***
Here's Dennis Kucinich explaining "Why I Voted No." He says nothing about access to abortion services.
८ नोव्हेंबर, २००९
Needing to give up something, the Democrats gave up abortion rights.
"If enacted, this amendment will be the greatest restriction of a woman's right to choose to pass in our careers,' said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, one of the lawmakers who left Ms. Pelosi's office mad."
Here's Dennis Kucinich explaining "Why I Voted No." He says nothing about access to abortion services.
Here's Dennis Kucinich explaining "Why I Voted No." He says nothing about access to abortion services.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
Hooey! Women will still have a right to choose. Congress chose not to pay for it, with certain exceptions, as it has in the past.
Oh, please. We all know that if the Senate passes a bill (and that's a BIG if), then Pelosi and the Dems will sneak abortion back in through the reconciliation process. Pelosi and her cronies are all ethically challenged. The truth is not in them.
Clyde, I disagree.
Pelosi and Reid won't "sneak" it in. It will all be very aboveboard.
The NYT will fulminate against the bad parts of the bills, and magically the offending parts (re: abortion coverage) will be included and the missing parts (public option, coverage for illegal aliens) will be included, and the reconciled bill will be passed in both the House and Senate by slim majorities.
Blue Dogs will be able to say they tried, and the Democrats will have slurped up another 17% of the economy into the hands of the government, which already is running the auto industry and the bank industry. Why should the health care industry get a pass?
And for the silly people who think they will avoid this by "not paying" the tax, the tax will simply be withheld. If you run your own business and refuse to submit your tax withholding, you'll be out of business within one quarter.
And if you think you can simply not file your taxes, you'll also be found out in one quarter.
You'd have to shut down your business and change to a completely underground economy, which you won't be able to do quickly.
Most of us will simply accede to this change in our economic lives, because we are simply powerless.
A few rallies, a few protests, and -- so what?
Is there a religious exemption clause for Christian Scientists?
If the bill was going to pass the House under Pelosi, as it did, am I the only opponent who would have prefered to see the most extreme-to-the-left version go to the Senate?
Does anyone know if the Republicans planned to add an amendment like this had a Democrat not sponsored it?
I think that would have been a mistake.
One of the ironies of this is that the people who called the soldiers in Vietnam baby killers are the ones who have been killing babies all along.
miller is absolutely right; this will come back in during reconciliation.
Every Blue Dog who voted for this should go down next year.
The passage of the bill is a big boon for hope and change in the 2010 elections.
I don't think the bill literally goes to the Senate. The Senate has been working on their own version for some time. They may take portions of the existing bill, but they'll use their own, crafted to engender a filibuster-proof majority.
Then when the Senate and House bill go to committee, the real bill will emerge, the one with the public option, support for taxpayer-funded abortion, and coverage for illegal aliens.
The reconcilation bill doesn't require more than a 50%+1 vote in either chamber. Fait accompli, and nothing you can do about it.
The Man-child President will sign the bill, "an historic day in America's future," and we will lose much of our freedom and liberty.
But, on the upside, we will have government-run health care, and there's nothing but good in that.
Now, I need to leave for a while so I can find a Post Office to stand in line to wait for a stamp so I can mail a letter to my Congresscritter that might get to Washington in a week.
Having lived for years in a country with single payor ... I say the issue is no longer that of a woman's right to "choose" to kill her baby, but the right of everyone else to "choose" the sort of health care insurance -- or none -- we feel best for us; as well as the right of an employer to "choose" the level of employee insurance (s)he feels is most appropriate; and the right of a healthy individual to "choose" a very-high-deductible policy so as not to support others' pathologically unhealthy lifestyle choices.
Pop Quiz: please name one "choice" supported by Democrats other than the "choice" of killing her baby.
Miller is quite right, this issue was decided last November. There will be a lot of theater and posturing, but the decisions have been made by The Deciders, and you won't even have your 72 hours to read the end result before it is passed. Neither will the people who are voting on it. Hapless Republicans will use phrases like 'closed doors' and 'dead of night' but in the end, the fait is already accompli. And your choices? Well, there's actually only one: Shut Up and Pay.
The reconcilation bill doesn't require more than a 50%+1 vote in either chamber.
