Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comA congressman says he and 11 other Democrats will vote against the overhaul bill unless a provision subsidizing abortion is removed.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Colon cancer test may not require laxatives: studyâÂÂBeauty machineâ makes everyone prettyU.S. launches ambitious Alzheimer's plan with research pushScientists build world's first artificial stomachFirst Alzheimer's prevention study launchedGet the scoop on smoothiesThe dirtiest clean places â and how to clean them upWhy isn't HIV testing routine yet?Flesh-eating germ rare, especially for the healthyOklahoma City mayor puts city on a diet
Leave a Comment:
Come election time make sure the names of these politicians are highly visible in their districts, states, and on the internet so everyone can cast their votes and throw these religious freaks out of office.
Glad they found one thing to keep them from voting against a bill that the voters have found many- maybe they should do as Obama wants and make history by standing up to him and Pelosi and Reid and voting no until they come up with a bill that is real reform and not just costing more money while accomplishing no real improvement in health care while upping the cost and government control of our llives
Don't worry, hampster, they're just using this as an excuse.
The bill sucks, from page 1 to page 2,687 and they know it.
This is just an easy thing to latch on to.
I just find it enormously amusing that there are DEMOCRATS willing to use this particular excuse, and some knuckleheads still blame Republicans for the bill's total suckage and failure.
Cram it through, Obama, and you'll be Clintonized in November for the betterment of the country. We are obviously not served by either party having complete control, Bush proved the Republicans can't handle it and Obama's proving the Dem's can't either.
You write like you think any of our politicians have read this Bill. If a census was taken, how many can say they have read the entire Bill?
hit it on the head Prag. Yet the whole time, it has been like this sice this bill came into its 1st light. The buyout of 3 votes, to democrats, to be exsempt, or to get special favors for their states. That aloone should have been a reason to raise all heck from the people of the US. Direct, and frontal assault on our legislation, to buy the votes the Nobama needs to pass a crap bill. If there is a way to toss him out of office, and the rest of his cabinet behind him on their duff into the street, we should do it. We need JOBS, jobs give people $, and help find employee's decent coverage. over 20% of americans out of work, and he still refuses to do a freakin thing to help.
Men against womens' rights. Thought women had the right to vote a long time ago. But the old farts still believe they control womens' lives and can dictate to them what they can or can't do with them.
Hamster, are you against paying for your own abortion? You would like the nation to pay for it? I think those congress people will be the only ones re-elected.
Is it Hampster because a gerbel is too lose a fit these days?
Yea throw them out the democratic party has no room for people with principles.
This is nothing more than political posturing. This'bill' (healthcare takeover) will be passed. They will drop or hide the abortion clause to make it look like they compromised on something, then force it through will budgetary reconciliation.
Those clowns would gather together over a pimple!
I think they are against making it a procedure that is covered....not getting rid of it all together
Those democrats are the ones who are gonna stay. Not only for thier principles but also because they couldn't be bought! Yet!!!!!
it's a shame our elected officials take a good idea like healthcare reform and turn it into such a disaster. vote them all out, repubs and dems.
They can't make it illegal, Roe v. Wade is going nowhere.
There is an amendment, the Hyde amendment, that prohibits Federal funding pay for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's life.
The Stupak amendment in the House had very strict and stringent language forcing the HCR (garbage) bill to adhere strictly to the Hyde amendment.
The Senate bill, which the House is being asked to pass as written, contains much looser language wherein Stupak et al see a potential for Federal funds to be used to pay for optional abortions via the subsidy and exchange programs.
Both bills are consistent in the goal, but there are loopholes in the Senate language.
It's sort of like the illegal alien thing. There are supposedly clauses that say "illegal aliens can't participate in any of these programs".
BUT, there is no verification process of citizenship so while illegals are not PERMITTED to participate, preventing their participation is going to be unenforceable.
Another gigantic loophole.
Abortion is nearly always an elective surgery and I don't want a dime of my money spent on it.
