> Ummmm....no. It's actually stating that the ONLY way for a low-income woman to get an abortion in Alaska is for there to be something medically wrong. Therefore, no abortion by choice. Also, there was a provision in the bill for providing family planning information and contraceptives (the whole idea of preventing unwanted pregnancies BEFORE an abortion becomes a choice) but that was stripped out. So, you wanna try again?
>
>I'll try again, but only to help you understand what the bill says :)
>
>Yes, your are right on one thing, some of the state congress members tried to increase funding for contraceptives, as a "compromise", and unfortunately lost the argument.
>
>But beyond that, you're making an assumption that the ONLY way a low-income woman could ever get an abortion is via State Medicaid funds.
>
>The restrictions in the bill are that State Medicaid funds cannot be used unless the abortion is for the list of approved medical reasons. The bill does not outlaw elective abortions for low-income women - it states that Medicaid funds cannot be used for elective abortions.
>
>Hopefully you realize that any bill stating, "you can't get an elective abortion, period, in this state is if you meet income guidelines" is a pretty bad bill! Any bill that outlawed all abortions except for medical necessity, regardless of gestational age, would be shot down by federal judges in a minute. (And contrary to what Tamar would have people believe, federal judges HAVE been coming along and shooting down some of these ridiculous bills that have passed in other states)
>
>The history here is that years ago in Alaska, there was NO state Medicaid funding for abortions, not even for medical necessity. Some people sued to the Alaska state supreme court, which ruled that since Alaska provided other Medicaid-funded services to pregnant women, it was prejudicial not to allow state Medicaid funds to be used for women who needed abortions for medical reasons. But over the years, the question because the definition of a medical reason - and the conservatives in that state voiced reaction that some elective abortions were being done using state funds. So that's why the bill was drafted, to qualify what the valid medical reasons were.
>
>Let me close with this question - do you think government funds should be used for elective abortions? (and for clarity, I refer to elective as anything outside of medical necessity, rape, incest, health of mother)

Federal money can not be used to fun abortions, but state money? Yeah, otherwise it's sexual discrimination. Now before you go off on the whole "decision hobby horse", I also believe that federal funds should be used to promote the use of contraceptives and teaching GOOD sex ed. (Not just the abstinence crap - cuz we see how well that works with drinking and drugs). Numerous studies have shown that when you teach people correct methods (and how to apply them), the number of unplanned pregnancies drop. There will still be instances where a contraceptive device (pill or otherwise) may fail, of course, but why take the option away?

And all these current laws being passed in Texas, NC, etc ARE aimed at taking the option away, or making it so difficult to do in so short a time that they might as well - but wait, they can't because of that dratted Roe v Wade.

As the father of a daughter, I'm surprised you're not more concerned with this. Some day, and I really do hope it never comes, she might have to walk in and say 'Dad...we need to talk' and boom, she's now (according to these lawmakers) an idiot who can't think for herself, can't make an informed decision or can't be trusted to do so.