And there only need to be three defections from the 220-215 vote to put it under in the House.
Reconciliation editing can only go so far before it defeats the bill, even assuming it ever gets through the Senate.
I don't get it exactly. This amendment was not about access to abortions but about who is going to pay for them. The people who don't support abortions should not have to pay for people to have them just as those who don't support unfettered access to handguns shouldn't have to buy me a 9mm.
DeGette voted yes anyway.
What a load of crap. No one is going to make abortion illegal. There are those who just don't want the government to subsidize it.
The dems will find a way to publicly fund abortion.
Still, the abortion debate is a side show. The big issue here is this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/30/masterfleece_theater_98951.html
The Democrats aren't going to end up giving up much: abortion will be snuck in there, and there won't be stringent citizenship checking so illegal aliens will be able to obtain coverage and probably discounts. The latter has received some coverage from r/w bloggers, but not hardly enough and it wasn't effective; for instance, not too many others are trying to discredit those who misled about illegal aliens being covered (like FactCheck).
The current situation shows once again just how incompetent and/or corrupt the great majority of the leaders of the opposition to BHO are. If they weren't incompetent and/or corrupt, they could have either blocked the bill or extracted major concessions. Instead, all their efforts mostly failed.
For instance, instead of encouraging their charges to go to townhalls and throw tantrums and act like children, those leaders could have encouraged them to joing into groups and elect the most qualified person from their group to ask these questions I posted in August.
Think of opposition to BHOcare like a football game: not everyone is qualified to be the quarterback. Instead of telling their charges to form into "teams" and elect a "quarterback" to go ask questions, those leaders - Dick Armey, Instapundit, the other Teaparty leaders - just told people to go out and throw the ball around. And, that's not how you win the game.
Find smarter and/or less corrupt leaders.
The bill that comes out of the House-Senate conference will contain coverage for abortions, you can be certain. This posturing is for cover.
They think we are stupid and for good reason.
DeGette sits in a safe uber-left uber-progressive seat in Denver. Still, I'd like her and others who voted for this crap sandwich to be shown the door at the next opportunity.
Wow, and just a week or so ago it came out that Obama had been excluding women from his frequent golf games. He doesn't seem to be listening to the concerns of gays or liberal women. Is there anyone he's loyal to, and more importantly, will there be any group supporting him with energy the next time elections come around?
What in the bill restricts abortion rights?
My understanding is that nothing in the bill limits abortion.
You takes your chances and you pays your money.
I don't see why it's wrong to expect people to pay for their own abortions. The huge "nonprofit" PP will probably "scholarship" anyone who says they need the financial assistance, even if they're wearing a fur coat and pearls.
The article doesn't say if the Stupak amendment passed or by how much. It sounds like the pro-abortionists were angry it was put to a vote at all (the history of the last 30 years).
trying to figure out why this is the Worst Thing That Has Ever Been Done. . . and why is more proof that Obama is The Worst President Ever, but I'm having some trouble.
Is it because Obama has SOLD OUT WOMEN, thus proving that his liberalism is paper thin, and a mere ploy to kill us all? that can't be, because conservatives assure me that the pro-life movement are the ones who are REALLY feminist. So this Bill is a triumph for women.
Is it that this vote proves that the dems WORSHIP Obama and will spare no effort in imposing his stalinist utopa on all Americans? That can't be it either, since the dems did not vote in lockstep, and it was a dem who forced the amendment concerning abortion.
Obviously this is just a horrible horrible thing, the Worst Thing That Has Ever Been Done, but I'm really having trouble seeing why.
Unless. . . that's it! The fact that 64 democrats voted against the Bill,a dnthat Stupak, a dem, insisted on the pro-life amendment PROVES that Obama is a weak president who doesn;t have control of his party!
Whew! For a second there, it looked as if this Bill might be a success for Obama.
Can we stop with some of the defeatist talk in here? Some of you act like Nov 2008 was the last election that decided EVERYTHING. You are aware that we just had an election that was VERY bad for Democrats? Also this House bill barely passed and whatever emerges out of the Senate will be unacceptable to progressives?
I want more abortions.
There aree not enough abortions in this country.
