Question regarding health care reform & abortion rights

I understand that there are many people who are adamant that there be no taxpayer funded abortions. That should already be covered with the existing Hyde Amendment. Although I'm a strong supporter of women's reproductive rights, I can live with no taxpayer funding of an elective abortion.

Some are asking for stronger language in the reform bill, language that would mess with existing insurance policies.

Here is my question and I think it's important. Who gets to define abortion? I was reading the language in the horrible bill going through the Oklahoma legislature and they include the termination of ectopic pregnancies as an abortion. Continuing the pregnancy does not result in a living baby and could kill the mother. This is a medical emergency and should certainly be covered by insurance, be it public or private. What if the mother's life is at stake? Should she be forced to pay for this procedure herself?

I'm watching the debate on Hardball right now, so that's why I'm asking. Before any more restrictive language is added it's important that the procedure be defined.

"who gets to define abortion?" But I am passionate about this issue. My question is who gets to define how my tax dollars are spent? Religious Zealots don't want money spent on abortions? Fine. I'm a military retiree and I don't want my tax dollars spent (already spent) on wars of george bush's vanity which kill non-white, non-christian citizens of foreign countrys. Wars which are supported by pro-life christian zealots. So lets butt heads with the zealots. As Sammy Kershaw appropriately twanged, "I want my money back."

And as an aside and food for thought; If "life" begins at conception, as zealots tell us, is Bobby Jindal an American Citizen? He says his mother was pregnant with him when she entered the United States. How many fucking ways do zealots want to have their arguments? I'm looking forward to a "birthers" in reverse campaign if Jindal's name enters the national stage.

Open a can of worms zealots.

if "life" is defined as the moment of conception, then do insurance companies have to pay in full if a "pregnancy" spontaneously aborts, through no fault of the woman?

Or, if a "fetus" dies because the hot dog manufacturer got a RW senator to relax the food safety standards and is poisoned, could the mother sue?

products causing miscarriages have been subjects of lawsuits in the past.

nobody answers that one ...

health or life?

you know, if a "fetus", or just-fertilized egg, is considered a full-fledged human being (according to the RW definition used to attack abortion) with rights not afforded an actual breathing less-than-18-year-old child, then why should an insurance company who HAS A CONTRACT WITH THE MOTHER (remember all that talk about contracts???) renege on their policy of paying for the death of a "full-fledged human being"?

thus the mother would have to enroll the child into the insurance. I actually presume that a life insurance company may well be willing to insure a fetus but would, of course, demand a premium to do so.

the more questions I have. Who gets to define "abortion"? If it's allowed to be defined at the state level, some are so restrictive they would include contraception. Any additional language could open a big can of worms. I need to go back and read the Hyde Amendment and see how that reads.

I'm definitely writing my senators and representative with my concerns. I expect that Schumer & Gillibrand will be receptive but I'll be very surprised if I hear anything encouraging from my congressman, Christopher Lee. He doesn't even approve of reform.