If this is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, then mere words cannot express my revulsion:
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
There is just no way to express how vile these people are.
Is there?
For those keeping score at home, the Stupak amendment is legislative language which would prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion.
h/t – Ace
Beautiful picture. Even though a woman has the Constitutional right, doesn’t mean the rest of us should pay for it. Let Planned Parenthood raise the funds. I, and many liberals I know, support this bill.
If this can cause you to be revolted by the Democrat party, then you are late indeed to the field.
There is nothing the Democrats can do that will revolt me. I already consider them in the same way I would the mephetic corpse of my most vile enemy. A regard they earned a long time ago and continued to renew ever since.
Hmm . . . let’s think this through. One of the major causes of fetal demise is poor prenatal care and low birth weight. You think having expanded health insurance options will caise pregnant females to seek more health care or less? More visits to the gyn for birth control or less? More treatment for fertility issues or less?
Mark my words — we will have fewer abortions with more birth control, and more births with fewer miscarriages, and more pregnancies with fewer infertile women, if it is easier and cheaper for women to get the reproductive care they need!
OK, what are they TRULY saying here? There is already the fairly well documented issue of Margaret Sanger being behind Planned Parenthood. It was also shown that she was a racist.
Admittedly, I have not looked deeper into the claims that more abortion clinics are in areas where there are more minorities.
Are they implying that by aborting MORE minorities, they they are therefore saving money?
It sounds like this is about “baby factories” and women who abuse the welfare system.
Or am I making a WHOLE LOT of assumptions there?
Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter and is a pretty sadistic thing to say.
How is including funding going to allow more to be born. I would think the stats would run about the same. So it sounds like they are saying, lets make the number of abortions even more by paying for them.
How about fixing the system? And if they are addressing ‘baby factories’ fix things to discourage the actions like placing limits on how many children will be paid for or some such idea.
OK I am off – I’m tired and as I look at this and make corrections … I am not sure it is saying exactly what I want – but I think its close.
@BRob: Yes, pregnant women should absolutely get the best care, but this is about Federal funding for abortions, not prenatal care, birth control, or fertility issues. It’s not even about a woman’s right to choose. It’s about who pays money to prematurely end a pregnancy. That’s it.
@BRob:
Sigh… you are tiresome.
As of now, every county in every state has at least one (1) free clinic, funded by tax payer monies, where any woman can walk in, get free birth control and/or prenatle care. Some counties and cities have multiple free clinics.
With that said Please Note: Nothing is ever truly ‘free’ somebody is paying for it. Always remember Before the government can ‘give’ anyone anything it must first TAKE from someone else to pay for it…
This is about Federal tax dollars being used directly and indirectly, to support, promote and pay for abortions.
This is about how we value human life; and to say that it is better to kill children before they are born just for the sake of health care costs… evil.
Cary —
Stupak is arguing over a cannard. There is no federal funding for abortion in the Senate bill and he knows it. Which is why, when all is said and done, possobly with the exception of Stu and someone else who wants to kowtow to the wingers, the anti-abortion Dems will vote for it. Why? Because the Conference of Bishops is going to endorse.
My point was larger than yours.
Mer —
Your statement is false. You might THINK it is true because winger congressmen have said as much, but it simply is false. If you are DIRT POOR and in the system, you can get Medicaid, but you may be left to the vaguaries of the care where ever you are. Like in some burnt out part of Texas, you might have to drive 53 miles to see a doctor.
If you are working class (let’s say a waitress) and make too much for Medicaid but not enough to afford $400 per month for health insurance (assuming you could get an individual plan anyway), then you are screwed.
I see nothing wrong with a system where a woman who is pregnant and NOT SURE about whether she can afford to take care of a child at least does not have to worry about whether she can get medical care for herself and her in utero child. I see no downside to free birth control for anyone who needs it. I think it is a good thing if working class women who have fertility issues can get that care and have a kid. THAT is going to be some of the consequences of expanding the health insurance system to cover the disproportionately young and disproportionately working class uninsured and underinsured people. Do YOU see anything wrong with these outcomes?
i was trying to find the words for this comment to be exactly what i mean,,,the woman issued of ingrounds generations of AMERICA should have more children instead of adopting from foreign country they are the survival of the pionniers of USA and they should be proud to cary manny childs to a new beginning,a new generation that will stand tall like their sources where all thoses years.