Thank you,
titus
Titus - abortions are not nearly as important as loaf pinching and ex-foliating masques. Not to mention, being utterly fabulous.
Federal dollars do not pay for abortion now. Democrats did not "give up abortion rights." They just voted not to start paying for it. Don't worry though, they'll go back on that promise, too.
Alex you are the best, thank you for your compassion.
Now lets go have an abortion today.
The bottom line is that the Dems know it's now or never for their precious little governmental takeover of health care. If not now, when? After next year's elections their plurality numbers in Congress are almost certainly going to be severely diminished, maybe even their majorities themselves will be completely washed away. So they are like suicide bombers. Since they are going to die no matter what, they are going to take of many of us with them as they can on their way to their 72 virgins.
Titus - I would go with you to have an abortion, but I will NOT be seen driving into the clinic in anything less then a BMW 5-series. That is the deal.
This is the first I've heard of Diana DeGette, apparently she's a moron.
My mother's and my father's parents emigrated from Europe to distance themselves from idiots that ruled their lives. So have the parents and grandparents of many people I know. It makes me feel ill inside observing their descendants insist on copying European anything.
Anything at all.
I hear it often, again this morning: the US is the last advanced nation to enact universal health care legislation, and my impulse is to smash in the face of the person positing that incredibly stupid premise offered as axiomatic fact. It's immediately followed with,"so we must enact this now," as if scarfing a crap sandwich did ineluctably logically follow. I actually feel my blood pressure spike at the incredible stupidity of that position. Then I realize the face of the speaker does appear to have been already smashed.
Welcome to the world your predecessors sold everything to escape, eagerly and stupidly brought to you by their immediate descendants. Our exceptionalism is squandered by the people we elect to represent us, and ultimately by ourselves.
The sadness of this causes me to take a walk then steam some green beans.
G Joubert - does Pelosi get 72 virgins too? Ewwww. So gross.
I second Chip Ahoy's comment about the sacrifices our ancestors made to be Americans. It is absolutely unreal that American citizens would be yearning for lifestyles most of their ancestors were desperate to leave behind. Now my father, a WWII US Army Artillery veteran who will be 88 in a few days, is wondering if Belize would be a good place to move to.
WV: redise, which I would have if I could summon tears at will.
I wouldn't get too terribly upset about this bull, er bill, just now. In spite of the most left-wing House ever and the largest Democrat majority in almost a generation this thing passed by 5 votes. The bi-partisan agreement was against, not for.
Most components of the bill don't even begin until 2013, and that's with several huge "provided"s -- provided the Senate passes anything remotely similar; provided something passes both houses after markup; most importantly, provided future Congresses actually appropriate anything for implementation in FY12, FY13 and beyond.
The great beauty of 2009 has been that after decades of attempting to conceal who they really are and what they really want, liberals got suckered into thinking they had the ultimate mandate and finally opened up ... thinking it was safe.
They will understand their error in 360 days.
As Americans have rejected Evangelical Fundamentalism in Washington they will soon enough reject Socialist Fundamentalism as well.
As Americans have rejected Evangelical Fundamentalism in Washington they will soon enough reject Socialist Fundamentalism as well.
More truth couldn't be said. Americans dislike extremists.
The story never says exactly what law was changed. I have no idea what was prohibited.
It says at one point that the amendment only prohibited federal funding of abortions, but then implies something more without specifying exactly what that was.
Mike Thompson (D-CA) - North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson doesn't think the House of Representatives health care bill is perfect, but he thinks it's a historic step forward.
”I don't think it's close to perfect,” Thompson said Saturday afternoon, hours before he intended to vote for the bill. “This is like any other major piece of legislation -- we're going to be working on this forever. As long as there are people and there's a need for health care, we're going to be refining this legislation. It's the nature of the beast. But, this bill brings us one step closer to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.”
Mike Thompson is a worthless cull, once a man who won votes from both sides of the aisle, now and in recent years he has shown himself to be a partisan tool. He was going to vote for this bill in the very beginning, before the Recess when they were trying to ram it through. Before anyone, including himself, had read it, before anyone knew what was in it. Before the Tea Parties, before the "nasty" Town Hall meetings, before the people started asking questions and before the people told him what they thought.
