pay for abortions?  I was under the
> impression that this may be the case in California, and I don't
> know where you post from.  

According to columnist Debra Saunders, the MediCal program in 
California pays for the abortions of poor women.

> Federal tax dollars do not pay for
> abortions except, I believe, for military personnel.  

I don't think so.  There was a change of policy on abortions at 
military hospitals this year, but I don't think tax dollars
are paying for them.  As I recall, service women stationed 
overseas in some countries have a very difficult (if not
impossible) time finding abortion providers.  Congress acted
this year to lift a previous ban on abortions in military
hospitals in these circumstances.  The abortions may now be
performed in military hospitals, but I believe the service
woman requesting the abortion must foot the bill.  I suppose
there is some federal support (tax money built the hospital),
but it is rather indirect.

As I recall, this all happened several months ago.  There may
have been a more recent change, but if so, I missed it.

> Could you clarify why you believe your tax dollars pay for abortions?

I'm not sure that Philip Papadopoulos was complaining about a current
policy.  He may have been pleading that no new policy of public
support for abortion be enacted.  His concern is a valid one, IMHO.
Our new president has promised a national health care plan of
some sort in the next year.  The ideology of abortion rights 
organizations is that abortion is just another medical procedure.
NARAL's Kate Michelman has stated publicly her view that public
supported abortion will be part of the new health care plan as
a matter of course -- there is no need for a separate debate
at all in her view.  The public voted for an activist health
care policy, and in her view, no health care program is complete
with abortion services.  Thus, public abortion services are just
around the corner.

There still a lot of mystery in the future of health care policy,
but it is not irrational to be concerned about this.  I hope that 
President Clinton will show the same appreciation of varying
points of view on this matter as Candidate Clinton showed on
the campaign trail.  While never flinching from a pro-choice
stance, Candidate Clinton did go out of his way on a few 
occasions to acknowledge the concerns of his opponents and
to make statements that abortions are not desirable.  I'm
sure he is capable of making the distinction between support
of liberty and support of action.  I hope he is capable of
making this argument against members of his coalition of
support.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|