BRob,
You are speaking with authority you do not have on a subject you know nothing about. I was a waitress and I did not have medical insurance, nor did I qualify for Medicaid and guess what? I got all my OBGYN medical needs met at the local county ‘free’ clinic. Glad you see no ‘downside’ to free birth control because it already exists and has for several decades.
The issue remains how you define and value human life.
Mer —
Having spent double digit years negotiating labor contracts for employers, I think I know a teensy bit about health insurance coverage. And spending a few years married to an ob/gyn, you tend to get into conversations about these subjects (insurance, quality of care, abortion, prenatal care, etc.) in quite a bit more depth than you would ever care to imagine. You are simply wrong about all the “free care” out there and you are even more wrong about who is entitled to “free care.” I represented an unemployed engineer who got caught in the middle: not poor enough to get medicaid, not enough money to get insurance, then a stroke that left him $80,000 in debt. There is no reason why a middle class person who has paid taxes for all kinds of nonsense should be broke in his mid 50s from a health care matter.
This would not happen in our comparator industrialized nations (Germany, Japan, France, England, Canada) and there is no good reason this has to happen here. This system is sapping our employers and driving down wages, but for whatever reason (stubborness? ideology? stupidity?) conservatives like the status quo. That, Mer, is what I reject.
BRob,
No one here has once suggested that we keep the status quo. We have suggested that this specific piece of legislation the Senate Health Care bill, is not the answer and will exasperate the problem. Life isn’t fair, it is often cruel and hard, why compound that harsh reality with the nightmare of incompetance we call the Federal Government?
Remember what Stupak said:
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
Seriously BRob, how great can this bill be, if they need to support the killing of unborn children to help control costs to pay for it?
Again the Issue here is How do you define and value Human Life?
BRob–
Your “need” is not a blank check to draw on my life, liberty or property.
Sorry. It just isn’t.
Well, just kill off at both ends of the life span.
Yes, money should be a consideration when writing/ passing bills, but I can’t believe that anyone would vote for or against this bill, basing the decision on the cost of babies being born or not born. However, a Party that would envision a panel deciding whether a medical procedure for an elderly person is an efficient use of funds just might be the same one that would be into this kind of population control also.
(1) Tort reform
(2) competitive insurance across state lines
(3) Take insurance with you when you change jobs
There is no lower hell deserved, then for those who “fight” for the expansion of the most vile of human acts ever committed in the 100,000 years of our evolution as a species.
-The killing of ones own child.
But what “reasons” do they give?
Pass it for the sake of the children! YOU have to pay for HER “choices” in life, or you’re “mean”. Oh… and SAVE TOOKIE WILLIAMS!!!
*spit*
Lost in the ugliness that this is: the fact that they believe that without government monies, these very babies would be allowed to live.
The Congress is demanding our money provide for the destruction of Americans.
@Cary, you are backwards in your thinking. The Stupak amendment bans federal funding of abortions. The Senate’s language INRE funding is too vague for House Dems’ tastes. THerefore if you wish for alternative funding, your support for the Senate bill is misplaced due to misreading, not reading or not comprehending.
billy bob… interesting you definitively state there is “no” federal funding for abortion in the Senate bill. Me thinks you’ve been reading the wrong bill all this time, or else you may have noted that the senate bill allows for a state opt out for abortion coverage if they enact a state law prohibiting that coverage.
Hummm… if it’s not in there, then why would there be an opt out clause? Your lack of curiousity is highly amusing, and your lack of knowledge on the bill specifics is quite predictable.
@MataHarley: Are you being facetious or do we have a misunderstanding? I thought I typed that I support a ban on Federal funding of abortions. If a private agency wishes to assist someone who makes that choice, I have no say, since it’s not my money being used. If you’re referring to Ben Nelson, I’m pretty sure that settled with language similar to Stupak’s.