He would have voted for it no matter what was in it - and he has now done just that.
There is no reason for us to pay for Congressmen and Senators like him to fly to Washington and maintain an office there. We know how he will vote. He does not need to be present or to attend any meetings or read any legislation. It is all dictated for him. We can fill in the blank for his vote while he sits on a street corner begging for change.
Gone are the days when Congressmen were Statesmen.
There is an election coming. Register to vote if you haven't. VOTE even if you have been slacking. Make this one count.
I don't see why it's wrong to expect people to pay for their own abortions
I don't see why it's wrong to expect people to pay for their own medical care. Or for at least as much for their medical care as they pay for their internet, their cellphone, and their netflix.
@ lohwoman - I had the same thought about moving out of the USA when I read that this bill had passed last night. I have a friend who is moving to Costa Rica - I think I will join him.
Rose - So Mike Thompson agress with Mark Steyn...
"Obama believes in “the fierce urgency of now”, and fierce it is. That’s where all the poor befuddled sober centrists who can’t understand why the Democrats keep passing incoherent 1,200-page bills every week are missing the point. If “health care” were about health care, the devil would be in the details. But it’s not about health or costs or coverage; it’s about getting over the river and burning the bridge. It doesn’t matter what form of governmentalized health care gets passed as long as it passes. Once it’s in place, it will be “reformed”, endlessly, but it will never be undone."
My first abortion was a little traumatic.
My 91st abortion was a piece of cake though.
It is really like riding a bicycle.
It would be more accurate to say, "Needing to give up something, pro-choice Democrates gave up abortion rights."
Rather obviously, the not-insignificant number of pro-life Democrats who insisted upon the relevant amendment didn't have to give up anything.
I was like Mr OBGYN give me that fucker I will stab his heart out.
And he was like OK Titus go for it.
This is another of those posts Ann tosses up that has a headline that is incorrect and she offers no independent thought on the matter. It's what I call a "google" post ... so Google will re-index her website.
"Democrats" of course have not given up abortion rights. They haven't even given up federal funding of them.
Are there not Democrats in the Senate? Will there not be a reconciliation process? Can they not vote next week to "correct" the bill they just passed?
Is Althouse for, or against, federal funding of abortion? She's for it, of course. Otherwise, she'd have some comment.
A post which says nothing with a factually incorrect headline.
Really phoning it in.
Go out and play, Ann.
Note that now PP and NARAL are now in the interesting position of demanding that the "public" option NOT succeed. If the public option drives out all the private insurance (we become a single payer system), there will be no insurance funded abortion - given the majority of us continue to refuse to allow our tax dollars to be used for what we believe is the murder of the most innocent of us.
This is the first I've heard of Diana DeGette, apparently she's a moron.
No, she really isn't one. But she represents Denver. I always thought that Patsy Shroeder was bad (some of you may remember her in a bunny suit on the Great Wall of China). But when Shroeder retired, DeGette proved me wrong. Denver could elect someone even more leftist and nutso.
That said, my personal animus is that she graduated from the same college that I did, and we had to suffer for the first year after her election to her recounting, in gory detail, the excitement of coming to Washington to do her evil, in each episode of the quarterly magazine that they mail all of us. Thank goodness that Ken Salazer, another alum, is a lot more modest, as he moved to AG, Senator, and now Interior.
A totally sad day for America. What ever support I had for this bill (which was minimal) is gone now. A set back for women's reproductive rights.
It says at one point that the amendment only prohibited federal funding of abortions, but then implies something more without specifying exactly what that was.
I can't find the text, but I think - possibly - what is says is that abortion will not be an allowable benefit on the Exchange.
After 2013, you will have to purchase health insurance on the federal insurance exchange - that is, from one of the companies permitted to sell insurance there. The Health Choices Commissioner or the Secretary of HHS will decide on three varieties of plan that may be offered, and insurance companies selling on the Exchange will only be allowed to offer those plans, so they will be your only legal choices. The three plan levels will be allowed to differ in premiums, copays, and coinsurance payments, but not in what benefits are offered - one size will be required to fit all. So if abortion is not on the list of benefits allowed and required for Exchange insurance plans, presumably such insurance will not be allowed to pay for abortion services.
