Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


All Women Deserve Health Care with the Right to Choose

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay, any sensible health care reform plan is going to have to cover women’s
reproductive health care more completely and equitably than the current system.

We need to listen to those in the medical field as to what
is the best health care package for every American, women obviously included,
and follow that advice.

As of today, it seems medical experts believe abortion
procedures should be included in a basic health care package. Nearly 90 percent
of insurers currently cover abortion, according to a 2002 survey by the
Guttmacher Institute. What you’re proposing, Jay, seems to suggest that women give up a benefit they are already
receiving
under their private insurance policies. Again, this new health care policy is supposed to make health care more
accessible, not less.

Earlier this month, the National Women’s Law Center released
a poll
conducted by the Mellman Group that indicated 71 percent of likely
voters favor including reproductive services such as birth control and abortion
as part of health reform. 
As you can see, most Americans believe reproductive health care is essential to
good, overall health care.

Besides, don’t you want health care to be equal
for all?
Women have the Constitutional right to choose. They should be able to
carry a pregnancy to term or choose to terminate that pregnancy within
the boundaries of safe, quality medical care. In addition, women of all
economic backgrounds must have this right.  That’s why we need medical
coverage that makes this choice available across the board. It’s as
simple as that.

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(28)
post a comment
Sarah Stillman

posted July 21, 2009 at 5:50 pm


As one of the likely voters who disagree with the government mandate on abortion coverage, I find it hard to believe that Christians can debate this topic. Ending an innocent life just because we believe we have the right to, does not make it okay. I’m afraid I have to question Rev. Lynn’s point about abortion being a “safe” option for women. There are countless documented cases of abortions gone wrong. Regardless of what we may want to believe about abortions, they have yet to be called “safe”.
The other issue facing this dilemma is just what should the government be able to say about our health care coverage? Yes there is a problem that needs to be dealt with concerning health care cost, but the issue is one of ethics and morals; until we accept that little headway will be made. Allowing the government to mandate our health care coverage in our potential socialized American medicine, only makes it that much worse. As a constitutionally-minded American I believe that few of the actions taken by our current administration are constitutional. At some point we are going to have to put our foot down and tell them that they have over-stepped their bounds. Why not do it with something that no true American should endorse?
As Americans we have what few left in this world truly do, the idea that hope can become reality, and in the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald, “we are one of the last lands filled with the capacity to wonder.” I believe this still rings true, and as such, Americans can not support an action that denies any human being the ability to hope or the capacity to wonder, regardless of our individual wants or the age of the human being in question.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 21, 2009 at 7:06 pm


Sarah Stillman,
re: “Ending an innocent life just because we believe we have the right to, does not make it okay.”
I am curious as to your opinion on “collateral damage” damage during military actions. Is it ever justifiable?
re: “something that no true American should endorse”
My father-in-law fought in WWII, lost 2 brothers in the war, and was gravely injured, recovered, worked his whole life, always voted, gave to charity, just celebrated his 60th wedding anniversay, etc, etc. He disagrees with you. Is he not a real American? He might be interested to know of his sub-standard status.
re: “few of the actions taken by our current administration are constitutional.”
Other than Bush era warrant-less wire-taps, to which specific actions are you referring?



report abuse
 

churchmouse

posted July 23, 2009 at 1:13 am


Going into the military does not necessarily kill someone.
Abortion kills.
What does it kill Yur Name? Does your grandfather also think that its ok to kill a full term unborn right before it is born>? If you are for choice then that choice should be any time during the pregnancy. In that case your grandfather is even pro-PBA.
Curious…. does your grandfather use the term kill? Or does he hide behind the rhetoric that pro-choicers use… terminate, procedure etc.
If you say its wrong to defend yourself or defend others……then are you against police protection? They kill people too.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted July 23, 2009 at 6:55 am


A few posts back I gave the percentages of how many pregnancies were terminated by God, making God the Ultimate Abortionist. Yet I don’t hear anyone in the anti-choice crowd demanding that God should be removed and kicked out of the discussion. According to the anti-abortion logic, if a doctor terminates a pregnancy that makes him/her a murderous baby killer; but if God terminates the pregnancy, that makes Him what? The greatest mass murderer of all time?
Nor do I hear them even casually mentioning the significant number of deaths resulting from still-born births and full-term pregnancy complications.
You have to decide, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis, either God is an all-powerful being and is fully in control of the situation (and I believe He is), or else He is a powerless fraud unable to defend even the unborn from a relative handful of bad choices.
If the choice to terminate a pregnancy is legal (which it is) and if pregnancy termination is a valid healthcare issue (which it is) then it should be covered under all health insurance plans.



