Church’s statement on abortion and implications of said statement

[Scott Lloyd]

The overturning by SCOTUS of Roe v. Wade has occasioned an update of the Topics page on abortion on the Church’s Newsroom site. Here, in part, is the Church’s statement; I’m bolding a portion for emphasis:

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

 

The phrase “pay for” probably means directly paying the bill for an individual abortion. 
 

But I wonder if there could be further implications that might prompt a bit of soul-searching. A couple of examples herewith:

 

Some abortions are publicly funded with taxpayer dollars. Not much we can do about that with compulsory taxation. But in the spirit of the Church statement, might we exercise our rights as citizens and engage in activism to curtail such public funding for abortion?
 

I’ve read that in the wake of the overturning of Roe, some corporations, including Disney, intend to pay for employees to travel to obtain abortions if they don’t have access to them in their home locales. Might we accordingly examine how we choose to spend our consumer dollars?

I don’t expect the Church to weigh in on such questions as these, but we can certainly do things of our own (individual) free will and choice and thereby “bring to pass much righteousness.”

 

[Ipod Touch]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The phrase “pay for” probably means directly paying the bill for an individual abortion.

It's like watching a Pharisee go to work in real-time.

Fascinating.

[JustAnAustralian]

 

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But in the spirit of the Church statement, might we exercise our rights as citizens and engage in activism to curtail such public funding for abortion?

The Hyde amendment was doing that (at least at the federal level), though the Biden administration removed that language from their spending bill according to wikipedia.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

The Hyde amendment was doing that (at least at the federal level), though the Biden administration removed that language from their spending bill according to wikipedia.

Yes. Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016 on a pledge to try to repeal the Hyde Amendment. And the Biden Administration has tried to do it this go-around. Some state governments have liberalized the provisions under which abortion would be funded through Medicaid. 

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The overturning by SCOTUS of Roe v. Wade has occasioned an update of the Topics page on abortion on the Church’s Newsroom site. Here, in part, is the Church’s statement; I’m bolding a portion for emphasis:

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

 

The phrase “pay for” probably means directly paying the bill for an individual abortion. 
 

But I wonder if there could be further implications that might prompt a bit of soul-searching. A couple of examples herewith:

 

Some abortions are publicly funded with taxpayer dollars.

I thought the Hyde Amendment prohibited this at least on a federal level.

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Not much we can do about that with compulsory taxation. But in the spirit of the Church statement, might we exercise our rights as citizens and engage in activism to curtail such public funding for abortion?

Sure.  That is what America is all about.

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve read that in the wake of the overturning of Roe, some corporations, including Disney, intend to pay for employees to travel to obtain abortions if they don’t have access to them in their home locales. Might we accordingly examine how we choose to spend our consumer dollars?

I don’t expect the Church to weigh in on such questions as these, but we can certainly do things of our own (individual) free will and choice and thereby “bring to pass much righteousness.”

 

Sure.  A lot of companies are planning to pay to assist employees go to state to obtain an abortion. Disney, ****s Sporting Goods, Google and so on. You are free to vote with your $$ and not spend them at such companies.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I thought the Hyde Amendment prohibited this at least on a federal level.

the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.^[

 

17 states have a policy to use their own Medicaid funds to pay for abortion beyond the Hyde Amendment requirements, and an estimated 20% of abortions are paid through Medicaid.^[22][23]

As of 2021, 16 states use their own state funds to pay for elective abortions and similar services, exceeding federal requirements.^[24]

Consequently, the cutoff of federal Medicaid funds prompted some states to provide public funding for abortion services from their own coffers. Over time the number of states doing so has gradually expanded, either through legislation or consequent to judicial rulings.^[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

[The Nehor]

The Hyde amendment is a little weird. While I guess technically it could be repealed the reality is that it is an ongoing thing in every budget package. The easiest way to undo it would be to pull it out of a proposed budget and pass it. It was pulled out a few times but Congress renegotiated it back in . The current 2023 budget draft from the White House (often a starting point for negotiations) does not include it. Then again the last one didn’t either and it ended up back in place.

This one is unlikely to fare better unless the composition of Congress shifts during the mid-terms.

Edited June 28, 2022 by The Nehor

[Raingirl]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The overturning by SCOTUS of Roe v. Wade has occasioned an update of the Topics page on abortion on the Church’s Newsroom site. Here, in part, is the Church’s statement; I’m bolding a portion for emphasis:

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

 

The phrase “pay for” probably means directly paying the bill for an individual abortion. 
 

But I wonder if there could be further implications that might prompt a bit of soul-searching. A couple of examples herewith:

 

Some abortions are publicly funded with taxpayer dollars. Not much we can do about that with compulsory taxation. But in the spirit of the Church statement, might we exercise our rights as citizens and engage in activism to curtail such public funding for abortion?
 

