WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
Email: Password: Lost Password? | Register
MetroNews Mobile Get Our FREE RSS Feeds!
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
Ad Current Jobs!
Tuesday, February 09 2010
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network News Sports WVU Sports Outdoors All Access Audio/Video Affiliates Advertising About Jobs Contact Search
03/24/2009
Hoppy Kercheval
Print this story
Hoppy's Commentary For Tuesday
Talkline Host Hoppy Kercheval
It’s currently the law of the land that abortion is legal.   Americans may be split on abortion, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade established a standard that, until or unless it is overturned, protects a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

Less clear, however, is whether the government should be required to pay for abortions.  That issue has surfaced in the West Virginia legislature where pro-life advocates are pushing a bill that would block the state from using taxpayer dollars—by way of Medicaid—to pay for elective abortions for poor women.

Pro-choice advocates argue that state funding is constitutional because of a 1993 West Virginia Supreme Court decision.  In a 3-2 ruling in what has become known as the “Panepinto Decision” (named for then-state Health and Human Resources Secretary Ruth Panepinto) the court struck down the new state law that would have prohibited the use of state Medicaid funds for abortion except in limited circumstances.

Justice Margaret Workman wrote the opinion, concluding that the law constituted “undue government interference in violation of the state’s obligation to act neutrally with regard to the exercise of the federally protected right to terminate a pregnancy.”

Margaret Chapman of the pro-choice group “West Virginia Free” told me on Talkline Monday that the court decision means the issue has already been settled.   She added in a news release “a ban on Medicaid funding of abortion would hurt the most disadvantaged women in West Virginia.”

But this issue needs another look, in the legislature and probably in the courts as well.

The U.S Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae in 1980 found that “it simply does not follow that a woman’s freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.” 

In other words, government cannot place obstacles in the way of a woman getting an abortion, but that protection does not extend so far as to require the state to pay for it.  

Consider the Second Amendment.  Citizens have the right to possess a gun, but the taxpayers are not obligated that buy the gun for a person who cannot afford one.

West Virginia is one of just 16 states that pays for elective abortions.  It’s peculiar to find West Virginia on that list since this is generally a pro-life state.  But this year the legislation has a better chance of passage than pervious years.

The bill has been assigned to the House Finance Committee, which is chaired by Del. Harry Keith White who is pro-life.  Last year the bill died in the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Del. Carrie Webster who is pro-choice.

If the bill passes the house it should sail through the senate to the desk of Gov. Manchin, who is pro-life. 

No doubt the bill if it becomes law would end up back in the West Virginia Supreme Court, a court which interestingly has as one of its newest members Margaret Workman, who won a seat in last year’s election after sitting out a term. 


User Comments
My my MikeyD, aren't you fond of starting crap.

FYI, I pull my weight and then some for the State. I am permitted an hour lunch break and I never leave the office once I arrive, since I choose to take my lunch with me to work and eat at my desk. Instead, I choose to take smaller breaks from work throughout the day to read news online and occasionally make comments.

The real question is, sir, why do you have so much time on your hands that you can come on here just to heckle other people who want to participate seriously on Hoppy's blog? Get a life.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion but it has later ruled that a woman does not have a right to have the government pay for her abortion.

The State of West Virginia started paying for elective welfare abortions, even done for the reason of birth control, during the first Rockefeller Administration. The funding has continued since then through Democratic and Republican Administrations. I have never been able to find any law, administrative order, or regulation authorizing this practice. I have never been able to find a line item for this funding in the State Budget, either. My research seems to tell one that the governor may be able to simply end the funding by administrative order or simply empound the funds. The Legislature may be able to reduce the amount spent for the practice to nothing or nearly nothing and pass this as part of the Budget, without any law.

The late Dr. John Finnegan, professor at West Liberty State College, and his wife, Anne, simply refused to pay their state income taxes because of this funding matter.

Delegate Sharon Spencer once proposed a win-win solution: have a check-off on the State Income Tax Return so one could specify whether he/she wanted their tax money (or, a certain amount) to go to welfare abortion funding.

I thought West Virginia is supposed to be encouraging population growth. Don't we want more people so our schools won't have to be consolidated and teachers will be able to keep their jobs? Contrary to what some senators and delegates may believe, I imagine there are those who want to move to, "come home to", or retire in West Virginia because of our values. Some people, such as Anne Finnegan, find paying for abortions violates their personal moral code. That is, they are facillitating another person's sin. This would be similar to giving a drunk person additional drink and having the person die of alcohol poisoning.

The people who want welfare abortion funding should consider paying for the abortions of these destitute people, if they feel so strongly about it. Perhaps, the abortionists could even step forward and perform "the services" on a gratis basis. Physicians and Dentists and even lawyers donate their services for the poor these days. Before abortions were provided in West Virginia, after the Roe v. Wade decision, various liberal persons in the State were paying to fly poor women out of State for abortions. This has been documented in the Charleston papers.