All of this feels somewhat moot, though. I have no doubt that if this amendment survives the reconciliation process, which it won't, the SC will declare it an unconstitutional interference with abortion rights sometime before or shortly after 2013, and abortion will go on the list of defined services that insurance plans are required to include. So in practice it doesn't matter.
A totally sad day for America. What ever support I had for this bill (which was minimal) is gone now. A set back for women's reproductive rights.
How? You have the exact same rights you had yesterday. No more, no less. How can it be a step back when nothing has changed?
The other Salazar brother (D-Colorado) voted for this pile of big government garbage as well.
I'm over these people. Are there any pro-environment, pro-gay, pro-choice, free market, serious, economically literate, tax cutting conservatives ready to pony up for us?
Is there anyone who isn't a back-stabbing lying two-faced left-wing socialist jerk ready to serve us?
The Stupak Amendment allows exceptions in the event of "rape or incest." At the very least, then, I predict a sudden surge in reported "rapes" once the system is in place.
Whatever it takes, right?
"How can it be a step back when nothing has changed?"
Dude, you are monologueing with a vagina. They do not speak logic.
"I predict a sudden surge in reported "rapes" once the system is in place."
The "female studies department" at any American college already teach that any instance of intercourse is, by definition, a rape.
That's what Democrats are teaching your kid in college with your tax dollars.
I have to admit I voted for McCain last year against my better judgment. If he had won it would mean the destruction of the GOP and this country. But at the same time voting for Obama was patently disgusting. So I took the coward's way out and voted for McCain because my vote wouldn't count in a blue state.
Interesting:
The Democrats were almost willing to dump the entire bill over abortion funding and illegal immigrants. So is the bill really that important to the entire country?
Reading the bill, it is a bureaucratic nightmare land, creating jobs for hoards of government employees and lawyers.
I wonder if Stupak allows religious organizations opposed to abortion to not include coverage of it in their employee health plans. Catholic organizations, for example. It would be a serious violation of religious freedom to force Catholic organizations to be babykillers.
WV angerpl
my new street address
The Democrat socialists think nothing about effectively nationalizing the health insurance industry and granting the HHS Secretary dictatorial power to decide the coverage and premiums permitted for all heath insurance under statutory terms which will outlaw my HSA.
However, the Democrat socialists do not like it at all when their nationalization of the health insurance industry outlaws insurance coverage for abortion.
Did you think Big Brother was going to spare you?
What short memories these democrats have! The umbrella organization for all the catholic hospitals in the US, which comprise 15% of all beds promised to close if a federal law was passed which required them to perform abortions in their hospitals. This would happen if the government plan mandated abortion coverage, since they could not deny certified covered services. So, they played a game and gave away something they couldn't have anyway. What a disaster.
You know, the abortion issue pretty much splits along party lines. So why not compromise: Make the government pay for the abortion only if the mother is a registered Democrat. In fact, why not offer a big cash incentive? I think that's a program that both parties would back.
Salamandyr - "A set back for women's reproductive rights."
How? You have the exact same rights you had yesterday. No more, no less. How can it be a step back when nothing has changed?
Slamandyr -- having the "government" pay for it is the right.
To be fair, abortion is a medical procedure for women. If we have federal funds for medical procedures, I can't see how you discriminate against this one procedure without violating the 16th amendment.
Alex - really?
Penis enlargment is a medical procedure for men. Should we expect that I should pay for those as well? Does that somehow fold under the 16th amendment as well?
While we're at it. How about sex changes? Should the non-gender-confused community be forced to fund snip-snip operations for the Chazz Bonos of America?
Paid abortions is the least of it. That will be included in the somehow. If you work for a small business (defined as having up to 500 employees) the probability is that your employer given a choice between sharply increased health care insurance or paying an 8% payroll tax will elect to pay the tax. It's cheaper to pay the tax than buy the insurance. Now this bill requires you to be insured and if you refuse to purchase the insurance you will be taxed 2.5% of your income. Refuse to pay it and it will be ducted from your paycheck. Self employed you will required to provide the government your bank information so the government can debit your account. Refuse to comply and you can face $250,000 fine or imprisonment. Congress of course exempted itself for this scheme.