What we need are fewer dingbats: "Men against womens' rights. Thought women had the right to vote a long time ago. But the old farts still believe they control womens' lives and can dictate to them what they can or can't do with them."
Of course women got the right to vote a long time ago, Einstein. What they still don't have is the right to murder....
You say this then..."DING". Your bat wings are showing.
Oh hell, its just politics... their just holding out tosee what they can pick up from the Trinity!!
It's pretty hard to point a finger at the GOP as the party of "no" when your own party isn't unified.
The bill will pass and hopefully these democratic religious protestors will crawl back into their respective church.
Some of these blue dogs aren't even principled men, but are just accurately representing their constituents. How can you blame them for being politicians?
Maybe it's not so much a religious issue as it is an elective procedure issue. Just a thought.
While I believe a woman has the right to choose, I don't believe that her choice should be paid for with our money (taxes used in heathcare funding).
Most certainly NOT! Unless they throw in Botox and penile enlargement. Then abortion rates will skyrocket of course. LOL
well hopefully here in Maryland all the voters will finally wake up and vote Steny Hoyer out of office. He is Nancy's pet.
Mr. Stupak... you're our last hope to keep this disasterous bill from becoming law.
We should all applaud Congressman Stupak for putting aside party loyalty in order to do the right thing.
I think some want to keep their jobs in Congress...
Of course they will vote against any kind of health care reform. They have the best policies in the world, fully paid defined benefits plans, matching 401(k), a salary of almost $200,000.... why would they care about anyone but themselves. And guess what Chris - in 2012 when you elect all the Republicans and they get in... just wait "the good old republicans days are back" - Market signals... what that simply means is that you have it you live... you don't you die!
You realize this article is about Democrats, right?
Perhaps you should re-read it before commenting further?
Just a thought.
Umm, Kevin,
1-Who says I am voting for all Republicans? Do you know me? Do you know my voting record?
2-Who says that Stupak is against health reform? Who even says that I am against health reform? Our current system is absurdly in need of a re-vamping. Nobody is going to deny that. However, if you were to purchase a new car, would you be content knowing beforehand that it is missing two tires, the windows dont go down, the engine stalls, oil is leaking from the bottom, and the brakes only work 30% of the time? That is what this bill is. You might desperatley need a new car, but you are not going to buy one that is assured to break down on you as it contains several glaring holes. The Senate bill is just that-a new and very expensive car with huge holes, and a guarantee of break down. Now, you might say "well, I can fix it later." What if some things cannot be fixed? What then? And the dealership of American politics wont let you take this broken down car back for a refund.
Kevin... we have one chance to do reform. If we are going to do it, it needs to be done right, in the most bi-partisan manner, with the most non-divisive parts, that ensures us that the system will not break down, that people will attain health coverage, that it will be cost effective, and finally...that it will guarantee that at NO TIME we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Well said Chris!
Go to your statehouse and demand reform but leave the reat of the country out. Reform healthcare in your state like Mass. did.
Wow Kevin, back on the meds. Why is it that you think your are right and anyone that has a slight difference of opinion to you is totally wrong. Is it possible that we could agree on 75% of everything and pass a bill on that portion now? Yet, you disavow who doesnt follow lockstep. Your going to have a lonely next 3 years.
Yeah because THAT was so successful...
Don't have sex with anti choicers.
Don't participate in unsafe sex if you are not willing to deal with the chance of having a child. And whatever comes after that.
That's true. As long as choice is legal as it is and will remain so, there are several options should that happen.
If you don't want a child, then don't participate in unsafe sex, and if you do and you find out you are pregnant, they you shouldn't punish the fetus for your mistakes.
You are welcome to your opinion just as I can have mine.
My choice is all that matters if/when I get pregnant. No one really cares what Tyler wants. Too bad.
No one listened to the abolitionist either. It finally took a war with a falling public support of it to stop slavery.
Stupak told CBS's "The Early Show" that "we're not going to bypass some principles that we believe strongly about."