If the babies are not democrats then they would be taxpayers. But they are sort of correct in that most democrat/liberal/socialist babies are just a drain on everyone else’s wallets.
@Cary, I understand that you stated you do not wish federally funded abortions as part of this O’healthcare. But what I don’t think you understand is that you contradicted yourself when you followed up by then saying… I, and many liberals I know, support this bill.”
If your first statement is correct, your support of the Senate bill… which is the bill that must be passed by the House Dems on a leap of faith in order to move on to reconciliation… that *does* provide for publicly funded abortion, is misplaced. As I pointed out to billy bob, the bill provides for public funding that would include going for abortion with it’s vague language, plus mandates a minimal of policies available thru the Insurance Exchange offer a plan including that coverage. The fact it does not ban funds completely is evidenced by the included “State opt out” clause if those states decide to pass legislation banning funds for that purpose.
This is the bone of contention for the Stupak 12, who have stated they will not vote for the senate bill as is until they amend the language to match what he put into the house bill.
To do as the Stupak 12 demand, they must first amend the Senate bill … which then requires another vote in that chamber. And that would have to be done prior to the house doing their vote on the then amended senate bill.
damn those Democratic welfare queens They are out populating us.
Nice thing about having “Democratic welfare queen” syndrome, John Ryan, is that it’s a curable malady.
@MataHarley:
Gotcha. Thanks for the correction. What I should have written, and what I meant, is that I support this amendment. Sorry ’bout that.
Glad we got our communications squared away, Cary. But you do understand the pickle the Stupak gang are in, yes? They want that language amended BEFORE the House votes. This means the Senate must amend their own bill version and vote for passage again, and that version is sent over to the House for an up or down vote.
Chances of that happening are slim to none. Instead, the Senate, Reid, Pelosi and Obama are using thug pressure on House moderates to put their trust in the Senate to fix it after it would be signed by the POTUS.
Chances of that happening, IMHO, are again slim to none.
The GOP has screwed themselves on this and they don’t even realize it.
The bill will pass the House. Not with the lockstep “discipline” that GOPers display all the time, but it will pass. Then the reconciliation process starts after Obama signs it.
Will the GOPers refuse to let the abortion language go in the reconciliation bill? Probably . . . because they are going to obstruct anything that they can. Which means that the Dems will have to do the abortion language as a separate stand alone bill, subject to filibuster.
Now the GOPers are screwed. Because they CAN’T let the Dems pass only the second most important abortion restriction in federal budget history. So they will filibuster.
But what’s that? Now the Catholic Bishops are pissed because GOPers will not let there be an up or down vote on the abortion restriction. And the Dems won’t force a cloture vote; they’ll just let the GOPers stew in their own juice! Just as they did with Mad Jim Bunning.
So the GOPers will then have to back off their filibuster. And the vote will come up. Will the cons vote AGAINST a Dem sponsored, Dem backed abortion restriction? If history is prelude, they will. Because the GOPers have shown absolutely no rationality whatsoever in what they vote for and what they vote against.
Just because you keep repeating it, don’t make it so, billy bob. Must be nice in that rabbit hole where you live.
Mer —
“No one here has once suggested that we keep the status quo.”
Mer, there are two problems with your statement — history and facts. The GOPers controlled the House, the Senate and the White House and did nothing to address any of the few problems that they admit exist (like tort reform). When you do nothing to address a problem when you have the power, then fight tooth and nail to thwart those who would try to address the problem, that is a quintessential “status quo” stance. Y’all may not be willing to admit that you are fine with things the way they are, but your actions speak a hell of a lot louder than your words.
And that is what’s so funny: back in 2005, when Ted Kennedy was alive and Bush was still above 45% in popularity, they could have addressed the problem. Hell, in 2002, Bush could have done anything he wanted. But his priority was tax cuts. Not reducing the outstanding debt, not solving the entitlement problem, not doing anything about health care . . . just tax cuts.