But it gets worse, the cuts in medicare, the forcible cuts on pharmaceutical companies r & d budgets (to 'save' costs on patented drugs). No new drugs for you. Phasing out of inflation indexing of taxable incomes over $250,00. Not a problem for most people except that is probably your boss and what is the easiest expense to cut? Besides this is like the AMT tax. supposed to hit only a handful of people when enacted, now it's going to effect one third of all tax payers. Lost in the hubbub is the little detail that the Bush tax cuts expire next year. So for the those in the top tier that represents a tax increase of 5 to 7 % plus the health care package add another 2 to 3% minimum on top of state and local taxes and what incentive does a small business have to expand or invest? Any job that can be replaced by a machine will be. Any job that can be outsourced will be. Any job that can outsourced overseas will be. Businesses are not charities and they will not self destruct just to appease politicians, bureaucrats and unions. Then there is card check and cap and trade. 10.2% official unemployment and everything these arrogant fools are doing increases unemployment. The jobs that will be lost may well be yours.
You are now an indentured servant. You exist to serve the state.
"...we will lose much of our freedom and liberty."
Hey, bub...you don't have any "freedom" or "liberty": it was stolen away over the last few decades by the corporations who own our country and their stooges in Congress. Everything's being "privatized," which means you'll more for fewer and poorer services, and your vote doesn't count...unless you're the head of JP Morgan Chase or Goldman Sachs.
"But, on the upside, we will have government-run health care...."
No, we won't, and more's the pity: this bill is a giveaway to the parasitic health insurance companies, who are responsible for our ruinous health care delivery system, which kills people and bankrupts the survivors. The least we should get for our tax dollars is a universal health care system.
I say "Bravo!" to Dennis Kucinich for refusing to vote for this abortion of a health care "reform" (sic) bill, which is a reform only insofar as it gives yet more power to and guarantees more money for the entrenched private interests who are raping our country.
Florida, thought you were a woman? Tranny?
From the way you talk, you could not really be a woman and spew out all that trash.
"Any job that can be replaced by a machine will be. Any job that can be outsourced will be. Any job that can outsourced overseas will be."
If you hadn't noticed, this has been a signal feature of our business environment for the last decade or two: business doesn't need any new excuses to stop paying Americans for their labor when they can find slave labor abroad, and they won't stop doing so regardless of what bills do or don't become law.
Actually, if we ever had a whisper of a chance to actually enact single payer health care in this country--which we don't now, while Barack Milquetoast is in office--it might serve as a positive incentive for businesses to provide jobs domestically, as they would no longer have to subsidize health insurance coverage for their employees.
Penis enlargment is a medical procedure for men. Should we expect that I should pay for those as well? Does that somehow fold under the 16th amendment as well?
Penis enlargement is pure elective cosmetic surgery and not a health-care procedure like abortion. The same reason why I wouldn't federally fund cosmetic breast implants - non-cancer related.
But the employees would be skewed because of being paid the same but having to pay so much more in taxes to cover all that this boondoggle will and would cost. In addition giving up the new procedures that will not be developed because the pharmaceutical companies can no longer foot the bill. Sounds like ahuge lose-lose to me and the corporations will still go overseas because of the big tax increases that would be levied by the states as Mass is doing now - and they are losing jobs hand over fist. The big environmental green corp that was funded to the tune of $58 million has just announced that all future manufacturing jobs will be located in China and only design and planning would be done in Mass. Nice one!
"Alex said...
Penis enlargment is a medical procedure for men. Should we expect that I should pay for those as well? Does that somehow fold under the 16th amendment as well?
Penis enlargement is pure elective cosmetic surgery and not a health-care procedure like abortion. The same reason why I wouldn't federally fund cosmetic breast implants - non-cancer related.
11/8/09 8:02 PM"
Um, Alex, How is abortion not an elective procedure? It definitely is not a health care procedure.
LargeBill - if you really want to do away with abortion you will guarantee the permanent power of the Democrat party. Simply because if you read Freakonomics, you will understand why.
Besides - a woman's body her right! Down with the Christian theocracy of Pat Robertson!
