Veterans Affairs Will Provide Abortions to Vets in Cases of “Rape and Incest” and Mother’s “Health”
In regards to rape and incest: “We are not requiring a veteran to present particular evidence such as a police report to qualify for this care.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will offer abortions to veterans in cases of “rape and incest” and if the mother’s life is in danger, including in states with strict abortion laws.
Even those enrolled in the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veteran Affairs (CHAMPVA) will have access to abortions. The “spouse or surviving spouse of—or a child of—a Veteran with disabilities or a Veteran who has died” are those who qualify for CHAMPVA.”
So, in other words, abortions are for the veterans and their families.
The VA banned abortion access in 1999, but since SCOTUS overruled Roe v. Wade, officials decided to take action:
“This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant Veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.”
“VA will be able to offer abortion counseling and abortions to pregnant Veterans and VA beneficiaries in cases of rape, incest, or when the life or health of the Veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term — in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice,” said Dr. Shereef Elnahal, VA’s Under Secretary for Health. “We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and Veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve. Offering this care will save Veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that.”
I put rape and incest in quotes in the title because it does not sound like the doctors will need much evidence that rape or incest took place. The VA also didn’t provide much information about the mother’s health.
Within the 40-page document:
Section 17.38(c)(1)(ii) permits abortions when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. We are not requiring a veteran to present particular evidence such as a police report to qualify for this care. This is consistent with longstanding VA policy to treat eligible individuals who experienced military sexual trauma without evidence of the trauma. This approach, similar to in the context of military sexual trauma, removes barriers to providing care. Therefore, the regulation will provide that self-reporting from the pregnant veteran constitutes sufficient evidence.
—
Section 17.272(a)(64)(ii) permits abortions when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. We are not requiring the CHAMPVA beneficiary to present particular evidence such as a police report to qualify for this care. This approach, as discussed above, removes barriers to providing care. Therefore, the regulation will provide that self-reporting from the pregnant CHAMPVA beneficiary constitutes sufficient evidence.
The VA also provides a word salad to justify killing a baby if the mother’s life is in danger. Oh, wait. I’m sorry. “Pregnant individuals” because science is so passe.
People seem to “forget” that doctors can induce labor and that a woman can have an emergency C-section. For some reason, killing a baby is the only way to save a woman:
Pregnancy can exacerbate underlying or preexisting conditions, like renal or cardiac disease, in such a way as to severely compromise the health of an individual. Additionally, pregnant individuals may have their health endangered due to severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer requiring prompt treatment, and intrauterine infections. In those circumstances, an abortion may be the only treatment available to protect the health of the pregnant CHAMPVA beneficiary. Thus, there may be instances when an abortion may be medically necessary and appropriate to prevent a pregnant CHAMPVA beneficiary’s health from being endangered if the pregnancy was carried to term, and VA finds it necessary to deviate from TRICARE (Select) to provide abortions in these circumstances.
It’s okay to kill the unborn human being if a woman’s life is in danger if she carries the baby to term.
You know, a baby can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks. There have been cases of babies born at 19 weeks surviving.
Preeclampsia starts after 20 weeks of pregnancy. That means the baby is likely to survive outside of the womb.
Remember the story of my friend with preeclampsia? There is no reason to kill your baby, especially after viability. No excuse at all.
The VA claims the new rule does not violate the Hyde Amendment, which bans using federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s life is in danger:
For instance, Federal funds available to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education are subject to an appropriations restriction known as the “Hyde Amendment.” Congress has included the Hyde Amendment in those agencies’ annual appropriations legislation for more than forty years. In its current form, the Hyde Amendment provides that no covered funds “shall be expended for any abortion” or “for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion,” except “if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or . . . in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a lifeendangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.”
But the new rule violates the Hyde Amendment because, as of publication, it “restricts federal funding of abortions for active military members, and a 1992 law prohibits abortion care for military veterans or retirees.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Does that include Transwomen vets?
My question is more straightforward:
What about the pregnant men veterans?
And what’s with the archaic term “mothers?” Don’t they mean “birthing persons?”
Only if they have transbabies….
They get priority.
I am not against this, with two caveats:
1) Mandatory DNA collection and criminal complaint.
2) Criminal penalty for fraudulent criminal complaint.
Clearly the VA will be violating the Hyde Amendment, but this an Administration that doesn’t give a rat’s derriere about legalities, as evidenced by the massive student loan giveaway, as well as FERC’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling. As Brandon says we are a nation of laws, and the law is whatever he says it is.
Well, that legitimately covers less than 5% of pregnancies.
