Anonymous wrote:How dare we as a society help provide care for children with special needs? OP you are so right, all our SN kids should be aborted if known in utero and we should just kill those when we discover their SN later on in life. Thanks, good to know you are such caring individual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has microcephaly, not due to Zika and not something that could be detected in utero. There is no reason to think he will have a short, painful life. He is a joyful kid and attends a public school. He does have developmental and medical issues and has significantly more medical bills than a typical kid, which are covered through a combination of private insurance and Medicaid.

I am pro-choice, but using inaccurate and fear-mongering information about people with disabilities is not a good tactic for fighting abortion bans.

But if it were detected early and was very severe, shouldn't parents have the choice?

Yes, as I said I am pro choice. Personally I don't think I would abort a child with disabilities unless the condition was going to cause near certain very early death. i fear that the kind of language being used here--conflating all disabilities or special needs with short painful useless life--is inaccurate and denies the humanity of people with disabilities. It might also contribute to people feeling like it is the "responsible" thing to do to abort children with special needs, an idea I find horrific.

It might be in cases of severe microcephaly. That's not horrific, that's reality.

No, what is horrific is that you just said it would be the responsible thing to do to abort a wanted pregnancy because the child has disabilities.

No, that's not what I said. I said it might be responsible to abort in case of severe microcephaly. I stand by that; there are many conditions for which MFM will recommend abortion. I think you might be too close to this issue to be reasonable.

Until the child is born, you will not know the extent of the problems. So, by your basis, you are recommending abortion for all with kids who might present with issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most likely Medicaid. I have a child with special needs so I'm somewhat familiar with Medicaid (we don't have it) - a lot of children with costly medical needs are on Medicaid, based on the child's income alone.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Instead of raising taxes to cover medical costs, I'd rather pay for an informational campaign discouraging travel to countries with Zika. If you're three months pregnant, cancel your trip to Rio and tell you cousin you're very sorry but you won't be attending her wedding in Puerto Rico. There are ways to avoid this.

We can also test and quarantine people the way we do for TB. I'm all for that. If you're dumb enough to go to Rio pregnant, sorry. You have to have a blood test upon return.

But we ARE NOT doing that. Refugees with active TB have been found in almost every state. Do you really think Zika will be screened for?

Are you in favor of a ban travel for those countries affected by Zika? How about from Florida?

You do realize many people can have TB and its not just refugees.

We all but eradicated it in this country. Sorry Charlie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't hear anyone responding to the question of who foots the bill. Just a lot of empty rhetoric about how precious all lives are.

If they're so precious, who is going to pay the price? That's a very practical question. Give me a practical answer.

Ask Hillary how she's going to pay for her goals, too.

debt - $1.2 trillion

$400m to Iran, which we probably borrowed from China

How about a compromise? What if we used more birth control? Being proactive ain't a bad thing, folks!

First the good news, then the bad.

Since President Barack Obama first took office:
The U.S. trade deficit has shrunk by 24 percent; exports have grown faster than imports.
The number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally has gone down — by 3.4 percent according to one independent estimate and by 9 percent according to another.
The economy has added 9.7 million jobs.
The unemployment rate has dropped below the historical norm.
The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent.
Corporate profits are running 144 percent higher and stock prices have soared.
Federal debt has more than doubled, and annual deficits, after shrinking, are again on the rise.
The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by nearly 15 million.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/obamas-numbers-april-2016-update/

Looks like the economy will do fine under Hillary. I am comfortable with Obama's endorsement. By contrast, let us remember that Trump filed for bankruptcy four times.

Back to the topic... birth control is great. But lots of families are actively trying to conceive. Are you saying we should have a ban on healthy babies during this period, just because Trump/Pence want to outlaw abortions on severely brain damaged children? I don't think that's going to fly very well in America, either.

Maybe if you're living in a warm, tropical climate and there are reports of Zika spreading, you should think just twice about conceiving, unless you plan to move to a high altitude or northern state for the duration of your pregnancy. Most responsible parents stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, change their lifestyle of they are serious about having a healthy child. Why not add Zika prevention tactics to the list? There are ways to avoid having a child with this disease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most likely Medicaid. I have a child with special needs so I'm somewhat familiar with Medicaid (we don't have it) - a lot of children with costly medical needs are on Medicaid, based on the child's income alone.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Instead of raising taxes to cover medical costs, I'd rather pay for an informational campaign discouraging travel to countries with Zika. If you're three months pregnant, cancel your trip to Rio and tell you cousin you're very sorry but you won't be attending her wedding in Puerto Rico. There are ways to avoid this.

