Your fevered hatred of the healthcare bill has now crossed a line. Although I am not a big fan of the bill as it stands, I believe that the matter of abortion most definitely should be part of it.
Incest and other forms of rape, lead to unwanted, unplanned pregnancies and no woman should be forced to carry the memory of the violation to term. It's tragic enough that she will have the sexual assault in her brain forever, there is no way to justify making them have the product of the assaut as well. Additionally, she may give the child for adoption, which will bring costs the abortion never would have. And what if she raises the child; but, due to being young, can't obtain a decent wage and now has to get government aid- welfare, medicaid, foodstamps, section8 housing vouchers, etc. etc. The costs can be high. The woman should not be denied choice on abortion for any reason, and definitely not based on cost/ability to pay.
Pregancy which threatens the life of the mother, should be covered as well and if testing shows the fetus has a developmental issue or is carrying a an early-life-ending genetic code (Tay-Sachs springs to mind, there are others), the mother to be should, must be, entitled to having the access and payment for the abortion.
Whereas, I am personally against abortion, it is always the right of the woman to decide and in the cases mentioned above (death, illness, rape) she must be allowed access at no cost to her. To force a woman to have a child is unconscionable. Further, think of long term costs. A rape victim may have to follow with years of mental health therapy and possible hospitilization for depression, suicidal thoughts. If a woman has life threatening issues from the pregnancy, the medical costs rise dramatically and may even include after birth care, depending on what the issues were- if she suffers high blood pressure and has a stroke and needs to learn the motor skills again, this could take a while and the added cost of care for the child who would have to be looked after during that time.
If the child is going to be faced with a disease/illness which will alter their life, there are costs. A child with neuromuscular diseases, needs therapy, assistive devices, medical appointments, etc. A child with Tay-Sachs has health issues which need coverage, a child born with Cystic Fibrosis, and a host of other health issues which a parent to be might feel ill-equipped to handle and if forced to have the child, might need added care herself as well as less of an ability to earn wages if they must stay with the child, or having to hire and pay for care for the child. The mother to be must have access and choice.
At the end of the day, the woman must always be allowed the freedom of choice, and given the assurance that the government will pay for it. If the government can afford to send people to a space station, they can afford to cover an abortion for the woman.
If the choice and payment are removed, women will return to the days of back alley coat hanger abortions and there will be higher after care costs there, than a single abortion would generate when infections and hemorrhaging among other medical issues from illegal abortions are taken into account. Is that what you are endorsing starvestor?
It has been shown that the death penalty is not currently all that cost effective when you take into account the mandatory appeals which generate legal costs- lawyers on both sides, often legal defense for the defendant is court appointed- i.e. taxpayer pays, the court fees, the minimal payment to the jurrors, etc. etc.
Deportation is not an overnight deal either, deportation involves various agencies and many steps all costing the taxpayer.
