New Budget Fully Funds Women’s Healthcare

Assembly Republicans Caroline Casagrande, R-Monmouth and Mercer; Nancy F. Muñoz, R-Union, Essex, Morris and Somerset; Mary Pat Angelini, R-Monmouth; DiAnne Gove, R-Ocean, Amy H. Handlin, R-Monmouth and Middlesex; and Denise Coyle, R-Somerset and Morris, issued the following statement about the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget that fully funds healthcare to low-income and uninsured women through Federally Qualified Health Centers:

“Protecting women’s healthcare, not political agendas, is our primary concern and we are thrilled that New Jersey will fully fund vital health services for women, and their children, through clinics that provide legitimate healthcare.
“Uninsured and low-income women will continue to have access to comprehensive healthcare services in all 21 counties. It is important to note that funding of these vital services has increased by $30 million over the past two years.
“We have proven that it is possible to have a responsible, legal and balanced budget while continuing to fund healthcare programs that are crucial to women and children.”

Posted: July 8th, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: NJ State Legislature | Tags: | 13 Comments »

13 Comments on “New Budget Fully Funds Women’s Healthcare”

  1. TheDigger said at 9:23 am on July 9th, 2011:

    Just one observation/comment.

    Why do we differentiate between “women’s healthcare” and any other healthcare?

    Why is only one gender’s healthcare the “primary concern”?

    Aren’t we all equal?

    Note: I understand that this political statement was issued by Republicans to address the misinformation (as usual) spewed by the Democrats; but it does raise a serious question as to equality and equal treatment of both genders (I am not even going to touch how we would classify “alternate” lifestyle genders).

  2. ArtGallagher said at 9:37 am on July 9th, 2011:


    I hope we get some women weighing in on your question….so that us guys can learn something.

    “Equal” does not mean “the same”

    We can have a philosphical debate over whether government should be involved in health care at all, but on a practical level that question has already been decided.

    I think the question demonstrates a “mars vs venus” lack of understanding between the genders.

  3. TheDigger said at 9:50 am on July 9th, 2011:

    Art – I understand the difference between the genders … vive la difference!

    But …. while different, aren’t we all supposed to be treated “equally”?

    Shouldn’t the primary concern, if government is to be involved in healthcare (very dangerous to all of our health), be the health of all, regardless of gender?

  4. ArtGallagher said at 9:57 am on July 9th, 2011:

    Should there be government funded research into sickle cell anemia among caucasians?

    How can we be treated “equally” if the needs are so different?

    I suspect most men are clueless about most of the differences between genders.

  5. ArtGallagher said at 10:01 am on July 9th, 2011:

    I really hope we get some women participating here.

    A few years ago we had a debate about racism on this blog which was really just a bunch a white people arguing over something we had little experience or understanding of.

    If this question becomes a bunch of guys arguing over women’s health care, it will be the ultimate circle jerk.

  6. ArtGallagher said at 10:13 am on July 9th, 2011:

    As I think about it, the question reminds me of the old Title IX issue…the one that required publically funded educational institutions to fund women’s sports at the same level as men’s sports. It was absurd.

    The reality is that women have greater health care needs than men do. To require “equal” funding based on gender would be absurd.

  7. TheDigger said at 10:44 am on July 9th, 2011:

    so far, no members of the female gender have joined in …

    methinks you misread my intent – it is not for “equal” funding; it was the “primary concern” stated for only one, specific gender’s healthcare which causes me concern.

    And in any event, “equal” funding would need to be on a per person basis, not by gender; since the female outnumbers the male, “equal” funding would always favor the more populous of the gender. Which would be fair, in my humble opinion.

    But I would suggest that the primary concern of a public official should never be restricted to only one gender.

  8. TheDigger said at 10:58 am on July 9th, 2011:

    Perhaps we should put this into a context which would better explain my concern.

    What would we be saying if some politicians said their “primary concern” was only for “white people’s” (or “black/yellow/brown people’s) healthcare?

    I understand that this silliness was started by the democrats in their attempt to slime Governor Christie and the GOP, but I suggest we need to be careful in our response.

  9. Lois said at 8:37 pm on July 9th, 2011:

    “The reality is that women have greater health care needs than men do.”

    Oh? Have you been listening to the radio ads of late, where every 5 minutes we’re hearing about all those (underlined) problems that all men over a certain age have? Good grief. Maybe there should be special funding for “vital health services” for men, so their wives will not be awakened 4x a night…so they don’t have to stand over the john for 10 minutes with no results….so that ‘full intimacy in the bedroom’ can be restored. You poor dears–i never knew the suffering endured by the male half of the population once they’re out of their 20’s.

    Definitely. We should set aside funds for men’s health care needs too—so everyone can finally get a good night’s sleep.

  10. TR said at 2:18 pm on July 10th, 2011:

    Politically correct BS infects everything. Yes the ads Lois makes fun of are pathetic. However the truth is more men get prostrate cancer then women get breast cancer we just don’t have as good a lobby. So no colored ribbons or walkathons for us.
    Not that breast cancer isn’t a serious illness but why should it get more attention then any other cancer?
    Why should womens health be more important then mens health? Thats what this debate and this legislation implies.

    Of course this begs the question why should the government be supplying health care for anyone?

    The answer is it should not.

  11. Chris said at 3:11 pm on July 10th, 2011:

    While we’re on the subject of discrimination, why is Government funding abortions, but not live births? Anyone in NJ can get an abortion for “free” at PP (paid by the Government), but I don’t remember anyone stepping up to my our hospital bill when we had a baby.

  12. Rick Ambrosia said at 5:44 pm on July 10th, 2011:

    Yup, TR is true to form…lets just let the poor people that can’t afford healthcare die. The republican talking points no one brings up.

  13. A Woman said at 8:40 pm on July 10th, 2011:

    I believe the focus on “women’s health” is geared towards our reproductive capabilities. The idea is that if you provide services for low-income women who get pregnant, you will reduce the health issues that arise when women do not receive pre-natal care, for both mothers and babies. Also, delivering a baby is expensive. I’m sure some of you may, like me, question the wisdom of those who can barely support themselves creating more mouths to feed, but then again, many of you might also be anti-choice. Funny how that works. Anyway, while you are grousing about the perceived unfairness of funding low-income women’s health care, you might console yourselves a little bit with the fact that you will never face the physical torture that is being pregnant, giving birth (or not), breastfeeding, hormonal chaos, etc etc etc. Also, if you think that low-income women should NOT be reproducing, then consider the fact these women still need health care in order to obtain birth control, tubes tied, and, yes, abortions in the worst case scenario. Reproductive health care for women is and should be a priority because, as many women know, most men can not be relied upon to be responsible for their own reproductive capabilities without whining about it.