President Obama said Wednesday night that under his health care reform plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But legislation making its way through Congress would allow a government-run insurance plan to cover abortions, and that sets the stage for conservatives to launch what is likely to be the next big, cable-ready fight in the health care debate.
The battle is centering on whether health care reform uses taxpayer money to pay for abortions, a practice that is now largely banned. Pro-lifers have been activating their grassroots supporters and liberals have started distributing talking points to Democratic lawmakers in preparation for the showdown.
The issue has been on a slow boil for months. It picked up steam during the rancorous August town halls, but was largely drowned out by arguments over whether the bill creates death panels and cuts seniors’ Medicare benefits. (Quick answers: no and possibly.)
But with Congress back in session and critics in full attack mode, abortion has the potential to explode with a vengeance and become the divisive health care flavor of the week.
Goring has only got one ball,
Hitler’s are so very small,
Himmlers so very similar
and Goebbles has no balls at all,
While LIEBERTARIAN thinks dingle berries count.
Cut to the chase : Legal abortion is the law of the land. In addition, it is a Healthcare issue.
Should it be part of Health Insurance reform ? YES
Why is Obama not including it? Because the Christian Taliban has achieved significant infiltration into government and Obama recognizes this.
Therefore, the prudent thing to do to advance Health Insurance reform is drop this hot potato off the agenda. PERIOD.
I would do the same thing as much as it sucks.
Good. I hope that abortion is kept out of healthcare. This way I can recruit more people to be soldiers of mine, while actually preaching to be Christians!
I am so glad that I have deceived so many people into believing that just saying that they are Christians, and not acting like Christians. This will make them my loyal subjects when they arrive in hell!
#69 bobbo.. you poor clueless fool..
Your so easy to draw out into the open. -your more predictable than a clock.
-That you attacked my planet puff piece shows that your only purpose in this forum is to attack, discredit and create discord regardless of facts.
(thanks for validating my main argument in the process)
You consistently make light of subject matter to which you know nothing about.
if your not a government shill, no doubt, you dream of being one on TV
-s
(the weather will be the very *least* of our problems)
Does Alfie go off his meds on Fridays so that he’ll be in full blown speaking-in-tongues mode when snake shaking time comes on Sunday?
Hey Alfie, there’s a whole community of real “nazis” out there for ya and their website says their headquarters is in Detroit. Why don’t you and your toy soldiers go there and “deal with them accordingly.”
#84–soundwash==it would be so easy to say only our punctuation and grammar mark us apart, but that wouldn’t be true.
No, I think more could be said. I do take other people/ideas on more directly than your general diatribe.
I agree some will prefer/disdain one approach over the other.
Few of us serve only “one” purpose. If I said you were being a bit disingenuous there for rhetorical purposes, would I be demonstrating your main complaint? Hard to tell since you make only a general response rather than quote and disagree with anything specific I said.
I was fairly direct (strong implication) that I thought you posting on “any” thread that we ought to be talking about something else is not very constructive. Do you disagree with that or are you only drawing me out?
What’s wrong with keeping stupid people from breeding by offering convenient abortions? Lord knows we don’t need any more mouth breathers. Hell, offer then a free gun rack with every procedure and they’ll come in droves. Offer them a TV and they’ll agree to sterilization.
Otherwise for the purpose of stupid people population control, we can open up shelters that euthanize their offspring if they’re not adopted by bleeding-heart liberals.
The entire debate is moot. The Hyde Amendment, passed on September 30, 1976 by the U.S. House by a 207-167 vote is a provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
The federal government is barred by law from funding abortios.
#88–Peter==are you saying that no prior law made by Congress can be changed at a later date, or that there is something specific about the Hyde Amendment making it so?
Otherwise isn’t the only non-moot argument that Article “whatever” in the bill moving forward specifically excludes abortion funding or specifically restates the Hyde provision?
Sorry, but I’m trying to live up to soundwashes criticism of me as I haven’t read up enough about how electron theory actually controls this entire discussion.
