Health Care Vote Held Up By Abortion Opponents
But there could be a vote Saturday if they get over the abortion hurdle.
According to Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, he and other abortion opponents will be given a chance to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
The issue is whether federal funds will pay for abortions.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter said she expected the rule-setting guidelines for the healthcare debate would incorporate anti-abortion language proposed by Representative Brad Ellsworth, a moderate Democrat.
His amendment would prohibit the use of federal funds to cover abortions and also guarantee access to insurance plans that would agree to refrain from covering abortion.
But the anti-choice crowd says this isn’t good enough, as evidenced by a press release quoting Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
“We are very disappointed that someone who claims to support the protection of unborn children would offer language designed to ensure the government pays for elective abortions behind smoke and mirrors. However cleverly worded the proposal might be, Rep. Ellsworth’s plan would authorize a government run public option to fund elective abortion and subsidize private plans that cover elective abortion.
“We are very disappointed that someone who claims to support the protection of unborn children would offer language designed to ensure the government pays for elective abortions behind smoke and mirrors
Key word: Elective.
Can the Liberal Left show signs of humanity and see that this simply makes sense?
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:06 am
It does not make sense.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure and should be covered.
A rough parallel can be seen here in Virginia. We have a devout Catholic governor who is morally opposed to the death penalty.
In spite of that, he has signed death warrants for people sentenced to death.
The law has to take precedence over the personal feelings of officials charged with carrying out the law….
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Abortion is a legal medical procedure and should be covered.
So is a boob job. Cover that too?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Abortion is a legal medical procedure and should be covered.
So is a boob job. Cover that too?
No problem.
In fact, I’d also be glad to cover assisted-suicides for republikkkans and capitalist schmucks like yourself.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Sure, why not?
The comparison is ridiculous, but I have come to expect that when it comes to conservatives.
I know a woman who had a radical mastectomy for breast cancer and getting implants was necessary.
I take the conservative view and do not believe in having big government bureaucrats who do not know the patient and who do not have the letters “MD” after their name barging into the privacy of the doctors office trying to get an eyefull.
Apparently, you do….
flap Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:18 am
“Abortion is a legal medical procedure…”
Well there’s your problem!
But, abortion, like capital punishment, is extremely controversial. I’d say more so than capital punishment. Anyway, if the guv felt that capital punishment was a crime against humanity in a fundamental way, should he be signing death warrants?
Abortion also ALWAYS affects innocent people, which is why it is very, very controversial. Capital punishment generally affects guilty individuals. (Sometimes not, and therein lies at least one major problem concerning capital punishment.)
You don’t think that ripping a lifeform limb from limb, even if you think a “fetus” is not human (which is nonsense in itself), perhaps deserves a special classification or special consideration when we decide if it’s funded or not?
flap Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:20 am
“special consideration”
That reminds me of zero-tolerance policies like a boy scout with a 1-inch knife gets suspended. Abortion is not just “another medical procedure” despite your feelings about it. It has unique ramifications.
TDro319 Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
i agree with Flap. Abortion should be made illegal – like drugs.
Women should be forced to seek out abortions in back alleys, thereby turning unqualified, cash collecting doctors into millionaires who don’t pay taxes. And if the woman becomes injured because of a botched operation, she couldn’t sue because abortion would be considered illegal, and therefore, she wouldn’t have a case.
Armed with this scenario, women would be forced to become unwed, welfare-collecting mothers. To help support the growing number of fatherless children, Flap’s taxes would be raised (most likely by a democrat) and he’d whine because he doesn’t think his taxes should go to some lazyass welfare queen.
In the next election, he’d vote for a republican who will repeal all welfare payments, causing the deaths of many unwed mothers AND the children they save from abortion. And nothing pleases Flap more than to have children suffer a horrible death by starvation and exposure to the elements.
BTW Flap, war ALSO affects innocent people, but you seem to have no problem with that. Interesting.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“Abortion is a legal medical procedure…”
“Well there’s your problem!”
It is not my problem because I am a man and will never have one. Because of stare decisis, it is established law and will never go away. The one with the problem is you, because you are unable to adapt to reality.
“But, abortion, like capital punishment, is extremely controversial. I’d say more so than capital punishment. Anyway, if the guv felt that capital punishment was a crime against humanity in a fundamental way, should he be signing death warrants?”
Because of the reason I gave, which was, “The law has to take precedence over the personal feelings of officials charged with carrying out the law…..”
This is a point you are unable to confront because it shows a higher principle being followed by a public servant who understands what the job requires. In this case, it requires him to set aside his personal opinion and carry out the law, even though he does not agree with it.
Yes, we understand you are a big-intrusive-government guy, but you will not get your way regarding abortion. Familiarize yourself with the concept of stare decisis.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
TD…there are so many things wrong with your post I don’t know where to start…
TDro319 Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
“TD…there are so many things wrong with your post I don’t know where to start”
You always say that, but you never elaborate.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I don’t feel I have to…
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Cover that too?
Yoo-whoo….Burqa…….
Cover that too?
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Boys. Girls. I’m oughta here.