GOPers could have crafted a “conservative” answer to the unpaid-for care issue, the employer based health insurance problem, the anti-trust problems that permit de facto price fixing among insurers, the discount problem (where insurers get discounts from hospitals but Joe Blow pays full freight if he wants to pay his bill in cash), tort reform*, and pre-existing conditions. But they did NOTHING to address the problems. And now that a year has been spent on the issue, the GOPers want everything to start over . . . as if they GOPers were not consulted and did not know what the issues were all last spring and summer when only three or four of them showed any interest in being involved in solving the problems?
Uh, thanks but no thanks. Cons have no credibility on promises to bargain in good faith on this stuff because, let’s face facts . . . they like things the way they are. They want no change. As I heard one GOPer woman proclaim “We have the best health insurance industry in the world!” And that is all you need to know about the cons and where they are coming from.
*actually a state law issue, but I throw it in to prove the point that GOPers really did not care about health care issues.
Mata —
I know you guys are screwed, Eric Cantor knows it, and Mitch McConnell knows it, too. In a sense, you were screwed the day wingnut Jim DeMint proclaimed healthcare to be Obama’s “Waterloo.” But as someone pointed out, there was a winner and a loser at Waterloo. Poor strategy on the GOPers part has basically ensured that Obamacare will pass.
Combine DeMint shooting off his mouth, peaking too early and too nutily on the teabagger/death panel disruption of town halls, not having enough people at the table during the spring and summer to be involved in negotiations (deciding to obstruct any solution rather than construct a solution), then Scott Brown telegraphing that, no matter what, he would vote for a filibuster, you screwed yourselves.
You know when you REALLY lost it, though? Cons claimed CBO was the neutral arbiter. Then when CBO pronounced the Dem plans workable, the cons claimed the numbers were bogus! You lost all credibility, which is a hard won commodity in the big policy game.
Nope . . . game, set, and match to President Obama.
Wow.
Those of us who actually live in reality, remember that the Constitution requires reconciliation BEFORE a Bill becomes law. Those same people remember that it’s the president’s signature that MAKES said law, and that before he can sign anything, all Yea’s and Nay’s must be noted and recorded in the House and Senate ledgers.
But there are others who are insane.
LOL Patvann… that’s because the Dems want everyone to believe this is “reconciliation” instead of a “fix it in the mix”, after the fact bill following conning the House Dems into a scam.
billy bob #29….. yada yada yada. And of course, only the cheats think they can get away with calling the game before the clock runs out. ahem….
billy bob #28: don’t ya love progressive revisionist history? Comparing a slim majority of GOP Congress under Bush where they couldn’t even address fixing one of the other liberal/progressive welfare nets… Social Security.. because of obstructionist Democrats. LOL
billy bob, I guess we have to keep reminding you that your bubbas have a supermajority, and even your own party isn’t letting this go thru.
As far as fixing stuff in the past, can you remember the last time there was a supermajority in Congress? It’s okay… we’ll wait while you have your paralegals do the work of straightening out your history lessons.
Why does anyone bother to read or reply to BRob? He’s nonsensical, non-factual, irrational, and illogical. Then, because he can’t factually support his statements or politely debate the issues, he always resorts to insults and name calliing.
I’m sure BRob will have some wonderful post to me, but I refuse to waste my time with him.
Well skat…
As a history buff, I’ve always wondered how a society let something like the Enabling Act happen.
BRob gives us that insight into that mindset:
The new Dem mantra, “With more abortion we will save money”, is interesting. If we extend this logic a little further, why not kill people and children on welfare? A cruel extreme you say, all I did was extend the philosophy to the next step. Disabled people would be next, look at all the ‘choice parking’ spots that will become available. Then the Progressive Socialists can liquidate political opposition, that will save the money and effort required to fight opposition, and the US can move forward with becoming the Obamanation in a much more orderly fashion.
The National Socialist Workers started with nationalized health care, once they began to consolidate power, they accomplished quite a bit by ridding themselves of undesirables to “save money”. But Obama must be a more traditional Socialist, since he claims to be a citizen of the world: however, his Progressive Socialism and its core method does sound vaguely familiar.
