By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration proposed rules that would prevent the US Department of Veterans Affairs from providing abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, and forbid counseling on the matter. This has sparked significant debate, particularly among female veterans who are survivors of sexual assault, and abortion rights advocates. Critics of the proposed rules argue the exception for the mother’s life is too restrictive, potentially leading to dangerous outcomes. The VA justified the change, citing patient safety concerns and its interpretation of a 1992 law, although legal experts contest the law’s current validity. Meanwhile, Democrats have proposed legislation to counteract the regulations, but its passage is unlikely given the current political landscape.
Read the original article here
New Trump rule to ban VA abortions for veterans even in cases of rape and incest, seems to be the subject here, and frankly, it’s a bit shocking, but maybe not surprising, given the context. One can only imagine what veterans, particularly female veterans, must be thinking about this.
Considering the backdrop of past statements and actions, the idea that this would be on the table doesn’t really come as a surprise. It appears this isn’t just about banning abortions generally at VA facilities; it specifically targets instances of rape and incest, making the rule particularly cruel. Many feel that this decision flies in the face of supporting those who have served and sacrificed for the country.
The “big beautiful bill” includes a lot more than just the abortion ban. It’s also rumored to bring cuts to the VA and to the Toxic Exposure Fund, which is supposed to help veterans with healthcare costs related to toxic substances they may have been exposed to. This adds another layer of complexity to how veterans, especially those with specific health issues, might be affected.
And, as we know, the Republicans have also targeted Planned Parenthood, which would further restrict access to essential care for millions of women. This goes beyond just abortion access; it involves vital health services.
This could be part of a larger pattern of cuts to healthcare programs and assistance. Things like SNAP benefits could also be affected. The bill seems designed to shift the costs of these programs to the states, possibly requiring work requirements for parents and older Americans seeking food assistance.
This “big beautiful bill” touches on Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans, potentially increasing costs for seniors and limiting their access to care. Community health programs, and support services could also see cuts.
The proposed cuts also impact research, potentially hindering advancements in medical fields, including those related to Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. This could affect scientific progress and could lead to job losses.
Adding to this is the discussion around how budgetary savings from the bill are being used, seemingly to fund tax cuts. This is a move which seems to go against the idea of fiscal responsibility.
The reactions to these kinds of policies seem to suggest a general sense of disappointment, and sometimes, anger. The question is, how does the military recruitment stand in the wake of such decisions? With so many women serving in the military, you’d think they would want access to proper healthcare.
It seems this situation involves a lot of potential downsides, including a possible impact on military readiness. The military is already facing recruitment challenges, and this might make the situation worse. It’s hard to imagine how this would be considered a move to support veterans.
There’s a public comment period open through September 3rd, so there’s still a chance for people to express their opinions. The link to comment is available. It might seem a little late to discuss these things at this point.