It does not come down to life vs. privacy until/unless we establish a life (other than the womans) is involved. No one claims killing babies is OK, that womens lives simply take precedence over their childrens. It comes down to life vs. possible life, a decision that should not be made by anyone not facing its consequences.


Denying coverage for life-extending treatment of terminal conditions does not prevent it, only prevent its guarantee. Government allows both that treatment and abortion, but funds neither. What is disingenuous is conservatives attacking Robomacare for not covering life-extending terminal care when they do not want it covering ANYTHING (especially since the whole thing was their idea.) It is also disingenuous when conservatives demand government protect fetal life that may be human beings BUT do nothing to protect that life post-natally, when it is undeniably a human being. It is unsurprisingly like the Heritage Foundations healthcare mandate: Government requires everyone have what it does nothing to ensure anyone can maintain, whether that be personal healthcare or a childs life.


From a constitutional perspective, civil rights is not a state matter; we tried that and, in addition to being immoral, it ended in Americas bloodiest war, followed by a century of Jim Crow. I agree they deserve it though; the GOP platform calls for a federal abortion ban, no exceptions, so all the party outrage over Akins comments is about him publicly admitting the official party position the rest of the GOP is desperately trying to conceal from the rest of the country.