Stupak-Mills: Again, 'Judeos' Are Left Behind

So to speak. One of the many loathsome things about the Stupak-Mills amendment is that insurance would not be able to cover abortions for the following reasons (italics mine):

Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm.

In Jewish religious law, all authorities agree that if the health of the mother--including her ability to have children in the future--is jeopardized, then abortion is the appropriate option. And many authorities (not just 'liberal' ones--this would be argued by many Orthodox rabbis) argue that if the woman were to be a suicide risk, then abortion is also permissible.

I realize that many conservatives believe that all Jews have big bags of money, so we would be able to pay for abortions out of pocket, but, believe it or not, that's not always the case. So a Jewish woman of modest means might have to choose between her religious beliefs (that would be that 'faith' stuff which is supposedly so important) and the law.

Once again, the theopolitical right ignores the Judeo part of 'Judeo-Christian.' Not that most of us Judeos didn't expect this....

More like this

By way of Digby, we learn that the anti-abortion movement has decided on a new tactic--declaring that a fertilized egg is a person: It is one of the enduring questions of religion and science, and lately of American politics: When does a fertilized egg become a person? Abortion foes, tired of a…
In the November general election, South Dakota will have a referendum that could overturn its law that bans abortions, even where the woman has been raped, is the victim of incest, would suffer long-term medical problems, or would be unable to have future children. The first of the political ads…
Australia is not a particularly religious nation, and they've got the same problems we all do—a sagging economy, and essential demands for social programs that ought to be met…but compromises have to be made. Here, though, is a compromise I can't understand: the Labor government has decided to…
I have no doubt that the Catholic ecclesiarchy supports the Stupak-Mills amendment out of a genuine desire to regulate vaginaspreserve the fetus, which they believe is a person. But the financial incentives for Catholic Church-owned hospital systems are enormous: ...consider that there are 60 some…

The theopolitical right also ignore the Christian part of 'Judeo-Christian' when it is convenient for them.

But what do I know, being a Jew with bags and bags of money.

By NewEnglandBob (not verified) on 11 Nov 2009 #permalink

I agree with Angry Mouse over at dailykos.com.
I'm done talking about abortion

"...it's not about abortion. It's not about religious beliefs. It's not about whether it's okay in certain circumstances, but wrong in others.

"Partial birth" abortion, parental notification, waiting periods, mandated lectures from doctors about what characteristics your fetus might have had -- it's not about that.

It's about something much more simple.

Either women are full and equal citizens of this country, with the exact same rights that men have -- including autonomy of our bodies -- or we are not.

That's it."

By monoboyzmom (not verified) on 11 Nov 2009 #permalink

what rabbi are you speaking for? why did you not quote them. don't you know the Judaism does not have a centralized priesthood or ordinance? please don't politicize religion. shame on you for not revealing your resources at the very least. in the future if you bring Judaism into the context of your politics please say where your information is coming from. Judaism doesn't have a centralized ordinance. to claim that is misleading.