C'mon guys...get real about your so-called opposition to the bill.
You're gonna cave in and do whatever Queen Pelosi instructs you to do anyway.
Not only that but they have principles? I didn't know politicians on either side were allowed to have those....
Agreed. We need to elect people who have rocks...regardless of party or gender.
Nobody in DC now has the backbone to stand up to their Masters (or Mistresses).
I'm all for womens' rights on abortion but I don't want to pay for welfare factories!
I"m all for birth control!
Hey, Im all for those on welfare to have their voting rights suspened till support is over !!!
I would rather give half of my income toward welfare programs to take care of children, or I would rather just take care of them myself, then give one cent to have someone kill them. If someone really wants to kill their unborn child, then they should do it with money from their pocket, not my wallet.
OK, this is it for me. It's proof, positive, that there is no such thing as a democratic party. It's more like a tea party given by the Mad Hatter. Maybe this guy and his ilk can all move to their new country (Kentucky) where they and their kind can live in peaceful (I'm dreaming, aren't I?) isolation. In the meantime I renounce both the Dem's and GOP. They represent minorities as majorities and that sounds an awful lot like totalitarianism to me.
The reality is that stupid and the others are looking for their own sweet deal to help them get reelected. This an argument about the usual nothing that is based on white trash religion and the idol worshipers.
Name calling is the first sign of depression and antisocialism. Wonder if that will be covered in the Health Care Plan!
Abortion is legal. Get over it. There are plenty of provisions already to keep these folks happy. They should just switch party as far as I am concerned. Repubs are one thing. We expect them to be obstinate and irrational. Traitors are another thing entirely.
Problem is that there are traitors on both sides....they got elected into office to make things better for the American people...since they are not doing their jobs both parties then aren't they being traitors already?
Yes, abortion is legal, and millions of people are fine with that (including myself). However, as a taxpayer, I do not want my money going to fund an abortion for a woman who uses abortion as a form of birth control. If she wants to abort the child that is her business, her right, her decision, and should be paid for with her own money. I think it is disasterously unfair to make somebody who is pro-life have to pay for somebody elses abortion. That is just as cruel as it would be to reverse Roe vs. Wade.
rmantano... you want Pay for Play! Aint gonna happen.
Chris...you say "her business, her right, her decision", did she get pregnant on her own? Was it an Immaculate conception, you seem to have left a father and his rights out of this.
I also don't want to pay for viagra, or sex changes, or acupuncture, or aroma therapy, or fertility treatment or any number of 100% optional procedures that some states mandate insurance companies cover - which raises everyone else's costs.
And yet, this bill maintains those ridiculous provisions by NOT forcing a national standard under which the insurance companies have to compete on a consistent basis.
I don't want to pay for abortions either - and I'm unwaveringly pro-choice.
When do we get to have our say about all the other optional garbage we're expected to pay for, rmantano?
Get off the party line, pal. It fails, every single time.
The anti choicers will try to come up with excuse after excuse. Abortion is legal...they need to get over it.
Kareem, legal is not the issue. Paying for it out of tax dollars is. There's all kinds of birth control available and they should use that instead of getting pregnant.
Until you tell me how to opt out of paying for a war that I don't support, your desire to pick and choose what to pay for has no merit.
Abortion is legal. It's the same category medically as any other surgery.
No, it isn't. All medical procedures aren't covered by any insurance. If it is medically unnecessary, it isn't covered. I take a life saving medicine that isn't even covered by Medicare drug plans.
And who decides if it's medically necessary...the doctor, the religious, the patient or the insurance company?
If we continued to use this logic, then slavery would continue to exist today. Just because something is legal does not mean that it is right. Yes, you have your argument, and they are legitimate. But the advocates of slavery also had legitimate argument. They talked about how it should be the slave owners choice, and that it was a religious topic therefore you could not deny their rights based on your own views. The Dred Scott case said this. Were they right? Of course not, we finally chose to allow equal protection for both. They eventually protected Caucasians just as much as they protected African Americans. We should do the same and protect women just as much as we should protect fetuses. Sometimes we have to look past the fact that it is legal, and see the morals behind it.