report abuse
 

Ellie Dee

posted July 23, 2009 at 7:29 am


If a woman chooses an abortion, some personal responsiblity, should also be part of that choice. Why should she not pay for that choice.
Personal responsiblity is being lost here. Pregancy is not a disease. And why do those supporters of life, have to take on something that is against what they see as the will of God?
And what will be the effect on Catholic Hospitals, and their doctors? IN todays world, unwanted pregnacys can be avoided, rather than dissmissed as a personal mistake.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 23, 2009 at 9:15 am


Going into the military does not necessarily kill someone.
Boris says: Yes but only people who want to kill other people go into the military. No one supports these holy wars against Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq but American Christians.



report abuse
 

Red Herring Killer

posted July 23, 2009 at 12:50 pm


Boris,
“Yes but only people who want to kill other people go into the military.”
Uh..no. Have you been in the military? I have, not everyone who is in the military wants to kill someone (except maybe special forces and infantry types – but there are far more people in other MOS’s). Most people are in for a steady paycheck and benefits. They’ll go if they have to, but aren’t gung-ho for it – in fact, that’s a running joke among many.
Go back to reading the Pravda, Boris.



report abuse
 

Noblestarr

posted July 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm


Evangelic Christians are the ultimate Communists, they demand that everyone else live by their rules. I see Christianity as a breed of Communism and supporter of slavery where Christians are the slave holders (wannabees) and everyone else are their slaves.
But it seems to me that the United States outlawed slavery in 1865 with the 13th Amendment.
And I, for one, will never be a Christian Communist slave. So fight on — but don’t kill the Christians, marginalize them.



report abuse
 

Whatever

posted July 23, 2009 at 1:32 pm


Keep talking Noblestarr(ironic name). Every time you spew your rhetoric, you marginalize yourself more and more.



report abuse
 

Whatever

posted July 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm


Actually, Noblestarr, I take it back. Go ahead – keep marginalizing Christians.
When Judea marginalized Christians, it spread like a wildfire.
When Rome marginalized Christians, Christianity flourished. Eventually, Rome gave it favored religion status.
When the Soviet Union marginalized Christians, the church flourished. The Soviet Union eventually fell, and Russian Orthodoxy became the state religion.
As China marginalizes Christians, Time magazine reports that the nation will be predominately Christian in 20 years.
Go ahead – marginalize away – smart move, historically speaking. If you want to hurt Christianity, make it legal, acceptable and encouraged on a state-level. When that happens – historically speaking – the church loses power and influence.



report abuse
 

Red Herring Killer

posted July 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm


Actually, Boris and Noblestarr has successfully hijacked Barry Lynn’s post (with a little urging from myself and Whatever).
Well done – you’ve marginalized the point of Lynn’s post with your rhetoric.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 23, 2009 at 2:11 pm


Ellie Dee, You ask why those against abortion should be required to pay taxes that would, in part, pay for abortion services. Please keep in mind that our tax law does not allow one to withhold any portion of your tax obligation as a protest against funding a specific government action. That seems appropriate, otherwise those did not support the Iraq war could have withheld major portions of their tax bill. If you are seeking “special rights” so that your religious objections to abortion mean that you don’t have to pay that portion of your taxes, I would object to that. Religious objections are no more valid than any other type of objection. Our Constitution prohibits our government from valuing your religious inclinations any more than someone’s religious disinclinations. If you want to disallow the government from funding abortions due to your religious objections, I want to disallow the government from funding the war in Iraq, etc, etc. I often hear conservative Christians say that the government should not fund abortions because they are immoral. What about a liberal who says that our government should not fund the war in Iraq because it is immoral? Is the first opinion more valid than the second because it is religious in nature?



report abuse
 

B

posted July 23, 2009 at 4:38 pm


Do you not view abortion as murder? It is in fact taking the life from another being. I am not saying the government should control it either way. I just see it as taking an innocent life. If you want to talk about the Constitution, we all have a right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (life being the key word). That is what you are depriving the child of.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 23, 2009 at 5:30 pm