Going to watch a rambo rerun.
placefield Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Rambo 3 where he helps the Taliban?
Um Cara Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 7:11 am
So is a boob job. Cover that too?
I, for one, am absolutely pro boob job. But only good boob jobs should be covered, and only silicone (saline doesn’t hang right, and doesn’t feel natural).
So yes, bigger boobs for a better America – otherwise, the terrorists will have won.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
don’t silicone boobs cause Lupus?
you heartless man…
Um Cara Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Silicone got a bad rap, it’s back on the market on the US (and as for Brazil, cosmetic surgery center of the world, it’s pretty much all they use).
However, I am not in favor of mandatory boob jobs, should one be more concerned with minor matters of health rather than big firm boobies.
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I am not in favor of mandatory boob jobs,
Thank gawd! I can’t imagine what I might have looked like!
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I remember when the silicone thing blew up. my sisters plastic surgeon was one of the last doctors to stop using silicone voluntarily. (she has a seriously deformed leg and foot from a childhood accident)
Um Cara Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Thank gawd! I can’t imagine what I might have looked like!
There are dudes who get pectoral implants, pretty much dude boob jobs. Who knows, a new set of pecs might look fetching on you, ask yer wife.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Haven’t you heard? The only boobs conservatives like are the ones they vote for…. that is why we liberals steal their womens…;)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
and carrie prejeans…you forgot hers.
TDro319 Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“I don’t feel I have to…”
That’s a good copout. In other words, you got nuthin’.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
no…the moronity of your statement is self-evident to the point where I don’t feel I have to waste my time pointing it out to you line by line. really, if you can’t figure it out, you’re beyond saving or in denial…or both.
If I thought you were joking, I wouldn’t mind the insanity. I’m not opposed to a good use of hyperbole, but I don’t think you are joking.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:52 am
“They don’t care to seek solutions.”
Ban 2nd and 3rd term abortions. You, FB_1143187005, who sounds a lot like EricG, would never support such a thing. So you’re the one who is inflexible.
It’d be like torture: “We need to reduce the number of people we torture, because nobody likes torture!” That doesn’t speak to the issue, really.
Keep 1st trimester abortion legal. While still heinous, it does allow people an out for rape, incest, etc., and is not quite as horrific of a dismemberment.
burqa Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
“It’d be like torture: “We need to reduce the number of people we torture, because nobody likes torture!” That doesn’t speak to the issue, really.”
The rasons we should not torture are 1) the fact it is an American traditional value established by the Founding Fathers to not torture or abuse prisoners.
That is the principled argument.
The expedient argument for not torturing or abusing prisoners is that it is illegal and also ineffective. I love debating this issue because I have done extensive research on the topic and have over 2 dozen professional interrogators to quote. They are the best experts on the subject, and I have plenty more.
What is not understood is just how well traditional interrogation techniques work.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I hope the topic comes up again…
November 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Some guy is on FOX right now (standing next to that really, really tanned senator from Ohio) saying the struggle against Democratic health insurance reform is like the fight against the Nazis in WW2.
Pelosi/Reid = Adolph Hitler? WellPoint/CIGNA = FDR?
God, you can’t make this up. Insanity. Throw these Republican bas tards over the side and sail on without them.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Yeah, I remember calling Alan and saying I was looking forward to seeing that clown in full battle-rattle hitting the beach….
November 7th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I guess it comes down to whether you believe unborn childern should be protected, but didn’t Obama promise that funding for abortions would not be in this unconstitutional passed healthcare bill. Maybe Rep. Wilson was right when he yelled, “You lie”.
OldLefty Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
And when the private insurance companies that get subsidies from the government, provide coverage for abortion, and private health care providers like Bill Frist’s family’s HCA, one of the largest abortion providers in the country, get that money…..was THAT the government funding abortions?
Maybe Rep. Wilson was a much a buffoon as he seems.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
No, Deb, this bill should not be a referendum on abortion. Abortion is a legal procedure and should be covered. No beltway bureaucrat should be looking over your doctor’s shoulder at your boobs or looking over your doctor’s shoulder when you are in the stirrups.
Wilson was wrong when he shouted “You lie” because it was not about abortion.
No, really, you can go back to the videotape and see it was about covering illegal immigrants.
And Wilson was saying Obama was “lying” about what was in a bill Wilson had never read because it had not been written.
You will recall the teabaggers and those making spectacles of themselves at town halls made a big deal over reading the bill, right?
Wilson was not only wrong factually, he was wrong in not having a sense of discretion when it comes to good manners. Those are the jerks who have conversations on their cell phones in movie theaters and whose kids run wild in the supermarket….
Deb Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
It doesn’t really matter about Wilson….Obama did promise that abortion would not be in the bill. Therefore, HE lied. And, it appears that unborn children do not have value to you or OLDLEFTY.
If you are so concerned about the govt. looking over your shoulder, why would you be supportive of govt. run healthcare?
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“It doesn’t really matter about Wilson….Obama did promise that abortion would not be in the bill. Therefore, HE lied.”
It DOES matter about Wilson. Sorry the context is in the way, but removing it is intellectually dishonest.