I am very pro-life, but if someone really want to kill their unborn child, then they should do it with their own money from their pocket, not money from my wallet. And if you want to force me to give some of my money to abortion, the you are really not pro-choice.
I should have the right to not be involved in something that I see as murder.
If we continued to use this logic, then slavery would continue to exist today.
I wish I had a dime every time that was said. Slavery involved real people being owned by other people. There is absolutely no comparison.
Abortion deals with a woman, her life, and a fetus. AND again, until you tell me how to opt out of paying for a war that I don't support where REAL PEOPLE DIE, then your desire to not fund a legal surgery has no merit.
Kareem,
Yes or no, are you thankful that your parents did not choose to abort you? I for one am glad that you exist, even though you don't want to give others that chance.
A fetus is alive, that should not be the debate. The debate is if they are alive enough to be considered for rights. If you do not believe me then look at this link,
http://www.essortment.com/all/characteristics_rbrc.htm
Now a fetus undoutably has 4 of the 6. (A toddler has 5 of the 6, are they non-humans?)
And because he or she has human DNA, it is human life.
And my comparison is not that a fetus and an African American are the same, my comparison that they were both continued because people thought that since it was legal, therefore, it is okay. And it took a war to change their minds. I hope that it does not take such extreme measures to change, but I am saying that we should look at the morals not just accept it because it is legal.
War is fighting against people that want to kill us. They would gladly strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up. Why would it be stupid to think that if they got their hands on a nuclear bomb that they wouldn't use it against us. But abortion is against a innocent fetus, what dangers does he or she pose?
Do you support the war on Hitler? Or the Nazis? Had we not stopped them I promise you that all of Europe would be saying "Hail Hitler" right now. And we would probably have had a nuclear attack on one of our major cities. Leaving that place uninhabitable. Not to mention that once they would have taken Europe they most likely would try to get us. We might even be saying "Hail Hitler" if war was not used. Not to mention that all the Jews of Europe would be killed, and it would not be crazy to think that they would kill all the Jews here to. Not only that, if no one used force against Hitler, then he would most likely kill all of those who were not Aryan. (And kill lots of children in Dr. Joseph Mengele's experiments to change eye color) And if you were a twin you would be one of his experiments, even if you were Aryan.
Sometimes force in needed to stop tyrants, but abortion does not kill a tyrant, it kills a child that can not even defend his or herself.
You have the freedom of choice to do as you please should you get pregnant. I have that same choice. Each and every woman will deal with that as she sees fit.
Deal with it. Long live choice.
That is your own view, and someday we will realize that just because someone chooses to kill their unborn child does not justify it.
Abortion is a PERSONAL choice, therefore it should be paid for out of your PERSONAL pocket. People without children have to pay for schools, people without cars have to pay for roads, because these things are federally mandated, as is the war. Abortion, although legal, is not federally mandated. Therefore, if it is your choice, you choose to pay. Facelifts and boob jobs are legal too. But if you decide to get that done, YOU PAY, NOT ME.
I agree with the paying from your personal pocket. Even though I am against abortion, for this article I will only say this,
If you want to keep me out of your choice, then don't ask me to fund it.
No matter what this administration do, no body listen,...
By November of 2010, they will find out what people want and need for this Country !,...
This is a matter of another government take-over. More power, less freedom. Free "entitlements" aren't "free" if it's on the back of someone else. Look at the politicians on BOTH sides and stop being a lamb. NOTHING is free. Fill someone's hand with "free", they stick out the other hand. Help the people that truly need assistance.
Don't we have more important things to worry about? Really?
I'm SO sick of this wedge-issue grandstanding--from BOTH parties.
Our Congress "NOW" has a developed a CONSCIENCE, well glory be, anything is possible now with our country, even a smidgen of RIGHTEOUSNESS......? God should be pleased.....Cause "R" exalted our nation, but it's sinful ways are a reproach...
it's not about "principles" stupid, it's about religion. if your religion rules your life so intensely that you cannot stand for those who do not believe as you... you don't belong in congress.