We can also test and quarantine people the way we do for TB. I'm all for that. If you're dumb enough to go to Rio pregnant, sorry. You have to have a blood test upon return.

But we ARE NOT doing that. Refugees with active TB have been found in almost every state. Do you really think Zika will be screened for?

Are you in favor of a ban travel for those countries affected by Zika? How about from Florida?

You do realize many people can have TB and its not just refugees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most likely Medicaid. I have a child with special needs so I'm somewhat familiar with Medicaid (we don't have it) - a lot of children with costly medical needs are on Medicaid, based on the child's income alone.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Instead of raising taxes to cover medical costs, I'd rather pay for an informational campaign discouraging travel to countries with Zika. If you're three months pregnant, cancel your trip to Rio and tell you cousin you're very sorry but you won't be attending her wedding in Puerto Rico. There are ways to avoid this.

We can also test and quarantine people the way we do for TB. I'm all for that. If you're dumb enough to go to Rio pregnant, sorry. You have to have a blood test upon return.

But we ARE NOT doing that. Refugees with active TB have been found in almost every state. Do you really think Zika will be screened for?

Are you in favor of a ban travel for those countries affected by Zika? How about from Florida?

You do realize many people can have TB and its not just refugees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most likely Medicaid. I have a child with special needs so I'm somewhat familiar with Medicaid (we don't have it) - a lot of children with costly medical needs are on Medicaid, based on the child's income alone.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Instead of raising taxes to cover medical costs, I'd rather pay for an informational campaign discouraging travel to countries with Zika. If you're three months pregnant, cancel your trip to Rio and tell you cousin you're very sorry but you won't be attending her wedding in Puerto Rico. There are ways to avoid this.

We can also test and quarantine people the way we do for TB. I'm all for that. If you're dumb enough to go to Rio pregnant, sorry. You have to have a blood test upon return.

But we ARE NOT doing that. Refugees with active TB have been found in almost every state. Do you really think Zika will be screened for?

Are you in favor of a ban travel for those countries affected by Zika? How about from Florida?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has microcephaly, not due to Zika and not something that could be detected in utero. There is no reason to think he will have a short, painful life. He is a joyful kid and attends a public school. He does have developmental and medical issues and has significantly more medical bills than a typical kid, which are covered through a combination of private insurance and Medicaid.

I am pro-choice, but using inaccurate and fear-mongering information about people with disabilities is not a good tactic for fighting abortion bans.

But if it were detected early and was very severe, shouldn't parents have the choice?

Yes, as I said I am pro choice. Personally I don't think I would abort a child with disabilities unless the condition was going to cause near certain very early death. i fear that the kind of language being used here--conflating all disabilities or special needs with short painful useless life--is inaccurate and denies the humanity of people with disabilities. It might also contribute to people feeling like it is the "responsible" thing to do to abort children with special needs, an idea I find horrific.

It might be in cases of severe microcephaly. That's not horrific, that's reality.

Ultrasounds are not perfect nor is any of the testing. Ultrasounds did not show my child would have issues. So, then what do you do with kids like mine. Kill them when they start to show signs of an "abnormality"? Not everyone thinks having a disabled child is a problem. Some of us are willing to love and care for them regardless of their needs. If you choose abortion that is your choice and right, but that is not the best choice for other parents who are willing to take the risks knowing the possibilities.

No, what is horrific is that you just said it would be the responsible thing to do to abort a wanted pregnancy because the child has disabilities.

No, that's not what I said. I said it might be responsible to abort in case of severe microcephaly. I stand by that; there are many conditions for which MFM will recommend abortion. I think you might be too close to this issue to be reasonable.

Until the child is born, you will not know the extent of the problems. So, by your basis, you are recommending abortion for all with kids who might present with issues.

Again, and I am going the kind here since you are way too close to this to be rational, yes, they have a very good sense of how bad microcephaly will be by looking at ultrasounds. And, again, no, I am not recommending abortion for any fetus who might have issues. Pretty sure MFM and other specialists have a decent handle on the conditions that warrant recommending abortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't hear anyone responding to the question of who foots the bill. Just a lot of empty rhetoric about how precious all lives are.