B, what you want to is to deprive children the right to be wanted by their parents by forcing parenthood on people who don’t want it or aren’t ready for it. That’s what this issue is really about. Christians trying to force parenthood and their insane religious beliefs on those who want nothing to do with either.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm


“Well done – you’ve marginalized the point of Lynn’s post with your rhetoric.” – Red Herring Tosser. Talk about a hypocrite! ROFL!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 23, 2009 at 5:49 pm


Killing children is legal until somebody in their right mind gets up and takes a stand against government rules and regulations which take life. Yes, we are doing that now. The only problem with this action that I can tell is that it takes more than speaking and writing about the subject.
So there needs to be a new laws in place to rid of government of the old laws which are in the process of killing children world wide with tax dollars. I have heard the ideas of murdering children for a cure of something. I for one am not agreeing with these laws and these need to be changed, despite how crooked the pen signed these practices into law.
As for our military having to defend our country against people who want to kill us, they have to do what they have to do. I am sure it is one of the most hardest choices they have to make to pull that trigger. It is either us or them.
God is not a murderer or an abortionist, thank you very much.
C



report abuse
 

Red Herring Killer

posted July 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm


Boris,
Since you have no idea of what you’re talking about, I’ll use a language you understand: ?? ?????.



report abuse
 

Jarrod

posted July 24, 2009 at 1:24 am


Boris – If people don’t want to be burdened with a child or aren’t ready for it, then maybe they should think twice about commencing with a sexual act that can, and often does, lead to the creation of another human life that they don’t want. If they make the choice to commit the act they should accept the responsibility. By allowing people who have made the choice to create life to take a “pass” by destroying that same life you are coddling them and promoting the ultimate irresponsibility. I know its crazy to think that people should have to responsible for their choices, but isn’t it about time.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 24, 2009 at 9:26 am


No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. And no one is forcing anyone to pay for abortions any more than they are forcing everyone to pay for wars or to pay for capital punishment… two activities that result in the death of fully human persons.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 24, 2009 at 10:40 pm


Jarrod,
Not everyone who wants to enjoy a healthy sex life wants children. Your sexual hang-ups are showing.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted August 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm


https://www.discoveringjesusfishing.net
The facts are pure and simple: abortion IS murder. From a theological standpoint as well as a medical standpoint, despite what the law of the land considers “viable”, from conception up until the third trimester through birth, the little life in being is a life. What about these little one’s constitutional rights to choose life? Just because they do not have an activated voice box does not mean that they should get sucked up by a vacuum, likened to food being torn apart when entering a garbage disposal, or pierced in the head with a scissors. What about THEIR rights to LIFE and the pursuit of happiness?
This disrespect for those who are less fortunate or in diverse circumstances or walks of life, including the unborn, elderly, those with mental disorders or the developmentally disabled, or even those with chronic pain that will be denied cortisone shots, sounds a lot like the mantra of the proposed national health care plan. Practice what is being preached: respect for ALL HUMAN LIFE!



report abuse
 

Brenda

posted August 6, 2009 at 1:13 am


Unborn babies have no choice, but we do. Our choice is when we choose not to use birth control to prevent a pregnancy in an act that is by our choosing. The majority of pregnancies happen this way, but there are a minority that happen by force and are not by choice for one person-usually the female. If a pregnancy happens this way then the female could give birth and put the baby up for adoption if she could not afford to keep it. I know of several couples who paid for pregnancy visits, hospital bills, etc. for the mother, then adopted the baby (even from mothers who were on drugs). If you cannot wait to have sex before getting married, then I think the least expensive, least invasive, simplest solution is if people act more responsibly when having casual sex by using effective birth control, then most of the pregnancies would be prevented. I know this is tough to swallow if you are used to only thinking of yourself. Believe me, I was there, and I still struggle with being selfish.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm


The facts are pure and simple: abortion IS murder.
Answer: No it isn’t. You don’t get to define words anyway you want just because you are a delusional brainwashed Christian. There are some pure and simple facts though. One is that there is definitely no God. That is a FACT and I can prove it.



report abuse
 

Weldon

posted August 9, 2009 at 2:17 pm


There are some pure and simple facts though. One is that there is definitely no God. That is a FACT and I can prove it.
Interesting, after billions of dollars spent and lives lost we have yet to prove live on other planets, but with little money spent you can prove there is no God!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 9, 2009 at 3:04 pm