And Chris...as far a paying for others abortions. yes some will mess with the system but that exists in every facet of our government lives. if a young woman who lives in poverty is raped would you not want to support her abortion if that is what she chooses? i would rather err on the side of compassion than discriminate against the many for the few.
The compassionate conservatives would rater discriminate....
Those abortions are paid for, study up before you make yourself look stupid!
Goddess...
Would I want to side with the woman who is raped? Of course I would. However, what about all of the other mothers who have been raped and found it immoral to abort the child? Should we make them pay for the abortions of others who are doing the exact opposite of what they did? Again... I have no personal problem with Roe vs. Wade, but I respect the opinions of people who do, and if we expect them to respect the Supreme Courts ruling, I think it is only fair that they expect us to not make them have to literally pay for it. Is that wrong? You are basically saying that a person must donate even if they would like not to because they do not support the cause.
BigShott
I think you're getting a little technical with me. Of course it should be the decision of both parents what should be done. However, at the end of the day, it is the womans decision. In some cases that is unfair, but we cant change the way God made us... women carry the baby, and men act like one. lol.
Women against Baby's right to be born!
?
Oops! Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can't even herd their own cats! No wonder they don't want to listen to the Republicans and start over. This bill is too big and too intrusive. A scaled-back bill could be bipartisan, but NO!, we have to do it our way or the highway.
Sit there and watch all these welfare recipients with thier earned income tax returns getting 6-7000 dollars a year back on thier taxes when they only worked enough to pay in 800-1000 dollars in taxes. Who do you think is paying that additional money. Sure as hell isn't jimmy carter!@
which is why they should be forced to pay for some sort of insurance. They would then have a policy when they get sick, break a bone, need xrays, have a sick child, etc.
The way it rolls now is that we the people pay for this when they see a doc or go to a clinic/hospital. The status quo is the real stupid.
Kareem...
But if they cant afford the insurance they will be subsidized, correct? and just exactly where will the money to cover that subsidy come from?
so the difference will be?
If they are on a public program, it can be deducted the same as it is for an employed person. That way, they are contributing SOMETHING as opposed to NOTHING.
But if they are on a PUBLIC PROGRAM then isn't the money still coming from the same place? so now we can just play move the money around so more of it gets "lost"...
they in essence would still be paying nothing and their benefits would have to be increased to cover the insurance...because honestly i know some people on assistance and its barley enough to live on...before you bag they don't like being on it and they are doing everything they can to get away from it
It is coming from the same place....but some would be put back into the system to help pay for their future illnesses, etc....instead of all of it going into their pocket leaving their future medical bills to the rest of us.
It's the only contribution that can be made by some of them....and the effort should be made.
Correct me if I'm wrong (literally correct me, because I'm not 100% sure on this one) but Stupak wants the abortion language changed. However, in order for the abortion language to be changed, it would have to come from a whole new health bill al together, wouldn't it? I ask that because, to my understanding, no changes can be made to the Senate bill unless they are ammendments to be passed later. However, the plan of the Democrats is to pass through their grouping of ammendments via reconcilliation, which only allows matters of the budget to be discussed, thus preventing abortion to even be mentioned once it heads to the Senate. In order for there to be stronger abortion language, wouldn't there have to be an entirely new health care bill written?
Semantics but not an entirely new bill altogether. But you are correct, if they change anything it has to go BACK through the Senate for another vote, in which they WILL NOT have enough votes for now. Hence this new measure to use reconciliation (51 votes in the house) to get it through.
Unless the do an amendment to the bill, then it will just have to debate the amended part. Which is what the the Democrats want, the Stupak amendment.
This bill's a train wreck, and all on both sides know it. In the real estate business, they'd call it a 'fisherman's shack." Why can't we do a few simple things first?