If they're so precious, who is going to pay the price? That's a very practical question. Give me a practical answer.

Ask Hillary how she's going to pay for her goals, too.

debt - $1.2 trillion

$400m to Iran, which we probably borrowed from China

How about a compromise? What if we used more birth control? Being proactive ain't a bad thing, folks!

First the good news, then the bad.

Since President Barack Obama first took office:
The U.S. trade deficit has shrunk by 24 percent; exports have grown faster than imports.
The number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally has gone down — by 3.4 percent according to one independent estimate and by 9 percent according to another.
The economy has added 9.7 million jobs.
The unemployment rate has dropped below the historical norm.
The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent.
Corporate profits are running 144 percent higher and stock prices have soared.
Federal debt has more than doubled, and annual deficits, after shrinking, are again on the rise.
The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by nearly 15 million.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/obamas-numbers-april-2016-update/

Looks like the economy will do fine under Hillary. I am comfortable with Obama's endorsement. By contrast, let us remember that Trump filed for bankruptcy four times.

Back to the topic... birth control is great. But lots of families are actively trying to conceive. Are you saying we should have a ban on healthy babies during this period, just because Trump/Pence want to outlaw abortions on severely brain damaged children? I don't think that's going to fly very well in America, either.

Maybe if you're living in a warm, tropical climate and there are reports of Zika spreading, you should think just twice about conceiving, unless you plan to move to a high altitude or northern state for the duration of your pregnancy. Most responsible parents stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, change their lifestyle of they are serious about having a healthy child. Why not add Zika prevention tactics to the list? There are ways to avoid having a child with this disease.

Kinda not really.
1. Don't get pregnant. Pretty hard if you're already pregnant.
2. Don't get bit by Zika-infected mosquitos. Easy in most of Florida. Easy-ish in most Zika areas, if you're rich and rarely leave the house. Tricky for poor women in Zika areas.
3. Do not have unprotected sex with a potentially Zika-infected partner while pregnant. Easy in healthy relationships. Not easy in unhealthy relationships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has microcephaly, not due to Zika and not something that could be detected in utero. There is no reason to think he will have a short, painful life. He is a joyful kid and attends a public school. He does have developmental and medical issues and has significantly more medical bills than a typical kid, which are covered through a combination of private insurance and Medicaid.

I am pro-choice, but using inaccurate and fear-mongering information about people with disabilities is not a good tactic for fighting abortion bans.

But if it were detected early and was very severe, shouldn't parents have the choice?

Yes, as I said I am pro choice. Personally I don't think I would abort a child with disabilities unless the condition was going to cause near certain very early death. i fear that the kind of language being used here--conflating all disabilities or special needs with short painful useless life--is inaccurate and denies the humanity of people with disabilities. It might also contribute to people feeling like it is the "responsible" thing to do to abort children with special needs, an idea I find horrific.

It might be in cases of severe microcephaly. That's not horrific, that's reality.

No, what is horrific is that you just said it would be the responsible thing to do to abort a wanted pregnancy because the child has disabilities.

No, that's not what I said. I said it might be responsible to abort in case of severe microcephaly. I stand by that; there are many conditions for which MFM will recommend abortion. I think you might be too close to this issue to be reasonable.

Until the child is born, you will not know the extent of the problems. So, by your basis, you are recommending abortion for all with kids who might present with issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't hear anyone responding to the question of who foots the bill. Just a lot of empty rhetoric about how precious all lives are.

If they're so precious, who is going to pay the price? That's a very practical question. Give me a practical answer.

Ask Hillary how she's going to pay for her goals, too.

debt - $1.2 trillion

$400m to Iran, which we probably borrowed from China

How about a compromise? What if we used more birth control? Being proactive ain't a bad thing, folks!

First the good news, then the bad.

Since President Barack Obama first took office:
The U.S. trade deficit has shrunk by 24 percent; exports have grown faster than imports.
The number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally has gone down — by 3.4 percent according to one independent estimate and by 9 percent according to another.
The economy has added 9.7 million jobs.
The unemployment rate has dropped below the historical norm.
The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent.
Corporate profits are running 144 percent higher and stock prices have soared.
Federal debt has more than doubled, and annual deficits, after shrinking, are again on the rise.
The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by nearly 15 million.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/obamas-numbers-april-2016-update/

Looks like the economy will do fine under Hillary. I am comfortable with Obama's endorsement. By contrast, let us remember that Trump filed for bankruptcy four times.