As for “unborn children” there is no such thing. They are children after being born and after being babies.
Please spare me the phony moral pose.
Any ethics class will teach you that the only time killing someone is justified is when another life is threatened.
So the only people who truly believe abortion is murder are people such as the killer of Tller, that Kopp guy who killed Slepian and Eric Rudolf.
If you truly believe abortion is murder then your moral code requires you to act upon your beliefs.
The reason you don’t is because you don’t truly believe it is murder but are more interested in trying to appear more-moral-than-thou.
I ain’t buying it….
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Abortion is a legal procedure and should be covered.
Just like boob jobs, nose jobs, hair transplants etc. It’s just not FAIR that I am going bald at 30! The government should step in and consider my welfare!
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Wilson was not only wrong factually
Except he wasn’t wrong. The bill clearly made allowances for illegal immigrants to obtain health care through this legislation. That’s why Senate Democrats scurried like cockroaches to tidy the language up.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
He was wrong.
Obama was talking about Obama’s proposal, which had not been written.
You are referring to a different bill entirely.
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
In terms of basic manners Wilson was also wrong. Like I said, it is presumptuous jerks like him who talk on their cell phones in movie theaters.
I am from the Deep South where we pride ourselves on our manners and a lot of us were raised believing the following rule:
RUDENESS AUTOMATICALLY PUTS YOU IN THE WRONG
So Wilson was wrong, period.
And I know what you are about to post, so let me cut it off right now by telling you another lesson we were taught, which is:
JUST BECAUSE LITTLE JOHNNY DOWN THE STREET JUMPS OFF THE ROOF, IT DOESN’T MEAN IT IS OK FOR YOU TO JUMP OFF THE ROOF…..
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Obama was talking about Obama’s proposal,
Pssst. Obama doesn’t write legislation; he only has the option of signing it. There is little doubt that any bill that may or may not pass is “Obama’s” bill.
Face it; this turd is Obama’s.
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Obama was talking about Obama’s proposal
Or, in other words, Obama makes promises that he has no way to keep. He can promise that “his” bill will do this or that. But when it comes time to sign it, he can always claim “I didn’t write this.” Is that what you are saying?
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“Obama was talking about Obama’s proposal,”
“Pssst. Obama doesn’t write legislation; he only has the option of signing it…”
And here we have another example of the failure of our public school system to properly tech the fundamentals of how our government works.
John, Presidents may indeed introduce legislation.
They have been doing it for quite some time now.
No, really, you can look it up…..
November 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I’ll give you a dollar but at the same time I’m going to charge you a dollar in fees to get the dollar.
did I really give you a dollar?
it’s not really doing anything if you say no government money for elective abortions, if you give money to another group of people to give elective abortions….
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I’ll give you a dollar but at the same time I’m going to charge you a dollar in fees to get the dollar.
did I really give you a dollar?
Except that the fee is always more than $1. Many times as much as 2-3.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
that wasn’t really my point and perhaps is part of another conversation.
my point is that they are giving the anti-abortion people something while at the same time giving the pro-abortion side the exact same thing…just calling it something different.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I’m in agreement with Rep. Ellsworth, flap, and others here. Elective abortion should not be covered by federal dollars, period, just as a boob job shouldn’t be covered. (This does not apply to therapeutic abortions to save the mother’s life)
This, however, does NOT mean that health care reform shouldn’t be passed! Those who will belabor this issue to death as a means of blocking health care legislation should be ashamed of themselves. Once it is made clear in the bill that elective abortions will not be covered (and I believe it will), let the issue go. I have a feeling that some, particularly conservative opponents of any sort of reform, will try to find some sort of inadequacy in the abortion language in the bill in order to continue to stall legislation.
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
This does not apply to therapeutic abortions to save the mother’s life
I agree.
Libs. Can you compromise? Or are you too controlled by your inane passions to your party that you can’t see common sense?
burqa Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Who is going to decide whether the procedure is “therapeutic”?
One of your beltway bureaucrats who doesn’t even know the woman, the doctor, or even have “MD” after his or her name?
John Galt Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Who is going to decide whether the procedure is “therapeutic”?
One of your beltway bureaucrats who doesn’t even know the woman, the doctor, or even have “MD” after his or her name?
Nice. NOW you want to exclude the government.
burqa. YOU are a trip.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
therapeutic?
what does that even mean?
people get abortions to help them forget they hate their dad?
burqa Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Please answer the question, John.
Who will decide whether the procedure is “therapeutic” or not?
I did not say anything about excluding the government. I meely asked you if a beltway bureaucrat would be making these individual medical determinations. Perhaps you have someone else in mind to decide.
You have another option, and that is to stay hunkered down and keep ducking the question…… that’s ok, I tend to have that effect on conservatives…….
John Galt Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Who is going to decide whether the procedure is “therapeutic”?
It would have to be the government. Clearly a law would have to be written. That’s what happens when doing something in case A is legal but doing that same something in case B is illegal.
Except here, it wouldn’t be legal/illegal but rather paid for by the State or not paid for by the State.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:05 pm