1) Remove the employers from the mix, as they add no value, increase cost and complexity, and just muck things up when people lose/change jobs. If an employer wants to subsidiize the cost as an attractive benefit, that's great, but that's income to the recipient like anything else.
2) Allow firms to compete across state lines. Let me shop regionally and/or nationally just like I do for car insurance, and let me weigh the cost/benefit of various deductibles, copays, caps, optional procedures, etc. There needs to be a discentive for me to hit the ER when my kid has the sniffles.
3) Make basic coverage mandatory, again just like for car insurance, and turn away those without it.
4) Provide vouchers for low-income families, and draw the line as high as we choose to afford (but something less than $1T). Let them use those vouchers to shop for what makes the most sense for them.
5) If there's all this fraud in Medicare/Medicaid and undercover patients could root it out, let's take care of that anyway and keep the $500M.
Hey API and MSNBC, how about fact-checking before going to print? Don't let Rep. Stupak get away with non-specific statements like the one your two organizations quoted. It looks like Rep Bart Stupak is using the API and MSNBC to manipulate with misinformation. I appeal to the responsible people in your news organizations to check what you print. Literally, a lot of lives depend on it.
Stupak was more specific on the March 3 Hardball with Chris Mathews show.
Stupak claimed that "every enrollee must pay one dollar per month into a fund to help fund abortions." His statement just didn't make sense so I downloaded the senate bill. The cited language is not on pages 33-34 of the senate bill. I did a search for "$1" and found what Stupak might misinterpret as a $1 fee. Look in Section 1303 - Special Rules. If read in context, Stupek is way off base. This is the minimum charge that an insurance provider must charge if they sell separate abortion coverage and the enrollee wishes to buy that coverage. Money for this purpose goes into a separate account. No taxpayer money is used for abortion services, no one is forced to buy abortion coverage, and no one pays one dollar to subsidize someone else's abortion.
The current health care reform proposal ...
--> Includes government funding of abortion
--> Imposes a brand-new "abortion fee" on taxpayers
--> Directs $11 BILLION in new funding to groups like
Planned Parenthood -- the nation's largest abortion
chain that took in over $349,000,000 in tax funding
last year while aborting 305,310 babies
--> Would result in the largest expansion of abortion
since Roe v. Wade
Precedent has shown that if an "exclusionary clause" is not inserted into health care legislation, the courts will consider abortion an issue of "women's health." In addition, here are some good facts about the proposed legislation:
http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/get-the-facts/responding-to-healthcare-myths/
Why would healthcare reform be, if it passes without a specific exclusion of abortion, the “largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade”?
The (Senate) bill allows the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, to oversee multi-state plans that cover elective abortions, and to empower federal officials to mandate that private health plans cover abortions even if they do not accept subsidized enrollees. The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, even agrees that decreased public funding of abortion results in 25 percent fewer abortions.
The House and Senate have their own versions of the healthcare bill, right? Do either one of them have a specific exclusion of abortion?
Yes, there are two versions as of now but they will have to be combined in the end into one bill. The House bill contains “Stupak language”, which prohibits government funding of abortion, while the Senate version doesn’t have a specific exclusion of abortion.
Do Americans support government funding of abortion?
Not even close. The latest national poll, this one from the non-partisan Quinnipiac University, shows 72-73% of Americans don’t want the government to pay for abortions.
What is the Stupak Amendment?
Congressman Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat from Michigan, introduced an amendment in the House that mirrors the Hyde Amendment (a long-standing policy that says the government won’t fund abortions) to be added to the House bill. He fought against his own pro-abortion leaning party to have his amendment voted on or else he would stop the healthcare bill, along with several of his pro-life Democrat colleagues. He was granted a vote and his amendment passed overwhelmingly, with 64 Democrats voting for it and against government funding of abortion. For more info on the Stupak Amendment, see the USCCB’s Q&A here.
Does the Stupak Amendment change the status quo? Some pro-choice groups are saying his amendment goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment and changes the status quo.
