Yes, Obamacare will fund abortions

[red states rule]

Another day - another Obama lie exposed.



Yes, Obamacare will fund abortions

Yes, Obamacare will fund abortions
Supporters liken it to covering pap smears
By Patrick McIlheran, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Posted: 09/07/2009 11:17:16 PM MDT


Obamacare will use tax money to fund abortions. Independent observers confirm it.

The bit of the House's version of health care reform that's supposed to have settled the matter openly says so: Your dollars will provide abortions in the extremes of rape, incest and maternal peril.

Beyond that, it gets interesting. Obamacare probably will use your money to pay for abortions in all other cases -- because the bills don't say that it can't.

Groups favoring abortion's unlimited availability deny this. They say that the bills don't specifically order abortion coverage, that there's a ban on tax-funded abortions now and that U.S. Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., has it all figured out.

About that current ban: It's called the Hyde amendment, and it bars Medicaid from funding abortion. It expires annually. President Barack Obama opposes it. Even if it's renewed and survives his veto, it specifically doesn't apply to what Congress proposes.

Some congressmen, notably U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., tried making it apply. All such attempts were rejected, itself a revealing thing. Even Stupak's bid to exclude abortion from required basic benefits failed.

Instead, the House agreed to Capps' "compromise." It explicitly says taxpayers will fund abortion in those extreme cases. As for other abortions, "Nothing in this act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing" them.

Whether they will be covered is up to the secretary of health and human services.

That secretary serves a president who, campaigning, said that abortion is "essential" care.

Capps' amendment also says that when the public option cuts a check to an abortionist, it'll come from whatever premiums are paid rather than from what taxpayers threw into the kitty. The fiction of this is transparent in a system in which we're all ladling from a common pot, in which, as Obama says, "I am my sister's keeper."

To accept it, you must believe that your money will remain immaculate by covering a subsidized woman's every other care, freeing her premium to gravitate magically toward her bill at Planned Parenthood.

If that's true, then can women who abhor abortion get a corresponding price break? Don't be silly. It's not really about money. It's about making the government commit.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/your-take/ci_13286788

[trueblue]

Sad, but not unexpected.

I'm actually okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest-- that's up to the mother to decide (I would suggest prayerfully). Naturally, adoption is usually the better alternative to killing babies. But the loophole to include others who chose to have unprotected sex but want an abortion because children are inconvenient or whatever-- that is shameful, it is wrong, and it is not something that should be funded by the tax dollars of millions who oppose it.

[emmett]

Yes, Obamacare will fund abortions

Oh no it won't.....cause it ain't gonna pass! LOL LOL LOL

[red states rule]

Sad, but not unexpected.

I'm actually okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest-- that's up to the mother to decide (I would suggest prayerfully). Naturally, adoption is usually the better alternative to killing babies. But the loophole to include others who chose to have unprotected sex but want an abortion because children are inconvenient or whatever-- that is shameful, it is wrong, and it is not something that should be funded by the tax dollars of millions who oppose it.

Libs are something else. They want mercy for terrorists, oppose the lawful execution of covicted killers - yet have no problem with the cold blooded killing of the innocent unborn

I have yet to have anyone on the left give any rational defense of the gross partial birth abortion procedure

I doubt if any here will even attempt

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Its undefendable.
2. Thats why you wont see any liberal defend it.
3. Just lower you heads in shame.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[red states rule]

Sorry bout that,

1. Its undefendable.
2. Thats why you wont see any liberal defend it.
3. Just lower you heads in shame.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Most of liberalism is undefendable. That is why libs know only how to attack

[trueblue]

It is interesting to me to note how liberal politicians preach freedom of choice but really seem to mean freedom from choice or freedom from the consequences of the choices they make.

Abortion is a great example. The choice was made when the woman had unprotected sex. It's a simple solution, really. If you don't want kids but you're going to have sex, use some kind of birth control. But you don't hear liberals preaching about abstinence or birth control (the original choice), only abortion (and its associated "freedom from consequence" that often starts a downward spiral of depression, etc.).

Similarly, don't let GM and Chrysler face the decisions they made to produce lower quality cars at unpurchasable prices (Consumer Reports recommended 0% of Chrysler models and 17% of GM models in its April 2009 issue)! Bail them out! Free them from the consequences of bad business decisions. Who cares if it weakens, not strengthens, the economy?

These examples are typical of liberal policy and, I believe, exemplify a false premise in their decision making.

[red states rule]

It is interesting to me to note how liberal politicians preach freedom of choice but really seem to mean freedom from choice or freedom from the consequences of the choices they make.

Abortion is a great example. The choice was made when the woman had unprotected sex. It's a simple solution, really. If you don't want kids but you're going to have sex, use some kind of birth control. But you don't hear liberals preaching about abstinence or birth control (the original choice), only abortion (and its associated "freedom from consequence" that often starts a downward spiral of depression, etc.).

Similarly, don't let GM and Chrysler face the decisions they made to produce lower quality cars at unpurchasable prices (Consumer Reports recommended 0% of Chrysler models and 17% of GM models in its April 2009 issue)! Bail them out! Free them from the consequences of bad business decisions. Who cares if it weakens, not strengthens, the economy?

These examples are typical of liberal policy and, I believe, exemplify a false premise in their decision making.

Libs do not consider you smart enough to make some decisions. If you make decisions they agree with - you are smart and enlightened. Abortion is a perfect example

If you make a choice they do not agree with - like Obamacare - you are a greedy racist who cares more about himself, and can't accept the fact a black man is President

[trueblue]

Libs do not consider you smart enough to make some decisions. If you make decisions they agree with - you are smart and enlightened. Abortion is a perfect example

If you make a choice they do not agree with - like Obamacare - you are a greedy racist who cares more about himself, and can't accept the fact a black man is President

True that.