I’ve read that in the wake of the overturning of Roe, some corporations, including Disney, intend to pay for employees to travel to obtain abortions if they don’t have access to them in their home locales. Might we accordingly examine how we choose to spend our consumer dollars?

I don’t expect the Church to weigh in on such questions as these, but we can certainly do things of our own (individual) free will and choice and thereby “bring to pass much righteousness.”

 

I wonder if any of these companies pay for travel for other types of procedures or medical care. I’ve known a number of people who had to travel to a different state for cancer treatment, for example. I bet none of these companies do that. 

[Fether]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The overturning by SCOTUS of Roe v. Wade has occasioned an update of the Topics page on abortion on the Church’s Newsroom site. Here, in part, is the Church’s statement; I’m bolding a portion for emphasis:

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

 

The phrase “pay for” probably means directly paying the bill for an individual abortion. 
 

But I wonder if there could be further implications that might prompt a bit of soul-searching. A couple of examples herewith:

 

Some abortions are publicly funded with taxpayer dollars. Not much we can do about that with compulsory taxation. But in the spirit of the Church statement, might we exercise our rights as citizens and engage in activism to curtail such public funding for abortion?
 

I’ve read that in the wake of the overturning of Roe, some corporations, including Disney, intend to pay for employees to travel to obtain abortions if they don’t have access to them in their home locales. Might we accordingly examine how we choose to spend our consumer dollars?

I don’t expect the Church to weigh in on such questions as these, but we can certainly do things of our own (individual) free will and choice and thereby “bring to pass much righteousness.”

 

I understand you are just playing with this, but this is like diving deep into tax law, investments and inflation to decide how much you really owe in taxes.

Just don’t pay someone to have an abortion and we are good

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I wonder if any of these companies pay for travel for other types of procedures or medical care. I’ve known a number of people who had to travel to a different state for cancer treatment, for example.

Me too.  Many people came from out of state and even Canada to get ECT, a variation of ECT that I can’t remember the name of which had less memory issues as it targeted specific parts of the brain rather than a full seizure, but wasn’t as effective for most, and Ketamine therapy when my daughter was going to the UoU for ECT for severe depression (it worked, but eventually got too side effecty without corresponding significant decreases in depression as occurred at the beginning, so she quit).

Maybe there will be a push to get companies to help out because if I was someone dying of cancer because I couldn’t get to treatment in the next state and I saw a healthy fellow employee have their expenses covered for an abortion, I would be pissed.  And I would think a lot of fellow employees watching a friend having health issues might back up a protest if aid was denied as ‘not a thing the company does’.

I was thinking maybe travel for medical procedures is covered by insurance for some companies, but it looks like even Life Flight isn’t covered by most, so it seems unlikely.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Fether said:

I understand you are just playing with this, but this is like diving deep into tax law, investments and inflation to decide how much you really owe in taxes.

Just don’t pay someone to have an abortion and we are good

Agree that the ambiguity is overwhelming if one is trying to slice and dice it

To earn a living, ie "money", we devote our time, knowledge, skills and life experience to earn crypto currency issued by the government, the value of which we accept on faith, even though the amount of tangible goods we get from these magic pieces of paper drops daily.

If we advocate or even comment on favoring abortion, we we devote our time, knowledge, skills and life experience, on faith,  to "pay for" and "support" abortions, according to possible interpretations.

So much for possible interpretations.

Fergitaboutit!

Stick wit them woids as they is!

Once you start messing with interpretations you enter the twilight zone

 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/27/2022 at 11:47 PM, Ipod Touch said:

It's like watching a Pharisee go to work in real-time.

Fascinating.

Yes thanks for providing it.  We always appreciate the pharisees of Scientism. !  Their purpose in life has no scientific basis while blaming others for the same flaw.  Fascinating!

But so glad you DO have a purpose!  How do you justify it? What scietific evidence have you for your life purpose?   Life has no purpose and yet you have one.   Seems like a tough quadary to me.     Yet there IS the conscience.  Mysterious thing, a little voice telling you that abortion is justified, right?   Belief that women actually have rights over their bodies?  What is the evidential basis for such a belief?   History certainly doesn't support it, culture doesn't support it, hmmm, where is the scientific evidence?

 

Note:  My actual opinion, justified I believe by the still small voice, is that religious belief IS a justified belief as part of one's life experience and that science AND religion are justified essentially, long story short, by Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon.  Therefore yes, this post is sarcastic and perhaps to some expresses opinions which are not really mine.  I see a central contradiction in the position of scientism in that there is no Scientific evidence for the position that all true statements must be scientifically justified.   Alma 32 teaches us that if a principle "works" in one's life, it IS justified.  Virtually all contemporary philosophers take a similar view as do virtually all physicists.