Back to the topic... birth control is great. But lots of families are actively trying to conceive. Are you saying we should have a ban on healthy babies during this period, just because Trump/Pence want to outlaw abortions on severely brain damaged children? I don't think that's going to fly very well in America, either.

Maybe if you're living in a warm, tropical climate and there are reports of Zika spreading, you should think just twice about conceiving, unless you plan to move to a high altitude or northern state for the duration of your pregnancy. Most responsible parents stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, change their lifestyle of they are serious about having a healthy child. Why not add Zika prevention tactics to the list? There are ways to avoid having a child with this disease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most likely Medicaid. I have a child with special needs so I'm somewhat familiar with Medicaid (we don't have it) - a lot of children with costly medical needs are on Medicaid, based on the child's income alone.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Instead of raising taxes to cover medical costs, I'd rather pay for an informational campaign discouraging travel to countries with Zika. If you're three months pregnant, cancel your trip to Rio and tell you cousin you're very sorry but you won't be attending her wedding in Puerto Rico. There are ways to avoid this.

We can also test and quarantine people the way we do for TB. I'm all for that. If you're dumb enough to go to Rio pregnant, sorry. You have to have a blood test upon return.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has microcephaly, not due to Zika and not something that could be detected in utero. There is no reason to think he will have a short, painful life. He is a joyful kid and attends a public school. He does have developmental and medical issues and has significantly more medical bills than a typical kid, which are covered through a combination of private insurance and Medicaid.

I am pro-choice, but using inaccurate and fear-mongering information about people with disabilities is not a good tactic for fighting abortion bans.

But if it were detected early and was very severe, shouldn't parents have the choice?

Yes, as I said I am pro choice. Personally I don't think I would abort a child with disabilities unless the condition was going to cause near certain very early death. i fear that the kind of language being used here--conflating all disabilities or special needs with short painful useless life--is inaccurate and denies the humanity of people with disabilities. It might also contribute to people feeling like it is the "responsible" thing to do to abort children with special needs, an idea I find horrific.

It might be in cases of severe microcephaly. That's not horrific, that's reality.

No, what is horrific is that you just said it would be the responsible thing to do to abort a wanted pregnancy because the child has disabilities.

No, that's not what I said. I said it might be responsible to abort in case of severe microcephaly. I stand by that; there are many conditions for which MFM will recommend abortion. I think you might be too close to this issue to be reasonable.

Until the child is born, you will not know the extent of the problems. So, by your basis, you are recommending abortion for all with kids who might present with issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't hear anyone responding to the question of who foots the bill. Just a lot of empty rhetoric about how precious all lives are.

If they're so precious, who is going to pay the price? That's a very practical question. Give me a practical answer.

Ask Hillary how she's going to pay for her goals, too.

debt - $1.2 trillion

$400m to Iran, which we probably borrowed from China

How about a compromise? What if we used more birth control? Being proactive ain't a bad thing, folks!

First the good news, then the bad.

Since President Barack Obama first took office:
The U.S. trade deficit has shrunk by 24 percent; exports have grown faster than imports.
The number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally has gone down — by 3.4 percent according to one independent estimate and by 9 percent according to another.
The economy has added 9.7 million jobs.
The unemployment rate has dropped below the historical norm.
The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent.
Corporate profits are running 144 percent higher and stock prices have soared.
Federal debt has more than doubled, and annual deficits, after shrinking, are again on the rise.
The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by nearly 15 million.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/obamas-numbers-april-2016-update/

Looks like the economy will do fine under Hillary. I am comfortable with Obama's endorsement. By contrast, let us remember that Trump filed for bankruptcy four times.

Back to the topic... birth control is great. But lots of families are actively trying to conceive. Are you saying we should have a ban on healthy babies during this period, just because Trump/Pence want to outlaw abortions on severely brain damaged children? I don't think that's going to fly very well in America, either.

Maybe if you're living in a warm, tropical climate and there are reports of Zika spreading, you should think just twice about conceiving, unless you plan to move to a high altitude or northern state for the duration of your pregnancy. Most responsible parents stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, change their lifestyle of they are serious about having a healthy child. Why not add Zika prevention tactics to the list? There are ways to avoid having a child with this disease.