Health care to go down over abortion?

danarhea · Mar 4, 2010

Democratic Representative, Bart Stupak, along with 11 other allies, are prepared to vote against Obama's health care package, if language isn't removed that bars federal funding for abortion.

Here is the way I see it - As most of you know, I am an ardent opponent of the Roe v. Wade decision, and want to see it overturned, not because of any particular ideological belief, but because I feel strongly that this decision should be made by the states, and not the Federal government. In that respect, I am pro choice, in "let the states make the choice". If the residents in a state want abortion, then by all means, have it. But if the Federal government mandates funding for it, those funds come out of the taxpayers' pockets, and that includes taxpayers whose beliefs are that abortion is murder. That is not right. So here is my bottom line - If a state wants abortion, let them have it, but also leave the responsibility of funding it to that state. You can't have states rights without something called states responsibilities. Responsibilities come with rights, so if a state wants a certain right, then they should step up to the plate and accept the responsibilities that come with that right. Just passing the buck to the Federal government, and forcing other states to accept responsibilities that are not theirs, is not an option.

Discussion?

Article is here.

lizzie · Mar 4, 2010

All I can say is I hope you are right- that health care goes down, be it over abortion, or any other issue. What we need is reform that will make it more affordable and place more responsibility in the hands of the consumer, and not a government takeover.

Otoh, I'm so sick of hearing about it, I wish they would **** or get off the pot.

Morality Games · Mar 4, 2010

The Democratic lead over the Republicans in the House is in the dozens, not the tens. You need more than 11.

DarkWizard12 · Mar 4, 2010

Morality Games said:
The Democratic lead over the Republicans in the House is in the dozens, not the tens. You need more than 11.

Actually no, the house billl passed by only 2 votes, ONLY BECAUSE of the stupak amendment. 11 is more than enough.

washunut · Mar 4, 2010

DarkWizard12 said:
Actually no, the house billl passed by only 2 votes, ONLY BECAUSE of the stupak amendment. 11 is more than enough.

I would not get to excited by the margin of passing the bill last time. The vote is engineered managed. The house leaders do a good job of knowing who will vote a certain way. Then they allow members in tough districts to vote against the bill but still have enough votes to pass. They will do the same this time. People may switch yes to no but the result will be a close win in the house regardless of what is in the bill.

Chuz Life · Mar 7, 2010

danarhea said:
Democratic Representative, Bart Stupak, along with 11 other allies, are prepared to vote against Obama's health care package, if language isn't removed that bars federal funding for abortion.

Here is the way I see it - As most of you know, I am an ardent opponent of the Roe v. Wade decision, and want to see it overturned, not because of any particular ideological belief, but because I feel strongly that this decision should be made by the states, and not the Federal government. In that respect, I am pro choice, in "let the states make the choice". If the residents in a state want abortion, then by all means, have it. But if the Federal government mandates funding for it, those funds come out of the taxpayers' pockets, and that includes taxpayers whose beliefs are that abortion is murder. That is not right. So here is my bottom line - If a state wants abortion, let them have it, but also leave the responsibility of funding it to that state. You can't have states rights without something called states responsibilities. Responsibilities come with rights, so if a state wants a certain right, then they should step up to the plate and accept the responsibilities that come with that right. Just passing the buck to the Federal government, and forcing other states to accept responsibilities that are not theirs, is not an option.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Just as question: "If the Supreme Court overturns Roe on the basis that an elective abortion violates the rights of a pre-birth person (i.e. the USSC rules that personhood begins at conception),.... what makes you think it would be up to each State to decide "when personhood begins?"

The Supreme court will have already decided that.

Jerry · Mar 7, 2010

danarhea said:
Democratic Representative, Bart Stupak, along with 11 other allies, are prepared to vote against Obama's health care package, if language isn't removed that bars federal funding for abortion.

Here is the way I see it - As most of you know, I am an ardent opponent of the Roe v. Wade decision, and want to see it overturned, not because of any particular ideological belief, but because I feel strongly that this decision should be made by the states, and not the Federal government. In that respect, I am pro choice, in "let the states make the choice". If the residents in a state want abortion, then by all means, have it. But if the Federal government mandates funding for it, those funds come out of the taxpayers' pockets, and that includes taxpayers whose beliefs are that abortion is murder. That is not right. So here is my bottom line - If a state wants abortion, let them have it, but also leave the responsibility of funding it to that state. You can't have states rights without something called states responsibilities. Responsibilities come with rights, so if a state wants a certain right, then they should step up to the plate and accept the responsibilities that come with that right. Just passing the buck to the Federal government, and forcing other states to accept responsibilities that are not theirs, is not an option.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Whatever it takes to stop Obama's UHC I'm all for.

NoJingoLingo · Mar 7, 2010

danarhea said:
Democratic Representative, Bart Stupak, along with 11 other allies, are prepared to vote against Obama's health care package, if language isn't removed that bars federal funding for abortion.

Here is the way I see it - As most of you know, I am an ardent opponent of the Roe v. Wade decision, and want to see it overturned, not because of any particular ideological belief, but because I feel strongly that this decision should be made by the states, and not the Federal government. In that respect, I am pro choice, in "let the states make the choice". If the residents in a state want abortion, then by all means, have it. But if the Federal government mandates funding for it, those funds come out of the taxpayers' pockets, and that includes taxpayers whose beliefs are that abortion is murder. That is not right. So here is my bottom line - If a state wants abortion, let them have it, but also leave the responsibility of funding it to that state. You can't have states rights without something called states responsibilities. Responsibilities come with rights, so if a state wants a certain right, then they should step up to the plate and accept the responsibilities that come with that right. Just passing the buck to the Federal government, and forcing other states to accept responsibilities that are not theirs, is not an option.

Discussion?

Article is here.

As you know full well but seem to ignore for some unfathomable reason, if it were left up to the states then states that ban it would be putting women in dangerous, actually, deadly situations where they must seek illegal abortions or travel to another state to have the procedure (being a statistic of interstate travel death would be the least of their worries but still on the list). You are effectively denying them choice. Poor women will be affected most so you're piling more burden on the poor.

As I understand it, the language has been looked at by a legal team and Stupak should quit trying to push his anti-abortion agenda on this Bill because it doesn't change the status quo.

Areopagitican · Mar 7, 2010

NoJingoLingo said:
As you know full well but seem to ignore for some unfathomable reason, if it were left up to the states then states that ban it would be putting women in dangerous, actually, deadly situations where they must seek illegal abortions or travel to another state to have the procedure

You do realize, for countless major operations, individuals cross state lines? I'm not sure how going from one state to another is dangerous or deadly. Unless, of course, you advocate the destruction of John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic (and St. Jude's et al) because they also encourage "putting women in dangerous... situations where they must... travel to another state."

NoJingoLingo · Mar 7, 2010

Areopagitican said:
You do realize, for countless major operations, individuals cross state lines? I'm not sure how going from one state to another is dangerous or deadly. Unless, of course, you advocate the destruction of John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic (and St. Jude's et al) because they also encourage "putting women in dangerous... situations where they must... travel to another state."

I thought I made it clear it was only one thing on the list. But you can make it central to your argument if you've got nothing else.

Health care to go down over abortion?

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

lizzie

Morality Games

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot

washunut

Chuz Life

Jerry

NoJingoLingo

Areopagitican

NoJingoLingo

Health care to go down over abortion?

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Sir Poop A lot

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency