Wait. You're not done. You may think this is immoral and humiliating enough but our wise legislators have added two more critical caveats:
This "special fund" can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest or the endangered health of the 'mother'," by which I'm assuming these creeps mean the pregnant woman.
And finally, during annual enrollment, the employee may check the box that reads:
'By checking the box, I am declaring that I do not want any portion of my premium to be used to reimburse the expenses of an abortion, including ancillary services, performed in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's medical condition is one which, in the opinion of her physician within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, so complicates the pregnancy as to necessitate an immediate abortion to avert the risk of her death.'The big coup I suppose for the pro-choice among us is that women who do want to contribute to that fund do not have to indicate by checking a box. As far as I know.
So, let's suppose I am younger than I am, and I am sitting in the HR office contemplating my health care options. I have learned that this employee portion of the fund is only to be used for abortions. Does that mean that I will be cut off from some other future health care needs? Well, I certainly am not planning on needing an abortion, am I? So I opt out. And then I get pregnant.
Not to worry, they won't cover you even if you are contributing to the special fund unless you are raped or in danger of losing your life. In which case in order to be covered you have to prove rape or that your life is in danger. Which apparently has only happened six times since 2006.
And the best part of this bill is that all but two members of the Senate (who both had excused absences, really) voted in favor. And now, I suppose on to the House.
Meanwhile, in another part of the country, a man named Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor, is being tried for murder. The testimony leaves the most gruesome images of live births and lives taken. Within the run down building, the clinic offices were dirty. We don't know if Gosnell was once a good man who did his job out of compassion, but that is surely not the case now.
If our legislators have their way, there will be more of these "clinics," albeit more well hidden. We have bills pending that will make abortion illegal after six weeks, and if that one doesn't make it, twelve weeks. We have bills that place birth at the moment of conception. We have bills that prohibit good qualified doctors from crossing state lines to perform abortion services in South Carolina.
These men who obsessively work to limit and eventually ban abortion are not smart men, they are not scientists, and they erroneously call themselves "Christian." What they are is narcissistic and prideful. And despise those who are in need. They will force a pregnant woman to carry to term and then withdraw any help for that infant once it's born. They do not ever flood the dockets with bills aiming to provide nutrition or pre-natal care. They are the punishers of the twenty-first century, whose goal is to bring suffering to women who have had sex resulting in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. They would ban contraception if they could, but that is for another term.
If they were as clever as they think they are, they would know that history proves that abortions will not be banned. They will continue. Men like Lee Bright can take a victory lap whenever he is able to chip away at a woman's right to reproductive freedom, but what he is celebrating is the return of the back alley, and more "clinics" like that of Dr. Gosnell.
When abortions are banned, it will be in clinics like that of Dr. Gosnell that abortions are performed.