Abortion
By PoliPundit ~ November 18th, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Harry Reid’s bill would use your tax dollars to fund abortions:
The Reid bill establishes a big new federal health insurance program, the public option (although now referred to in Reid’s bill as the “community health insurance option”). The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it.
Subscribe to blog feed.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Are wingnuts truthful about anything? Bunch of damn liars.
From your online link to the bill posted previously:
Page 118 (edited for readability):
on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—
(i) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary—
(I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2);
(II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and
End of page 118
November 18th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
So much for the mandate.
From page 182:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a health care provider to participate in a community health insurance option, or to impose any penalty for non-participation.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an individual to participate in a community health insurance option, or to impose any penalty for non-participation.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Why Mike- can’t you SEE it? It’s right there next to the section on death panels. Near the part where the government is authorized to put old foks on slabs of ice and push them out to sea…
November 19th, 2009 at 4:13 am
put old folks on slabs of ice and push them out to sea…
What is to keep THEM from forcing all good Americans to sign an oath saying that they are unrepentant Marxists, AND agree to have an taxpayer-funded abortion, or else they will be pushed out to sea? Then isn’t it just a short step away that we invade CANADA, and remove IN GOD WE TRUST from the dime? Like Hitler?
November 19th, 2009 at 4:25 am
What are you people worried about? Look at the our public schools. 25% of the kids that enter the Detroit Public Schools graduate. That is a 25% success rate. Look around you? Every time government gets involved with something quality goes up and prices come down. The Soviet Union was a prime example of that. It collapse of its own success. The right exaggerates and the left is telling you the truth. Remember these are the people who think Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez are great people. Nothing equivalent on the right.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:22 am
This is usually the point in abortion threads where some male wingnut anti-abortion zealot will reiterate their belief that women shouldn’t have abortions for any reason (because their God says its bad, or at least their priests who “interpret” gods word for them) BUT all you dumb libs on the thread should have been aborted to save the world from your misguided views.
Who wants to step up to the plate (or should I say plank?) this time???
Come on, wingnuts, you know you’re itching to let loose in the only way you know how….
November 19th, 2009 at 5:26 am
“Remember these are the people who think Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez are great people. Nothing equivalent on the right.”
Remember that without the strawman most Wingnuts would have absolutely nothing to say on threads like this. Go back to Oz wingnut.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:27 am
Nothing equivalent on the right.
Well, except for Timothy McVeigh, since you seem to be playing the free association game.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:42 am
‘[T]he Stupak amendment would have quite widespread consequences for the availability of insurance coverage for abortion services. As Beutler writes “though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.”’
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/study-stupak-would-lead-to-abortion-coverage-phaseout.php
November 19th, 2009 at 6:49 am
If abortion is outlawed how could people like Sarah Palin be a hero for not letting her daughter have one, or perhaps two.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:29 am
86% of health insurance covers abortion and 1/3 woman have an abortion in their life. The Stupak amendment would have taken this away, and it was using the health reform as a means to affect women’s reproductive-health rights. This plan would have taken away coverage that women already have because many insurance companies recieve federal subsidies and they cover abortion. We understand that people do not want to fund abortion, if you believe it is murder, then you feel like you are funding murder. This is why the bill is written to include at least two options; one that covers abortion and one that doesn’t. The plan that does cover abortion charges an overhead cost on the premium to people who have this plan. So in other words, if you do not want to pay for women to have abortions, you don’t have to! If you have insurance right now, chances are you are paying for women to have abortions. The bill actually makes it so that if you are opposed to abortion and paying for it, you don’t have to…this is probably not the case with your current insurance. In talking about insurance, women’s health should be treated the same as any other health issue. I do not smoke, but I still pay for people who have lung cancer. People don’t take care of themselves and I have to pay for it. That is how insurance works. That is how the government works. I did not want to fund a war in Iraq and pay for killing innocent people, but guess what, I had to. This actually opens up the option to not pay for abortion, which is new and to make the issue a little easier on people. You still are not happy. You are not happy, not because you are paying for it (cause you don’t have to), but because you oppose the option to choose. Please stop using the health reform as a means to express your views on prochoice vs. prolife. The option does not cover things that pro choice people feel are medically necessary. If a child has anencephaly, which is 100% fatal to the child, the woman should be able to choose to have an abortion at 4 months, when she finds out vs. deliver and go through labor at 6 months to deliver a stillborn baby. I don’t think it is right for women to have abortions when they just do not want a child, but if the child is affecting her health in ANY way she should have the option, even if you don’t agree with her choice. If the child is going to die, 100% fatal…she should have the option to have an abortion, because it is less tramatic to have an abortion at 4 months than to deliver a stillborn baby. If a woman is raped she should have the option, even if she cannot prove that she was raped (a lot of times it is hard to prove it if you did not get tested within the first 24 hours or if the woman showered). If you don’t like abortion, just choose an option that doesn’t fund it. We don’t want you to feel like you are funding “murder” so their is more than one option to choose from for your convenience. Please leave us alone. “Republican’s oppose abortion, until their daughter’s need one. Democrates support abortion until their daughter’s want one”.