#88 I agree…its unlikely Obama would dare overrule it in Obamacare…
But the ingenuity of Congress to do what it claims it won’t do, is never lacking.
An analogy, Congress wants Amnesty for illegals…so when they say Obamacare won’t cover illegals…its actually moot…all 17 million of them will soon be legal.
Time will tell if the intent of the Hyde Amendment is able to withstand such inventiveness.
#71 Your premise war=abortion, war dead=dead babies, fails, they are not equivalent.
Babies are innocent, having done nothing to warrant death, and never given a chance to “surrender and so live.”…while war is sometimes unjust, those warred against are adults, guilty of things that may be worthy of death, and have the opportunity to surrender and so not die.
I am against war…I do not support the wars we are now in…
I supported getting Bin Laden, period.
Fact remains, with the growing alienation average (anti abortion) Americans feel over the leftist turn being jammed down their throats…
Overturning the Hyde Amendment does have the possibility of igniting a civil war.
If you don’t think so, you are a fool.
If only the bozos running the show could focus on the economy…its the economy stupid…not amnesty, healthcare, carbon taxes, sugar drinks…ad nauseam.
Its JOBS stupid…[politician's name here]
Unwanted babies is never discussed when it comes to anti-abortionists. They never consider the pain and suffering, and the misery their lives can hold. Children born to parent(s) that are addicted, in poverty, mentally ill, or otherwise unable to parent — are children that are lost, tossed away, and forever unable to function in society. I think a child should be wanted…and better to terminate life before it starts, than to condemn a child to misery, and most likely, an early death. Each right-to-lifer, should make it their duty to go visit the morgue and look at the bodies of children beaten and battered to death by their uncaring parents. Go to the juvenile detention centers and visit with the children — lacking parental compassion, concern, or upbringing — who have become so anti-social that the only answer is to lock them up, for as long as humanly possible. Go to the life sentence part of a prison, and ask them if they were wanted children, if they received the basic modicum of love/caring/parenting.
There are hundreds of thousands of children without families waiting in foster homes, in group homes….in this country. When they turn 18 and are tossed out of the foster system…where will they go, what will they do?
The problem with being anti-abortion, is that you are then guilty of being pro-suffering.
The President said what he said. As George Herbert Walker Bush learned when he said read my lips no more taxes, Obama can’t back up or he’s going to have this speech played ad nausium during his next campaign.
I think it’s fair to say that a lot of people thought he was telling ludicrous lies at the time but time will prove him guilty or his detractors wrong. I don’t expect to be proven wrong.
A growing issue is just how corrupt is acorn and how close are Obama’s ties to it.
So people are defending the funding of abortion, and insisting it is not in the bill.
#93 There are no unwanted babies…we need them all to propagate our society…if parents don’t want them, then society should…and spend the money necessary to raise them properly.
Here’s what the ancient Assyrian’s thought about women who abort their own children:
According to the injunctions outlined in the Middle Assyrian Laws, if a woman has had a miscarriage by her own act, when they have prosecuted her (and) convicted her, they shall impale her on stakes without burying her (Middle Assyrian Laws 53, in ANET 185). This code further directs that if the woman dies in the process of inducing the abortion, her body will still be impaled (as a kind of poetic justice) and will be denied burial.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1:31). New York: Doubleday.
“President Obama said Wednesday night that under his health care reform plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But legislation making its way through Congress would allow a government-run insurance plan to cover abortions…”
So “YOU LIE” again
97 AlfredETerrorist,
BLASPHEMY. Now you are quoting the Assyrians, who were PAGANS at the time? What would your God say to know that you are taking the laws of PAGANS as your excuse? But, it was a good try, since your King James Edition is obviously lacking…
Don’t even TRY and bring up ancient history with me bud. Just go on planning your latest terrorist plot… psycho.
First death panels, then illegal aliens coverage were removed from the bill, after people said critics were lying about them being in the bill.
Soon abortion coverage will be dropped too.