@Skooks
There are actually people within this Admin that believe (and have publically stated) that it should be OK to kill ones child AFTER it is born, but “before it’s become aware.”
-I’ll find the whole quote today.
this is unhuman soul to do if ever done cold blood,to the worse they only have to return all the illegals to their own birth country and they can bring their children with them even if they where born in America with a promise of citizenship at adult age,can you imagine thoses global laws that would open southern border and northen border and pacific ocean ,and atlantic ocean border for countrys across those there would be no limits for hordes to invade,APOCALIPTIC
I need to “belay my last” (re #35)
I got Cass Sunstein confused with Princeton “bioethicist” Pete Singer, whom Cass holds in high regard.
@Patvann,
I guess you did gain some really valuable knowledge.
I know this will be offensive to many, but I don’t understand how a Christian, let alone a moral, compassionate person, can continue to be a part of the Democrat party – the let’s murder babies, the weak, the defenseless, the old party.
The Democrat party motto – Let’s murder anyone who inconveniences our self-centered lifestyle.
Sorry to inject pesky things like “facts” into a FA discussion, but there is another one of those troublesome things about Obamacare . . . how it will most likely decrease the number of abortions:
“Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The reasons are simple:
“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.
“No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?
“One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.
“The connection was explained to me by a wise and holy man, Cardinal Basil Hume. He was the senior Roman Catholic prelate of England and Wales when I lived in London; as a reporter and a Catholic, I got to know him.
“In Britain, only 8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States). Abortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. I asked Cardinal Hume why that is.
“The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain’s universal health-care system. ‘If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it’s needed,’ Hume explained, ‘she’s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn’t it obvious?’
“A young woman I knew in Britain added another explanation. ‘If you’re [sexually] active,’ she said, ‘the way to avoid abortion is to avoid pregnancy. Most of us do that with an IUD or a diaphragm. It means going to the doctor. But that’s easy here, because anybody can go to the doctor free.'”
* * * * *
This is one thing I have never understood about the so-called pro-lifers: why don’t they ever advocate doing here what keeps the abortion rates so much lower in France: universal health care, easy access to contraception, and subsidies for pregnant women and new mothers. Those three approaches would obviously decrease the rate of abortions. But the so-called pro-lifers tend to oppose every one of those approaches . . . all approaches, oddly, that pro-choice folks tend to champion. I guess their worries about “condoning ” pre-marital sex, and their worries about higher taxes, are a higher priority than actually reducing the number of aborted babies. Only explanation I can come up with . . . .
Mata —
You are, as usual, wrong on the facts. You wrote ” Comparing a slim majority of GOP Congress under Bush where they couldn’t even address fixing one of the other liberal/progressive welfare nets… Social Security.. because of obstructionist Democrats. LOL”
This is total b.s. Why? Because there never was a Bush administration Social Security bill! They never submitted anything to any vote of either the House (where the minority Dems could not obstruct) or the Senate! So the “Dem obstruction” is all in your head.
By the way — after the banking and stock market meltdown from 2005 (when Bush proposed privatizing the fund into several hundred million teeny tiny worker controlled accounts that could be invested in the stock market) to 2009, how do ya like that privatization plan now?
@BRob:
Wrong. Just because it never got as far as a bill to vote on doesn’t mean Bush wasn’t doing all he could to fix the problem, and that Dems weren’t doing all they could to prevent him.
LATimse reported, back in ought 5, that… “As hearings on possible changes get underway, Republicans face almost universal opposition to private accounts from Democratic lawmakers.”
So, as usual, Mata is right, and the KoolAid swillers are wrong.
@BRob:
“The latest United Nations comparative statistics…”
LOL! Yeah, quote the UN, why don’t you. They were wrong about glaciers, wrong about rain forests, wrong about sea level, wrong about climate, …and wrong about just about everything. And on top of being stupid and dishonest crooks, they are also morally perverse.
But BRob brings “proof” for his position from UN “statistics.” …too funny.
……oh yes, and don’t forget “their swine flu scam.”