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.
#80, Ok. So the only thing we disagree on is how it is financed.
Scenario 40:
Just about everyone in your neighborhood has lost their job. You and few other still have their jobs.
The unemployed neighbors take a vote and decide the employed members of their community should pay for the daycare of their kids so they can look for jobs. Their reasoning is the employed members can better afford it. And it is just a small percentage of your income.
What do you do? Tell them to get lost or do it because you agree with them?
He is interesting article. It is not specially about health care but it certainly falls within its bounds.
Yes, it is on the Campaign for Liberty website so many of you will already think it is propaganda, but it brings up some good points on the what rights are and how the government is supposed to protect them and not issue them.
http://tinyurl.com/qlhahs
#101 Their family, friends, neighbors and church, not the Government, should help them.
No family, friends, neighbors or church? Then “they” are “you” and royally screwed!
#99 Its not blasphemy to observe the wisdom of people even if they are not Christians.
The time of Tiglath-pileser (1114-1176 BC) saw a revival of the Assyrian empire, the conquering of Babylon being a notable acheivement.
I suspect nations do better when its women do not kill their own children…it seems axiomatic to me.
#101
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner.
Shorter than your example, but yours is probably more to the point.
#103–Alfred==WOW!!! A well phrased zinger that is right on the mark. Well done. Post with this kind of insight more please.
Course you do know who required more birthing of their citizens don’t you?
Thats right===the Nazi’s. I don’t know how “budding Nazi’s” completely change their position on abortion when they finally get power, but it happens on this issue.
Now to LIEBERTARIAN’S well source to dine on some fine propaganda. Always good to start the day with a low calorie high fiber meal.
LIE–don’t worry, I’ll post my review of your wellspring but you’ll have to wait a bit before ignoring my insulting salutation. Hee, hee==a LIEBERTARIAN with FEELINGS. whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings, like I have never had before . . . . . . . .
But before I go trudging off on this gastronomical: disaster
#98–Peggusus==How dumb can you get. Obama says Plan A does not fund abortion. It may or may not get passed. Plan B does fund abortion and it also may or may not get passed.
For you to conflate the two is the mark of an idiot.
According to factcheck.org:
“The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.”
Personally, I’m pro choice – but it is disingenous to not see this as a lie. Just cause he’s on my side on this issue, doesn’t mean he didn’t lie.
The strange thing is, why lie … the majority is with him, and probably would love the straightforward “Yes of course we’re going to fund it, like everything that is a health issue … that’s why it’s called health care”
Call people who don’t see that idiots – that’s what they are – when you lie it just weakens the case.
#96
You are so full of it, I can smell it from here.
“no unwanted babies..” bull*hit! Our world is being destroyed by the massive numbers of us..we’re like a plague on the earth. WE are destroying all that god created by our sheer numbers.
We DO not need to keep procreating…in fact, it will be our demise and the demise of all that is around us, all of god’s creatures, and the plants, as well.
But, you “christians” just keep pushing for more, and celebrating the massive families, and claiming that unborn babies are sacred.
I will note that the current crop of christians always pick and choose what they WANT to try and illustrate their evil thoughts. Oh, sure you follow it, to the letter, right? Well, except for the parts about how consuming shellfish consumption is an abomination unto the lord. (I see you at Sizzler’s eating all those shrimp.)
What is it about the current christian thought where you can pick and choose the passages you want to parade out and then pretend that you are superior to the rest of us…which is getting darn old. It is also against what god intended, or don’t you believe that part of the bible? I believe another thing promoted that you do not follow is the “live and let live” and “turn the other cheek”. I see little of that. You do not allow others to live as they do, nor do you step aside, but actually are the agressors and hitting other’s cheeks first. SHAME ON YOU.
You won’t even consider the other side’s point of view. You refuse to understand the basics: Abortion is never taken lightly by any woman. It is not an easy decision, but it is come to with much thought.Iit shows a higher thought process, a careful consideration, and responsibility. The decision to bring a child into the world should never be done for any reason other than with the full commitment to raise that child to be a significant, participating member of society.
From a “christian standpoint”..you should see it as turning that life back to the maker….an allowing that child to bask in his glory until a welcoming womb is found. It is as he intended it, or he would not have allowed man to develop the technology, nor would he have added the use of tools to the rational human’s abilities. If you really believe — then this should be obvious. Certainly, he could stop it if he decided it was a bad thing? Maybe he is not opposed, after all, he does not want little children to suffer. Perhaps he meant a life of suffering, not a moment of termination? He also does not want his animals to suffer..he created them, and the animals are just as glorious in his eyes, are they not?