Clarification -- it isn't Salamandyr who wrote "A setback for women's rights."
She was responding.
Victoria and Alex and all you pro-abortionists: do you understand what abortion is???? Plain and simple, it's murder. Why do you want the right to murder someone and have me pay for it. NEVER... and besides, maybe you ought to go to church and pray....
Alex - I wasn't talking about doing away with abortion and neither was LargeBill (at least from the tenor of his comments. I was talking about funding for abortion - either the taxpayers pay for it or the individual. Except in a minority of cases, it IS an elective procedure.
By the way, I have read Freakonomics and understand their argument. They never suggest that Republicans should support abortion in order to make sure that fewer Democrats are born. Frankly, I think it's horribly sick to suggest that you'll pay for aborting fetuses in order to maintain your grip on power. That's the kind of thinking that made Mao one of MY least favorite political philosophers.
Victoria and Alex and all you pro-abortionists: do you understand what abortion is???? Plain and simple, it's murder. Why do you want the right to murder someone and have me pay for it. NEVER... and besides, maybe you ought to go to church and pray....
Some people feel that funding for the military is murder in their name. So it's all fair in the end. That's how a democracy works, but compromise!
Riably - I'm shocked your shocked! Bottom line is that Christians support their own extinction if they outlaw abortion. You can throw Mao around as though that's useful.
"Besides - a woman's body her right! Down with the Christian theocracy of Pat Robertson!"
Let me get this straight:
a) it's a woman's right to have an abortion because it's her body and
b) no man should stand between her and the decision including the sperm donor and
c) all of us should be forced to pay our hard-earned money to pay for her decision and
d) we don't have the right to opt-out
Makes total sense.
"Pop Quiz: please name one "choice" supported by Democrats other than the "choice" of killing her baby."
Abortion and sexual license are conceptual stand-ins for individual liberty and choice.
As long as a woman can "chose" to kill her baby before it is born and as long as people are free to carry on sexually in any way they please without social censure... they feel like they are free.
Rialby - liberals support a woman's right to CHOOSE to either keep the baby or abort it. But they won't pressure the woman to keep the baby, as that's unethical. Besides, women who can't possibly get financial support for raising the baby should abort it.
If someone thinks funding the military is murder in his name then he is living in the wrong country because the last time I checked we've 1) embedded that in the Constitution which predates us all, 2) have not amended the Constitution to do away with the military and 3) elect representatives to determine how that funding is carried out.
There is no such provision in the Constitution for federally funded abortion. It's not there.
Rialby - but equal protection under the 16th amendment protects selectively banning abortion from federal funding. This is simply accepted among Constitutional scholars, get a clue! Woof!
"Christians support their own extinction if they outlaw abortion"
Brother, you need a course in Nuance. Again, in my comments, I've never suggested abortion should be outlawed, just that I shouldn't have to pay for anyone's abortion. And point 2, wtf are you talking about?
"Rialby - liberals support a woman's right to CHOOSE to either keep the baby or abort it. But they won't pressure the woman to keep the baby, as that's unethical. Besides, women who can't possibly get financial support for raising the baby should abort it."
Should?
What *should* parents do who can't get financial support for raising a baby?
What should the State do about parents who can't support their children? What standard of "support" is involved here?
Is "financial support" a prerequisite of some sort? Perhaps, as Obama likes to say about everything under the sun, "financial support" is a right?
I've got an idea... how about we treat women like rational and functional adults who can and *should* be expected to take responsibility for their reproduction instead of children who need to be saved from being "punished" with a baby?
But really... taking support for abortions out of the House bill is a sop to the concept of choice, to make it seem like anyone is getting a choice of whether or not to pay for killing babies/abortions.
It's a lie.
It's a lie just as much as the "choice" of aborting your baby or not is a lie about having control and choices in your life when other areas of liberty are progressively constricted.
The Health Care Reform bill is all about removing choice... and that's removing it from everyone... those who don't want to pay with tax dollars for abortions and those who want to assert control over their own bodies by having those abortions.
Whoever holds the purse strings makes all the rules and makes all the "choices."
This is unavoidable reality.
Rialby - but equal protection under the 16th amendment
XVI Amendment: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I'm confused.
