I do know a rough estimate of what it cost and how the cost was handled. I was simply replying to your point of "not if they don't have a good health plan". Every minute of every day tax payers are footing the bill for someone's health situation. A preemie is not an exception.
1) Hobby Lobby was fine paying for birth control, but not abortifacients 2) Hobby Lobby wasn't trying to ban anything, they just didn't want to be forced at the point of a gun to pay for something they had a moral objection to. Since there is no actual banning, the favored euphemism is "denied access", which in reality translates to "isn't being paid for by someone else".
Of course they do. They want abortions because it's such a lightening rod issue. Why else would you take actions to limit contraception and birth control to the poor? That's why abortions drop during Clinton and Obama (that and economic prosperity). Republicans leadership is highly cynical and focused on power more than anything. Their actions are consistent with doing whatever it takes to win votes and consolidate power. They need abortion - this is why "sex ed" is evil to them. Not because of their religion, but because of their political goals.
The father is already required to pay child support for 18 years. Not only that, he is required to do so even if the mother subverted the father's intent not to impregnate her (such as by lying about being on birth control, poking holes in the condom, or even retrieving sperm from a used condom). It has not killed the pro-life movement, because the pro-life movement is not populated entirely (or even significantly) by deadbeat dads.
Father's name is not required on the birth certificate. Sometimes the mother does not know who the father is. Mother might need to take the father to court to establish paternity and to start child support. Mother might need to be in court a lot. What I am suggesting is that all this becomes automatic, less court time. Middle aged politicians who liked to get a little side action are not going to like the 20 years of Personal Responsibility that this law entails. This law guarantees that men will have skin in the pregnancy game. Women would know that they have financial support to have the child and could avoid abortion.
If the woman doesn't know who the father is, how can you have their name and DNA on the birth certificate? What if the mother doesn't know the name or contact info for the father, it's just that guy she met at the bar and had a one night stand with? I have no issue with requiring that the father's name be included if known, but I don't understand the enforcement plan for your proposed law, nor how it is a really significant departure from the current law.
It's never been about pro-life. Pro-lifers who don't support free contraception options or sex education in schools. Pro-lifers don't give a damn about the baby once it's born; and says its not the public's responsibility in helping raise the child. It's about punishing acts of immoral sex from their religious view. The same pro-lifers who aren't "pro-life" when it comes to wars. Its all about holding people accountable to "consequences". How else do you punish people for having immoral pre-marriage sex other than forcing them to bring their baby to term and raise their children in poverty with no help? That'll teach 'em!
A shockingly poor post from someone who's opinion I ordinarily value. I'll recall it the next time I see a line of men, sans women, making legislative decisions that are aimed entirely at women. "Blah blah blah" indeed, sir.
They pay the same amount regardless. If you work for a company that has a religious belief that artificially sustaining life is blasphemy, then they should be allowed to prevent people from having a pacemaker or even getting a stent, right?
A national DNA registry would be incredibly useful in crime fighting. I don't have an issue with it. We take prints off of infants, I don't see why we can't take a DNA sample as well. Plus, tons of jobs created to sequence the DNA of 300 million Americans.