I will NOTE that Christians often pick and choose which technology they chose to accept. I think reproductive technology that allows fertility to happen (to what god intended to be barren women) should be viewed as the work of the devil, akin to or worse than abortion. But, NOOOO…somehow it’s okay with ya’ll.
I think the multiple-multiple births that the formerly barren women are having is not god’s joy, but god’s anger and a curse. How can you not see that? For a woman that god made barren, or to delay motherhood until she had learned lessons that he had designed for her, but then for her to take matters into her own hands, and thumb her nose at the lord….of course, he would curse her with a litter instead of the child she wanted. How can you see that as anything other than an outright insult to god?!
You should all be ashamed at crossing your lord and making his intentions so twisted. I do not think your god wants man to overrun the earth at the expense of all of god’s other creatures. Did he not create the other creatures of the land, and did he not care for other creatures as he cared for man? I think you are forgetting some key highlights of HIS intentions. Did he want the world HE created fouled by man? We are crapping up his work. We are crowding the planet. Man is like a bad house guest…in the lord’s home. It should not be “the more the merrier” but, instead, asking his forgiveness for wanton procreation. We have made life less than sacred…and if you would travel to any of the crowded places of the world..where babies die for no food, and women curse the child they carry — because of too many people, too little food — you would rethink your fat, lazy, white christian retoric. When it finally becomes apparent to you that humans are the locusts of the earth…..it will be too late.
You are spouting the words of the devil by pushing ahead people reproducing, over the other creatures of the land. I cannot understand how the devil got into the christian religion and is pushing ahead destruction, misery, and overpopulation which is dooming the planet and all the creatures that dwell within it.
Abortion is not evil. It is a small step to help the planet by limiting the number of humans stomping upon it. We should all work to preserve the beauty that god intended.
Before that, they were saying there is no such provision.
By the way, I warned you that Clinton wanted Obama to fail. The Arkansas Congressman who was part of the group that cut the deal on health care in July, Mike Ross, he is already backing out of the deal.
#101–LIEBERTY==sorry to leave you hanging for so long. Nice analogy, it only FAILS right off the block (sic!). We don’t live in legal units called neighborhoods. So, the request to provide day care would be evaluated on your private christians impulses. I would personally tell them all to go fuck off because I got mine and obviously they made the wrong decisions.
#102–yep–”bad” website. Constitution and the rights there from mean what the Supreme Court says==not what some Founding Father wanted. Here is a clue to irrelevant Constitutional Analysis: start by quoting from the Declaration of Independence.
Yuk, yuk. What a laugh.
#111 Bobbo “Constitution and the rights there from mean what the Supreme Court says”
1) On what do you base this?
2) Do rights come from the constitution? What about places outside the US, do people there have rights? If they do, where do they get them from?
#112–curious==Its what the SC said in Marbury v Madison? And if you think about it, its really the only way it could be in a nation of laws.
Or think again and recognize anyone who thinks their “rights” are violated ultimately find themselves in court arguing about what the court cases have held those constitutional provisions mean.
Its a nice bit of poetry to say that rights come from god, or are natural, but it doesn’t mean a thing when the paper declaring that kept black people in bondage and women as chattel.
Just more bumper sticker non-think from the easily swayed.
Bob said,
way to talk out of your ass. Christian scientists by and large believe in modern medicine just fine, and in many places do the best they can to advance it.
I was gone for a day so I didn’t get to respond to this but Bob I am not talking about scientists who are Christians. I am talking about Christian Scientists as in people who belong to the church that goes by the name Christian Science.
Totally different thing. Capitalization makes all the difference.
#113 Bobo said- “Its what the SC said in Marbury v Madison?”
The supreme court has the power to decide what the constitution means because the supreme court said they do.
And rights are those things that government allows us to do. Any idea’s that we may have rights outside what is allowed by the government that happens to occupy a given country, is just poetry.
Thanks for clearing it up.
103 AlfredETerrorist
The Assyrians were the most warlike of people during that time. And military might was their way of keeping their empire in place. How do you keep a military? More children. Of course a warlike people would do what they could to ensure the numbers keep growing. You need soldiers to terrorize the world (as much as they knew about then)… kinda like you. You want as many babies to brainwash to fulfill your own terrorist fantasies. Psycho…
@91 Alfie: “Babies are innocent”
Actually Alfie, according to your religion, no one is innocent. Have you forgotten about original sin?