The rest will be postconception contraception for the convenience of the “pregnant person.”
Up next: gender affirming surgeries/hormone treatments in the womb!!
“Life”, or “health”?
This is the huge glaring inconsistency that has been the problem for decades. The Hyde Amendment says as plainly as can be: ” a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” Likewise various of the new state laws specify an exception to save the mother’s life. But what the abortion lobby insists on, when they’re pretending to be “moderate and reasonable”, is an absolute exception for the mother’s health. And the reason they insist on that is because it has proven to be the exception that swallows the rule.
There is no pregnant woman in the world, no matter how healthy, who can’t find a doctor to certify that an abortion would improve her health; which ipso facto means that her health is “in danger” without one.
Roe v Wade and Casey officially allowed states to ban abortion in the third trimester — except in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the woman’s health. And that is the reason why in fact, rather than theory, abortion was available until recently, in every state, right up to birth. All a woman had to do was claim her health was in danger, and find a compliant doctor to agree, and she could have her baby killed. That is the loophole that Dobbs closed, and that is what’s upsetting the left.
Now it looks like the VA is using that same definitional ju jitsu.
Heh, it feels strange milhouse, but I’m giving you an upvote.
Long time additional loophole in the “mothers health” exception -,in that in most jurisdictions that could be interpreted to include mental health. Which was commonly stretched to include unhappiness at being pregnant. So if you wanted an abortion you got an abortion – even if there was no physical health issue.
The idea that 15-16 weeks is an undue burden to have to decide for an at-will voluntary abortion is used to portray the US as a hotbed of Margaret Atwood dystopia. In reality that’s the standard in most western countries, including the ones whose leaders are most vocal in criticizing the US for adopting their own standard.
Is this just for service connected pregnancies?
My understanding is for access to VA care you have to be active duty, a dependent of someone on active duty, or someone with a good conduct discharge from active duty.
Actually, the VA system does not work at all with active duty personnel, or their dependents. The TriCare system is what is used for the active military and their dependents if you are not working directly with a hospital/clinic located on a military base. The VA comes into play after you are discharged from the military service and is based on medical issues which have been determined to be related to your military service. Unless you have a relatively high VA disability rating, you will not get full medical support from the VA.
Reproductive care is a euphemism for elective abortion a.k.a. planned parenthood? Since when?
Women have an equal right to self-defense as do men. Women have an equal right to choice implied by consensual sex, which is why social progressives conducted a witch hunt to judge and label society with assertions of systemic rape… rape-rape. One step forward, two steps backward.
Keep female soldiers affordable, available, and taxable?
Over 3/4 of women on active duty were utterly worthless. They not only did nothing productive, but while Iraq/Afghanistan they further contributed to the excessive deployment schedule of men by filling ‘safe’ garrison positions.
In any lead up to deployment it was never ‘official’, but every single commander knew they better have a backup for any actual essential position filled by a woman, because right before deployment at LEAST half of them would turn up pregnant (meaning non-deployable). Then a few weeks later almost all of them would have abortions.
It was just a fucking joke.
You’re exaggerating I believe – although I have to admit my service was in support commands and not combat commands.
I also have to concede that for whatever reason pregnancy is a problem – stationed in West Berlin they used to joke about something in the water because so many female soldiers got pregnant – including ones who were there unaccompanied. Oops.
Besides the part where they are punishing an innocent third party, is a there a legal reason why DNA isn’t collected in the the case of rape and incest?
My understanding is that doctors are required by law in every state to report cases of rape and incest to the local police. Since the VA surely knows that almost all abortions it will be requested to perform are in fact not cases of rape or incest, does that mean that VA doctors will be violating the law and not report rape or incest if the report is made to request an abortion?
One thing I am not certain of here is how many people this will actually affect. I use the VA system as my health care because of my personal situation, but I also have a VA disability rating of 90% and all the medical issues I have can be directly linked to my military service.
It is my understanding that below a certain rating, I believe it is 30%, but am not sure, the only medical care a veteran will receive is for service-connected medical issues. There are also income limitations for any medical support if you have a slightly higher rating, maybe up to 60%. The VA is not a normal health care plan. It is also always the secondary payer for any medical expenses. If you have any other health care plan, they pay first, the VA pays second.
I can’t wait until James O’Keefe escorts a pregnant female veteran “wife” into the VA and discusses getting her an abortion due to incest because “her sister got her pregnant.” He doesn’t even have to dress up as a pimp this time.
Currently, that’s what, about 0.001% of abortions, yes?
Now that the VA will cover the cost of ONLY these abortions, I predict a massive surge in claims of “incest” and “rape” among vets that want a free abortion.