The Minneapolis Star-Tribune on7 February printed an editorial calling for no new limits on abortion rights. My emphases and comments with editing.
Reject new limits on abortion rights
If ending a pregnancy is legal, income should not be a barrier. [Translation: The editors of the STrib want you to pay for abortions with your taxes or for employers to be forced by law to pay for abortions.]
Last update: February 7, 2011 – 5:44 PM
[…]
The issue keeps coming back because strong, heartfelt feelings on this difficult subject run deep. Reasonable people will forever disagree about abortion based on health, moral, religious and privacy concerns. [Don’t accept the premise. “Reasonable people” see abortion for what it really is.]
Understanding those legitimate differences, [noooo…] we come down firmly on the side of current law and a woman’s right to choose. [euphemism]
Passage of the proposed bill would directly contradict a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision determining that state health programs for the poor must cover reproductive health procedures — including abortions. [Consider that pregnancy is not a disease or an abnormal condition.]
In fact, the issue is a matter of equity. [And the equity for the child?]
As a legal medical procedure, abortion must be covered under most medical plans. That same right to coverage should be extended to those of lesser means. [And who is going to pay for that? Taxpayers?]
A woman should not be denied this important reproductive choice simply because of her income. According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, state and federal funding paid for about 3,700 abortions in 2008, at a cost of about $1.5 million. [Taxpayers.]
Minnesota lawmakers who oppose abortion are expected to suggest another bill that would further chip away at reproductive rights. [euphemism] As in several other states, legislators here will likely seek to ban most abortions at 20 weeks after conception.
That restriction is unnecessary because about 90 percent of abortions occur during the first trimester. Typically, later pregnancy terminations occur only after a tragic fetal diagnosis has been made or when the pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest. [If you can kill someone who is inconvenient, it’ll soon be your turn to die.]
In a national assault on abortion services also fueled by a political shift, some U.S. House Republicans are attempting to push through more-extreme, intrusive measures that could end insurance coverage for countless American women.
The new federal bill would ban outright the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion. [By now, I’m getting the impression that the editors want as many abortions to take place as possible.]
Under that misguided plan, small-business tax credits that encourage employers to offer health insurance could not cover abortions. [It’s always some else who gets to pay for abortions, is it?] Those who use a tax-preferred saving account to pay medical costs could not use the money for an abortion without paying taxes on the cost of the procedure.
Another bill would deny funding for family planning services to any organization that provides abortions. The measure is directed primarily at Planned Parenthood health centers that offer other important health services and use no federal funds for abortions. [How stupid do they think readers are? Is money not fungible? Are they seriously suggesting that federal money given to Planned Parenthood isn’t supporting the big business of abortion?] Both the insurance limits and funding restrictions should be rejected by Congress.
With a governor and majority in the Legislature opposing abortion, neighboring South Dakota passed a ban on abortion in 2006. But citizens, understanding the need to preserve the option, undid that law in a 2008 statewide vote.
Minnesotans who value reproductive rights [euphemism] should also speak up by contacting their lawmakers and responding to the revived momentum of abortion opponents.
Tell policymakers that this difficult decision is best left to women and their doctors and families. [Never mind about the infans, “one who can’t speak”. ]
And remind local politicians that with a $6.2 billion state deficit and high unemployment, they’ve got more pressing matters to handle than tampering with a woman’s right to choose. [I love that argument. Don’t worry, Star-Trib, pro-lifers can multi-task.]
Most Rev. John Nienstedt, Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis fired back today on the editorial page of the same abortion promoting STrib.
Readers write for Saturday, Feb. 12
Abortion editorial
Board got it wrong, board got it right
I write to express my concern and dismay regarding the Star Tribune’s Feb. 8 editorial “Reject new limits on abortion rights.”
I agree that reasonable people may differ over abortion based on health, moral, religious and privacy concerns. [I guess it depends on what we mean by “reasonable”.] I cannot, however, agree with the idea that the taking of an innocent life is a woman’s right. [Because it isn’t actually “reasonable”. It’s contrary to right reason.]
The 1973 Supreme Court decision wasn’t based on a “woman’s right to choose” but rather on the right to privacy. [“But Your Excellency!” the editor may be sputtering. “What about the emanations from penumbras and… stuff?”] I believe that it is misleading to suggest this decision affirms that, if a woman wants to have an abortion, taxpayers are expected to pay for it. [EXACTLY.]
While it is reasonable to affirm a person’s right to basic health care, it’s also misleading to say that an elective abortion is a health issue. [EXACTLY.]
Citizens do disagree on civil and legal matters, and when they do, legislative bodies react to their constituents. This is the process we are now seeing played out in Minnesota.
It’s democracy at its best.
THE REV. JOHN C. NIENSTEDT
The writer is archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Well done, Your Excellency. WDTPRS kudos.
Biretta tip o{]:¬) to Stella Borealis.
St. Valentine, priest, was martyred in 269 at Rome near the Milvian Bridge on the Via Flaminia. He is considered a patron of bee keepers, engaged couples and epileptics. In pictures or statues he can identified with the symbols of birds and roses.
Ecumenical dialogue has been much on my mind these days. I often think about ecumenism, since I myself am a convert. There is a lot of “false ecumenism” out there.
No surprise here. 
B on Daily Rome Shot 1116: “It just gets worse and worse. The Pope needs to publicly and very clearly put a halt to these shenanigans.…”