The Stupak amendment does not change the status quo on abortion funding through the government; it IS the status quo. It mirrors the Hyde amendment which prevents the government from funding elective abortion. The abortion industry is desperate to have the government fund the most lucrative part of their business – doing abortions. Besides, President Obama, when he was campaigning, promised the abortion industry he’d make sure the government pays for “reproductive care”, which includes abortion.
Didn’t the Senate reach a compromise on abortion since Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bob Casey (D-PA) voted for the bill in the end, even though they are supposedly pro-life?
Both Senators took payoffs for their state, essentially bribes, to agree to a phony compromise by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The compromise is much like the phony Capps Amendment in the House that sought to enact a bad bookkeeping scheme in order to keep federal and private funds separate and pay for abortions that way. The Senate compromise also requires the federal government to pay premiums for private health plans that will cover any or all abortions.
JayisunJ,
I'm interested in verifiable facts and have a copy of the senate bill. Please give me the exact locations, page and line, in the senate bill that does the things you claim. Your presentation is formatted like insurance industry talking points. Make your case by showing me the language in the bill that does exactly what you allege.
I can't show you what IS NOT in the bill - - namely - - a prohibition of abortion coverage by insurance plans in the exchanges that receive federal funds. That is what I am trying to show you - - the burden of proof that a prohibition is in the bill lies with YOU. If there is no explicit prohibition, you can bet all yours chips that it will be covered.
If a visual would help you understand, go here:
http://www.realhealthcarerespectslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Hyde-Amdt-compared-to-Senate-and-House-language.pdf
or here:
http://www.realhealthcarerespectslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/AUL-abortion-mandate-flow-chart-final-PDF.pdf
You seem to be new to the debate. Please don't muddle the issue for others. And if you aren't convinced that the president has a radical pro-abortion agenda, check out this video of him admitting as much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqww8jmizug
Good for those Democrats. Federal funding for abortion should not have been in there in the first place.
Stupek is my hero and if he ran for President I would vote for him. Federal money should not be used to subsidize the cost of premiums which pay for elective abortions. Insurance with prescription coverage will pay for birth control and that is okay.
If you are afraid you will want an abortion then buy a separate policy and pay for it out of your own pocket. Don't ask me to help you pay for your irresponsibility. Make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and give the baby up for adoption. Make a childless couple happy.
Politicians on both sides will never let abortion become settled law because the issue is one of the best distractions to keep the voting public from noticing how corrupt and ineffective they really are.
And reading this string it appears some people fall for it every time.
If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are pro abortion, don't make other people pay for it. Either way, stop falling for this idiotic shell game.
The only way that abortion will be a settled law, is when it becomes an amendment. Pro-life advocates have managed many times to make abortion illegal. But then liberals smash it back with the Roe v. Wade. I agree they are ineffective. One side is in control and then the other is the party of no. Republicans are playing it, and the Democrats did it during the Bush presidency. We either need to split up both parties into four, or disband both.
I am extremely pro-choice, and I agree with you, if you really want to kill your unborn child then you should pay for it with your money. If you want the ability to make your own choice, then you should be able to pay for that choice. You can not have your choice while taking away my choice to fund yours.
That pesky Roe v Wade.......
It doesn't allow for the discussion of the morals behind it. The Dred Scott case did the same thing for slavery, and it took a war, and an Amendment to stop it.
It's already a law. The morals were discussed when it was passed. Try to move beyond the 70s.
This will never be overturned. You really have to get over it. Every woman will choose what to do and there is nothing you can do with it. Hope this doesn't keep you up at night!!
It wasn't always law, you refuse to learn from the past. Yes the morals were discuses (after it was already made illegal, and was illegal for a couple decades), but the actually immorality of slavery did not end it. Lincoln saw that people wanted to end the war and just let the Confederates have their own nation, so in return, Lincoln made it into a moral war and ended slavery. The reason why he actually ended slavery was not because he thought it was wrong, it was because he had to give a little intensive to his soldiers.