There are people waiting in line to adopt children. I would think these folks would be more than willing to pay the bills for a destitute woman to bring a child into the world and our Mountain State. Perhaps Our Legislature could provide some funds to reimburse the poor women for the time and trouble to carry these children to term.
oh im sorry skipdog but arent you blogging on state taxpayers time when you should be working? at your civil servant job
In regard to MikeyD's apparent allegation that I "blog" for the Manchin administration or otherwise am being paid for or by the Manchin administration, I would like to say that this is completely untrue. As has been reflected in my past comments, I do work for the state of WV, but have worked for multiple governors in WV and have never had any direct communication with a governor or otherwise received any instructions regarding my private blog comments from the governor. I am a classified civil servant and nothing more. The opinions I express in my comments on Hoppy's blog belong solely to me, myself and I, for better for for worse.

MikeyD may want to be careful before slinging around baseless allegations like that, though. You never know to whom you are speaking.

Have a good day.
i agree its a womans right to choose every case is different and should be treated different washington pays for everything from bailouts of greedy corporations to octomoms who should not be allowed to have that many children the taxpayers are going to pay for it regardless either way it goes hop why not let skipdog come on your show you love the manchin administration they do no wrong in your eyes skipdog works for manchin truth be known skipdog might be getting paid too blog for manchin cause no one else will skipdog and the manchin administration should be concerned with the states budget the next few years arent going too be so kind to the manchin administration
hopy i hope our governor who is catholic and should be anti abortion supports this change--its no wonder our state does not progress as some others when we can be sent to jail for hurting an animal but these so called poor woemen can kill their own babies and keep their freedom---boy what a messed up system--it appalls me to think that my tax dollars are going to kill children....................
Most people would agree that abortion is unpleasant, but I do feel that women should still have the right to choose to a point. That point should be decided by doctors. Should it be within the 1st trimester? or less than a month or before a certain milestone of growth? That should not be up to the general public or government. I find it reprehensible that people would do partial-birth abortions. THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

While I do not agree with abortion as a whole, it is not my right nor the government's right to limit a woman's choices. Yes, she may have accidentally gotten pregnant, but if she knows EARLY on that she doesnt want it, she should be able to make that choice.

From a funding standpoint, the state would be better off paying for the early term abortion, than to pay to take care of the child till the age of 18.
It may be a womans right.But what is the right of the unborn child. If you want to look at it or not. Abortionist will destroy 1 million or more future familes future moms Dads future Scientists Teachers Leaders and Workers this year alone.Wonder what Our God is thinking about that.But since our commandments are being taken away everyday whose caring.And I would put more on whose fault it is.Any one today ready to accept blame for there is no shame.I have 9 grand daughters and I would be ready to take the child over abortion.Who knows that baby could grow up be a great doctor and have the answer to cancer.I say no no to abortion.Quit looking for handouts.God Bless Moms and Dads and America.
I am finding myself agreeing with some of the posters here that comparing abortion to guns is a bit off base.

There is very limited instances in which I think an abortion should be paid for using tax payer dollars.

Victims of rape and incest, or when the pregnancy threatens the mothers life.

If the woman freely and openly had sex and became pregnant, to bad. If the woman freely drank alcohol and got "accidently" pregnant, then to bad.

People depend entirely to much on the government to take care of them, that it is getting old and rather annoying. But I guess I should throw out my usual "Rush and Fox News" approach and maybe look at it in another way. If we pay for the abortion now, maybe it will save us tax dollars down the road when tax dollars are being paid out in other tax payer entitlements such as food stamps, WIC, SSI.
Hop, I first would like to recognize that I did see 95Bulldog's post a few days back and would be happy to accept his challenge to an online debate on your show. (I sent an original response on here to this effect but as you recally, you misplaced my response). Just let me know the time, place and topic, and I will be there.

On today's topic, fairly good synopsis, Hop, with one exception. Comparing a woman's right to choose to a right to carry a gun is like comparing apples and oranges. Obviously there is at least an argument that abortion is a medical procedure, and if that is determined to be the case, then it would follow that medicaid should be made available. Personally, I am against abortion, but in favor of a Woman's right to choose. This being the case, I would be in favor of extending Medicaid funding for elective abortions, because if the woman cannot get the abortion legally, she may try it illegally. At any rate, like you said, its a pure policy decision and up to our Legislature to make the call.
Come on Hoppy, your analogy is flawed. People are guaranteed a right to counsel in the constitution, AND the government MUST pay for it if they are poor. Gideon v. Wainwright. 9-0 USSC decision. So, your 2nd amendment argument fails spectacularly.

Post Your Comments
All comments are moderated before showing up on the site. Comments are only reviewed for inappropriate language and libelous or damaging comments. Read full user policy here.

You must be a registered user to post commments. Please login or register to post a comment.
Click Here to simply send a private email to Hoppy about this article (comments will not be posted on the website).




WVMetroNews