There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:
God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
None of Jesus’ “miracles” left any physical evidence either.
God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is “answering prayers.”
Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God. And so on…
Let’s agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.
If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today’s “God”, nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:
1. If we had scientific proof of God’s existence, we would talk about the “science of God” rather than “faith in God”.
2. If we had scientific proof of God’s existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
3. If we had scientific proof of God’s existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.



report abuse
 

Weldon

posted August 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm


Science has not proven everything.
Science can split the atom but not define the force that holds it together.
Science has not proven how all life began. If you stand on the belief of a one cell ameba in the promordial goo, then explain how non-living spontaneously generated living and which came first plant or animal and how did they diverse.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 9, 2009 at 11:29 pm


Science has not proven everything.
Boris says: Science doesn’t prove anything. It disproves things and the last remaining explanation stands but is open to constant scrutiny, future revision and even outright refutation. In science no finding is ever the final word. That’s why religious explanations are not scientific. They claim to be the last word and above scrutiny.
Science can split the atom but not define the force that holds it together.
Boris says: How do you know atoms exist? Atoms have never been directly observed. All we have is a theory, Atomic Theory, which has never been proved. All that does is explain the behavior of atoms. Why are you willing to base your belief in atoms on an unproven theory? The reason is atomic theory unlike evolutionary theory doesn’t have any major theological implications. The evidence for evolution is no different than that for atoms. You just assume it isn’t because you get your ideas about science from a book that claims the earth is flat, never moves, sits on a foundation supported by pillars and is orbited by the sun every day, unless someone stops it for a while. It’s a wonder some people can be led to believe a book that talks about beings like angels and that demons cause diseases and is filled with bad poetry can somehow be scientifically accurate.
Science has not proven how all life began. If you stand on the belief of a one cell ameba in the promordial goo, then explain how non-living spontaneously generated living and which came first plant or animal and how did they diverse.
Boris says: How life began is not part of evolutionary theory. How it diversified is explained by evolutionary theory. Life, simple cells with no DNA, probably evolved from self-replicating RNA. That’s a lot more believable than the man from dirt, women from a rib, talking snake explanation in the Bible. Again science doesn’t prove things. It disproves explanations and science has indeed soundly refuted Christian creationism and Intelligent Design magic. Science doesn’t need a perfect explanation to refute incorrect explanations. If you knew the first thing about scientific method you would know this.



report abuse
 

Kristie

posted August 15, 2009 at 2:27 pm


Rev. Lynn, I respect you and agree wholeheartedly with you on church/state seperation, but your arguments here are weak. Yes, some woman do currently have coverage for abortion with their private insurance but the key words there are “private insurance”. Those woman are paying premiums themselves, not asking the American public to pay for them. As far as I am concerned private insurance carriers can cover anything they like and if someone objects on religious grounds they are free to seek coverage with another company. No one is making their participation compulsory.
As for the poll numbers you sited for the National Women’s Law Center Poll, they are a bit slanted. Yes, a majority of people did seem to be in favor of a healthcare plan that included things like birth control or abortion, but the wording of the poll query doesn’t seperate those two options, so that respondants who support birth control being covered but not abortion had no option to specify that preference. And, there is a vast difference between birth control and abortion in most people’s minds. Also, the demographic of who was polled is not made clear.It simpy states that it was “1,000 likely voters” but if you poll 1,000 likely voters that you think will be symathetic to your cause of course your numbers will be high. If I polled 1,000 evangelical Christians and asked if we should fund abortion it’s likely that a vast majority of them would say no. Does that reflect an accurate picture of the feelings of all Americans? No, of course not.
I do believe that all woman should have the right to make their own reproductive choices and the government has no business involving themselves in those choices, but if we don’t want the governement to tell us what choices we can make about our bodies, how can we then demand that they cover the cost for those choices & how can we expect tax payers to foot the bill? Individual liberty is a wonderful thing, but it stops being individual when it infringes on someone else’s rights.
And if the tax dollars of citizens should not (as you & I both believe) be used to support religious institutions or their programs because Americans have a right to freedom of (and from) religion why then should citizens be compelled by the governement to support through those same tax dollars a medical procedure that they find goes against their religious beliefs?



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.