Will 'Abortion' take down the Health Care Bill ??

[heyheybooboo]

Off-hand it appears that 10-12 votes hinge on the 'phantom abortion provisions' in the Senate bill. At issue is $7 billion in rural community health center funding that critics claim "...would provide Federal funding for 100s of thousands of abortions."

Not so fast:

Community health centers don't provide abortions, they never have, and they don't plan to do so in the future. Moreover, Kathleen Sebelius, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has promised the money won't be used for abortions. And since the money will end up in the same "pot" as other money that is subject to abortion restrictions, it will be treated as if it did have restrictive language attached.

That's all pretty clear-cut. But if those points aren't enough for you, HHS has another one. In a legal memo obtained by Mother Jones, HHS lawyers say that "there have existed for over 30 years regulations that prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion services in programs administered by" the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) ...

Here is a list of the six House members at the center of the health care vote:

Michael Arcuri ----- New York - 24

Marion Berry ----- Arkansas - 01

Timothy Bishop ----- New York - 01

Gabrielle Giffords ----- Arizona - 08

Daniel Lipinski ----- Illinois - 03

Bart Stupak ----- Michigan - 01

While these folks voted for the original House bill which was inclusive of the 'Stupak Amendment' - clearly, a number of them have 'issues' on abortion; real, imagined or for political reasons.

So.

The debate has now shifted from 'Death Panels' to 'Abortion' in the health care debate. On Monday night the House Budget Committee Votes Against Including Stupak Amendment in Health-Care Reconciliation Bill.

And the Cons now perpetuate the myth that the health care bill will allow tax dollars to fund health care plans that cover abortions.

Boehner Comments on Abortion at White House Summit (video)


Have at it, boys and girls .....





--

 

[Atreus21]

I don't understand why people are opposed to tax dollars funding abortions. Planned Parenthood gets all kinds of our tax dollars.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I don't understand why people are opposed to tax dollars funding abortions. Planned Parenthood gets all kinds of our tax dollars.

because there's a difference between using money to educate ppl to not get pregnant and using that funding to kill a fetus????

 

[cubeless]

and it's the backbone of the secret plan to eliminate the blacks... this is all sooo confusing!!!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't understand why people are opposed to tax dollars funding abortions. Planned Parenthood gets all kinds of our tax dollars.

It's hard to say whether or not it is really "funding"; it isn't really an expenditure when you consider how much money it saves in terms of education, welfare, health care, and criminal justice dollars.

Funding abortion for the poor actually SAVES the government money.

The real funding issue is whether we want to spend money on the education, welfare, health care, and criminal justice costs needed to care for children born into poverty. I wish we could just impose a special tax on abortion opponents to pay for all of this--for all of the money our government has to spend that it could otherwise save.

 

[cubeless]

It's hard to say whether or not it is really "funding"; it isn't really an expenditure when you consider how much money it saves in terms of education, welfare, health care, and criminal justice dollars.

Funding abortion for the poor actually SAVES the government money.

The real funding issue is whether we want to spend money on the education, welfare, health care, and criminal justice costs needed to care for children born into poverty. I wish we could just impose a special tax on abortion opponents to pay for all of this--for all of the money our government has to spend that it could otherwise save.

wow, and just think how much would be saved by letting all the poor die by not buying them food or giving them healthcare!!! i like your thinking!!!

 

[Blackjack200]

wow, and just think how much would be saved by letting all the poor die by not buying them food or giving them healthcare!!! i like your thinking!!!

Yep, that's the difference. One side cares about actual people, the other side cares about an unconcious lump of cells in a woman's uterus.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Here's an interesting take ...

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate

(not that we have to 'worry' about UHC anytime soon)

There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

--

 

[cubeless]

whoo hoo!!! at least we're #1 in something...

and is it because with uhc everyone gets and takes their bc pills?

 

[heyheybooboo]

whoo hoo!!! at least we're #1 in something...

and is it because with uhc everyone gets and takes their bc pills?

One of the comments (by a female) explained when she got pregnant she didn't have insurance, but an underwriter got her a policy anyway.

It covered pre-natal, birth and infant care ---- so she didn't even have to consider the 'alternatives' ....




--

 

[Fear No Evil]

What I don't get is how the left wants to use healthcare to eliminate transfats in our diets, salt, etc.. But want to make other bad decisions that create a human life? SURE! We'll pay to scrape that out of you.

 

[sportage]

Bring down the HC bill?
Post title says 10- 12.
The list listed 6.
That list is shrinking down pretty fast...
In reality there are maybe 2 or 3 that will vote against just because one member has some personal agenda. That is, to stop all abortions... period.

No abortions will be paid for via fed moneys in the bill.

What this group of three (maybe 2) are trying to do is say.. that if you receive ANY gov money, that you can not get an abortion.

Did you participate in the gov "cash for clunkers" program??? If so.. then you got gov money, and thus can not get an abortion. THAT is exactly what they are pushing for. Don't worry about it.
Lies thru insanity.
They will fail... (this stunt has already failed, i should say)

 

[Moonbeam]

Fuck the fetus. It will just wind up on death row needing a heart transplant.

 

[boomerang]

It's hard to say whether or not it is really "funding"; it isn't really an expenditure when you consider how much money it saves in terms of education, welfare, health care, and criminal justice dollars.

Funding abortion for the poor actually SAVES the government money.

The real funding issue is whether we want to spend money on the education, welfare, health care, and criminal justice costs needed to care for children born into poverty. I wish we could just impose a special tax on abortion opponents to pay for all of this--for all of the money our government has to spend that it could otherwise save.

Just think how much we could have saved if we'd euthanized half the Kennedy clan. A number of them would have served time in jail if not for family connections.

Edit: Another thought. How would you like to see taxpayer funded abortions apportioned among the poor in regards to race?

You sound like a Nazi. But that can't be the case because the Nazi movement sprung from the right ... didn't it?