LOL. Your only mistake is the fact that Obama/Progressives are the politicians who actually idolize and support eugenic programs and policies:
(1) One of Obama's Science Czars actually supports eugenics (John Holdren) and wrote a book on the topic, including forced sterilization, abortions, and other government measures taken to reduce fertility rates to keep the population down (for example: www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/0… ).
(2) Obamacare IPAB Death Panels: (sections 3403 and 10320 of ACA): A committee of 15 politically appointed directors who decide how to cut costs of medicare (by determining how much the government will pay for certain procedures. By paying less than the costs associated to perform a procedure, in effect the Death Panel decides what procedures wont be covered, which likely will be the majority of procedures performed on the elderly near death such as total hips, etc...).
(3) Progressives promote abortions for convenience, over adoption or orphanages, in cases other than those of rape/incest/elevated medical risks for child/mother.
LOL. Facts? You presented no factual basis for your claims, so it would by hypocritical to question mine.
Nonetheless, the link was from a page of the book John Holdren authored; most of the time, authors don't cite their own work. As far Far as Fox news goes, the link is to a direct source, the author's own work, not an opinion of a new organization interpreting the work, the work speaks for itself. It makes no matter whether Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, or Al Jarezza TV copies a page from the authors book and place a link to it..... the book remains about idolizing and supporting eugenics.
Insurance is by contract though. If they breach contract you can sue them. If the patient dies in the meanwhile, the heirs continue the claim against the insurance company, and likely will get huge money (millions and millions) if the jury finds out the insurance company let their client die because it refused to pay claim wrongfully. While I am sure it happens sometimes, that is not the norm.
An IPAB Death Panel CANNOT be sued. Even if they could, they would be shielded by sovereign immunity and the most $ you could get would be like $200k (as compared to millions and millions for a grossly negligent breach of contract). Also, these people are not only monetarily minded, they are also politically minded and likely to be used by the Obama administration to deny sufficient allowances for procedures that typically occur in higher percentages with his political opponents. IPAB decisions can effect millions of people with each decision they make, while a Bad Acting Insurance company has to make 1 bad decision at a time.... so the scale of damage done rests with IPAB.
First of all, if the government gives a person nothing, that is not a punishment, that is (should be) the status quo of contention.
If a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant, it is no ones fault, other than her own and her partners, and should be no one else's expense for the baby (excluding rape).
As you know, anytime you get something of value or it is offered as an effect based on a certain event, it is a subsidy or influence to illicit a certain behavior. So if you reward people with money for each child they have (through whatever program), that encourages people to have more children. At the same time, the amount of money being rewarded to people in poverty based on their children is not enough to take them out of poverty, so in effect poverty based entitlements just subsidize and grow the poverty class. Then usually the same people who make the poor decisions to have children while in poverty, usually continue to make other poor decisions and start spending their entitlement child support from uncle sam on things like drugs, alcohol, smokes, gambling, junk food, etc...
I think we are drifting from the topic of eugenics into justification for abortions of convenience....
Anyways, you are proving my point that people who support abortions for all the reasons you mentioned (other than rape/medical risk exceptions) are essentially "culling" their own children/children in poverty who would otherwise apparently be a burden to society. As such, it seems you are conceding that abortions for convenience are a tool of eugenics when subsidized by the government which is a Democratic Progressive ideal, rather than a Republican Ideal.
LOL, so testy....
Yes woman have a "legal" right to have an abortion as provided by Federal and State laws where they choose to live. That doesn't make it "morally" right to do so though under a general census of what constitutes morals IMO. Sure morals don't always matter to some people, so be it, that is between them and their GOD, if any.
While women may have a legal right to kill their own unborn baby for whatever reason of convenience they choose (not ready/responsible, cost to much money, family dynamics don't condone it, etc...), they don't have a right to force taxpayers to pay for their abortion. At the very least, if they are going to make lemonade out lemons, then they need to take responsibility for their actions and pay for their own procedure.
I don't care how irresponsible other people choose to be (that is their right), UNTIL their irresponsibility starts costing the time/money of Responsible People, who then have every right to make changes to the law to try to reign-in the irresponsible behaviors of others who begin to infringe on responsible people's rights to privacy and property (to be left alone and untaxed to pay for other peoples' irresponsible behaviors).
What I would like to see rather than an abortion, is for the mother to at least carry the baby to term, deliver it, and then put it up for adoption (with abortion justifiable for rape/medical risks of mother/child). That way the baby isn't killed for convenience; people who want to love a baby can adopt one from the US; the mother has a chance to take responsibility, and after going through the whole ordeal may be she would have a greater appreciation for life, sex, unintended consequences of premarital sex, etc....
Protection is not needed, if there isn't sex happening in the first place.
But if there has to be sex, protection should "always" be used or sex should be denied (there are all those STDs out there including HIV/AIDS, which is worse than an unwanted pregnancy).
Both MEN and WOMEN have the joint-responsibility to practice safe-sex. Similarly, MEN also should pay child support and half medical bills for unwanted pregnancies which go up for adoption. And if the MEN don't pay they should be subject to child endangerment violations requiring them to go to a working-jail which allows them to make money to be collected for the child-support.
and then you've got "apolitical" republicans who are like "I used to vote democrat but now I like republicans b/c taxes" (not joking, I know someone like that). Yeah, nice to know you care about human rights so much
I dont think the democrats are perfect, but in a two party system you've got to pick the lesser of two evils.
/sorry if this was ranty. I hate politics in the us (which is where I live)