There is one part of the Health Care Bill that has liberal women’s groups upset: it’s stance on elective cosmetic surgery, which affects women more than men. It is not covered in the health bill, and there is a proposed 5% surtax on the procedures. This tax would be levied on liposuction, cosmetic implants, Botox injections, teeth whitening, and tattoo removal. All of these are surgeries that are performed on women considerably more than men. The only thing on the list that affects men more than women is the tax on Rogaine, the hair growth product, used primarily by men. Many women consider this sexist.
Originally known as the “Botax,” the tax would generate about $1 billion a year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But opponents point out that the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons has reported that one-third of the women who have plastic surgery make less than $30,000 per year. Only 13% make over $90,000 and this fact causes many to see the tax as oppressive to poor women.
Whether the women’s groups and other liberals can get this removed from the bill or not, it shows a glaring example of the hypocracy of the left when it comes to the health care of the human fetus. Doctors who perform abortions, as well as liberals everywhere, are pleading with Congress to include the procedure under the public option. But wait…isn’t abortion an elective surgery? Why is it that other elective surgeries are not only not covered, but they’re taxed! And for those who insist that this would not be elective cosmetic surgery, consider what the bill declares is covered under the tax. According to a BusinessWeek article from November 19th, “The tax in the Senate bill would apply only to surgical procedures that qualify as ‘not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.’” Pregnancy is not a deformity, an injury, or a disfiguring disease. So why isn’t abortion being seen as elective surgery, banned from coverage, and taxed?
Instead, we have this debate as to whether it should be included in the public option or not. Because I recognize that abortion is legal, I have no problem with people buying their own private insurance policy that pays for abortion. I also have no problem with covering abortion for those women whose life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy. Thgis is a medica emergency for the mother. I do not think that people who view abortion as murder should be forced to have their tax money used to pay for it. Again, abortion is a legal medical procedure, just like liposuction. Hmm…that reminds me of something. Pro-abortion folks will usually tell you that the fetus is nothing more than tissue…a worthless irritation that has attatched itself to a woman’s body. Just like the fat that is sucked out in liposuction, right? Right?
Ban abortion from government coverage and tax it!
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Isn't abortion just a cosmetic procedure?
bk (Diary) Monday, December 7th at 12:50PM EST (link)To hear the left tell it, the woman is just getting this lump of cells removed from her body, so it’s kind of like getting a mole or a polyp removed right?
Or perhaps it’s like getting treatment for obesity so that the woman doesn’t get fat and doesn’t get stretch marks.
We certainly can’t act like another living being is involved!
Play with a Turd and You Get Poop on Your Hands
strikeeagle (Diary) Monday, December 7th at 1:08PM EST (link)The must stop this bill and start over on HCR — nothing good can come of it.
I made the following comment on the Sen Nelson string:
U Can’t B Pro-Life and 4 HCR
The ONLY way to prevent Federally-funded abortions is to NOT give the Federal Government:
1. The AUTHORITY to define health plan benefits (public or commercial/private plans)
2. The FUNDING to pay for health plan services
The current Democrat health care reform plans provide for both.
To support HCR even with the Stupak Amendment cedes the Pro-Life Agenda to:
1. An Administration that will define and interpret what services are covered in health plans
a. Re-interpreting the Public Law without regard to original spirit and intent or other components of the administration striking the provision down; e.g. Attorney General, Civil Rights Commission, etc.
b. A politically-appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services defining benefits and writing the implementing regulations; e.g. determining abortion is in the best “emotional/mental” health of the mother . . .
c. Not enforcing, ignoring or turning a “blind eye” to violations of the law; e.g. it wasn’t an abortion, but a “D&C” . . .
2. The Congress that can change the law at a later date (or even in the Conference Committee)
3. The Federal Courts and relying on them
a. Not striking the law down as unconstitutional
b. Not having activist judges (appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the Democrat Senate) interpreting what services health plans should cover and what are “necessary” services, or by accepting challenges to Stupak
c. As our experience with them is thirty-six years later, Roe versus Wade is still the law of the land
These risks are not only with abortion, but euthanasia and assisted-suicide services as well.
Plain and simple, the Pro-Life Movement cannot support bestowing this much power to the state and must oppose ALL health care reform efforts that include the Federal government. It is naïve to believe Federalized health care will not lead to Federally-funded abortions and assisted-suicides.