Ack. The full text of Alex's demented quote is as follows:
Rialby - but equal protection under the 16th amendment protects selectively banning abortion from federal funding. This is simply accepted among Constitutional scholars, get a clue! Woof!
"Christians support their own extinction if they outlaw abortion"
Said the same thing about slavery.
Lots of folks didn't listen.
And it's slavery that is extinct.
Ooops I meant 14th amendment. I got confused because earlier in the week I was dealing with the 16th amendment in a income tax thread.
This bill will do for healthcare what rent control has done to affordable housing.
While almost comically blind to the effect of state regulation on the insurance industry (the man can't abandon his favorite scapegoats) Kucinich accurately portrays the bill for what it is: a locking in of the most expensive variety of the status quo.
Like rent control the result is to favor the lucky few at the cost of the great many; to discourage investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship; to preserve in legal amber the very disfunctions that premised the government's interference.
I know many people -- upper middle class folks -- who want health care reform to cover everybody and cut their personal premiums at the same time. If Kucinich speaks enough of their language to cut through the wishful thinking, he's doing the country a service.
In that case, Alex, you are left to answer for the Hyde Amendment's continued applicability. Surely, if constitutional law scholars agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the selective banning of funding for abortions, it would have been litigated long ere now.
In that case, Alex, you are left to answer for the Hyde Amendment's continued applicability. Surely, if constitutional law scholars agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the selective banning of funding for abortions, it would have been litigated long ere now.
Just let Obama tilt the balance of the SCOTUS 5-4 liberal and that Hyde Amendment will be struck down. ;)
Cookaisa, I don't consider abortion murder.
Do you see capital punishment as murder, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam murder?
I was going to say sorry, but I am not sorry for my beliefs.
oh,Rialby, BTW, there will never come a day when I take anything Pat Robertson or any of the uber christian right says seriously.
victoria - you will bow down to the Christian right and you will enjoy it. :))))
Woof!
She'll bow down to the Christian Right, or to anyone else who gets control of Congress.
The government is our friend.
They are here to help.
They will not enforce anything that we would not have done anyway, will not remove any choice or personal control or liberty.
What sort of horrible person even worries about that? Haters, all of them, acting like they *really* think that government owning any industry has consequences other than the efficiency of centralized control.
"A totally sad day for America. What ever support I had for this bill (which was minimal) is gone now. A set back for women's reproductive rights."
The thing you utterly miss, Victoria, is that the government removes choice.
Always and Only.
That you expected the House bill to include "reproductive rights" doesn't change it's nature.
What you see NOW is it's nature, revealed for you, because what you care about is removed.
Government is coercive.
Only and Ever.
And if you think you can simply not file your taxes, you'll also be found out in one quarter.
Exactly. That's why Turbo Tax Timmy is serving his time in prison, right. What? He's not??
Is there anyone who isn't a back-stabbing lying two-faced left-wing socialist jerk ready to serve us?
Having people who are truly ready to serve us would be a plus. Most people in federal elective office seem only to want to serve their egos, power, bankbooks, etc.
The D's imperil America again. And again. Oh, and again.
I am 35 year old graduate. I am only one son of my parents. My father was a business man, he lost big money in his business and Bankrupt in 1986, that time I was in high school. Bank officials harrased him very cruely , they took legal steps to my father and post aution sale for our house and he suffered mental agony and died of heart attack on 1990. After my father death my mother faced many obstacles, now she is an arthritis patient, she cant walk with out anyones help. The last 19 years I have been fighting legally with bank, I lost all my hard earned money, now I am big zero and struggling for my daily needs. Now they are going to sale my house by auction for US$ 60,000.00. I don’t know where I can go with my mother? I am asking only one dollar per person, that the cost of your bed coffee or cigar (you can donate as much as you can). My paypal id is forrysakki@rediffmail.com or use the below link
By Sakki
I, too, have many troubles and woes. Send your $'s US to me.
Thankyou,
Beaverdam
Obamacare will pay for all abortions, just give it time. You pro-life Dems and Joseph Cao have been punked.
Florida, thought you were a woman? Tranny?
From the way you talk, you could not really be a woman and spew out all that trash.
How to sell your house
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा