Obama Health Care Plan Will Provide Taxpayer-Funded Abortion on Demand

[Care4all]

If you think I am going to for one moment apologize for the republicans being in charge of congress and the job they did Care then don't hold your breath. My feelings are though that when a party takes up the mantra of change and then elects the same people who have been there before i.e. Pelosi, Reed, Obama etc. it doesn't represent change it represents more of the same with a different letter after the name. While it's easy for democrats to say we have a right to spend the nation into oblivion because the republicans spent unwisly thats rather like saying let me crash this jet because the other aviator couldn't fly it. When all one needs to do is take the time to learn to fly it properly. Since Duch left office last year, you may want to look in one year what the deficit will be at the end of thise year. Obama in fact will triple what Bush did in one year what Bush did in his entire term So is this change you really want? I will say it once again, one day our bill is going to come due and on that day, it's not going to be a good day for this nation unless we get this spending under control and and proposing 2 bills in a row each of which will cost over a Trillion dollars is not a good way to start. In fact if Obama gets his way, at the end of his first year in just 3 bills alone he would have indebted this nation to China to the tune of 3 Trillion Dollars. I'm sorry care but that is not a legacy I wish to leave my daughter in the name of socially norming everyone, when there are clearly better ways to solve these issues.

hold your horses young man! I was teasing/taunting screaming eagle because of his partisan comment! hahahahahahahaha! my comment was not addressed to you Navy, my dear Navy!

care

 

[Navy1960]

If you think I am going to for one moment apologize for the republicans being in charge of congress and the job they did Care then don't hold your breath. My feelings are though that when a party takes up the mantra of change and then elects the same people who have been there before i.e. Pelosi, Reed, Obama etc. it doesn't represent change it represents more of the same with a different letter after the name. While it's easy for democrats to say we have a right to spend the nation into oblivion because the republicans spent unwisly thats rather like saying let me crash this jet because the other aviator couldn't fly it. When all one needs to do is take the time to learn to fly it properly. Since Duch left office last year, you may want to look in one year what the deficit will be at the end of thise year. Obama in fact will triple what Bush did in one year what Bush did in his entire term So is this change you really want? I will say it once again, one day our bill is going to come due and on that day, it's not going to be a good day for this nation unless we get this spending under control and and proposing 2 bills in a row each of which will cost over a Trillion dollars is not a good way to start. In fact if Obama gets his way, at the end of his first year in just 3 bills alone he would have indebted this nation to China to the tune of 3 Trillion Dollars. I'm sorry care but that is not a legacy I wish to leave my daughter in the name of socially norming everyone, when there are clearly better ways to solve these issues.

hold your horses young man! I was teasing/taunting screaming eagle because of his partisan comment! hahahahahahahaha! my comment was not addressed to you Navy, my dear Navy!

care

I'm sorry Care I never got past the young man part! *laughs* it's been a long time since I heard that, something my mother used to yell out at me when I would not come in from playing baseball with my friends. You made my day young lady.

 

[Care4all]

If you think I am going to for one moment apologize for the republicans being in charge of congress and the job they did Care then don't hold your breath. My feelings are though that when a party takes up the mantra of change and then elects the same people who have been there before i.e. Pelosi, Reed, Obama etc. it doesn't represent change it represents more of the same with a different letter after the name. While it's easy for democrats to say we have a right to spend the nation into oblivion because the republicans spent unwisly thats rather like saying let me crash this jet because the other aviator couldn't fly it. When all one needs to do is take the time to learn to fly it properly. Since Duch left office last year, you may want to look in one year what the deficit will be at the end of thise year. Obama in fact will triple what Bush did in one year what Bush did in his entire term So is this change you really want? I will say it once again, one day our bill is going to come due and on that day, it's not going to be a good day for this nation unless we get this spending under control and and proposing 2 bills in a row each of which will cost over a Trillion dollars is not a good way to start. In fact if Obama gets his way, at the end of his first year in just 3 bills alone he would have indebted this nation to China to the tune of 3 Trillion Dollars. I'm sorry care but that is not a legacy I wish to leave my daughter in the name of socially norming everyone, when there are clearly better ways to solve these issues.

hold your horses young man! I was teasing/taunting screaming eagle because of his partisan comment! hahahahahahahaha! my comment was not addressed to you Navy, my dear Navy!

care

I'm sorry Care I never got past the young man part! *laughs* it's been a long time since I heard that, something my mother used to yell out at me when I would not come in from playing baseball with my friends. You made my day young lady.

hahahaha! AND YOU made my day as well!

Funny how the small little itty bitty things, are what can change my mood for the day, in my 'older age'!

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a bunch of crap.

Who here has ever heard a woman say "I wish I had gotten an abortion"?

I know I've heard many who said they wished they hadn't.

And abortions do not prevent child abuse, unwanted children, or lead to the elevation of the human race. Nor are abortion factories the only answer to the rare cases of incest- or rape-caused pregnancy.

Now if you can speak the truth and stop spouting rhetoric...

oh wait, you have to have the rhetoric or there's no argument for abortion. Other than it kills kids YOU don't think should be born.

A la eugenics.

Interestingly enough, the legalization of abortion has actually led to MORE unwanted pregnancies, both those that are then terminated and those that go on to lead to live births.

Check some facts. Abortions are at their lowest rate since 1974. Statistics and that story here:

An Overview of Abortion in the United States

Let me say this slowly for you, Mensa Girl, so that you stand a chance of understanding:

I didn't say anything about "ohmigod, abortion numbers are going up every year!" I said that legalized abortion, instituted in 1973, has led to more unwanted pregnancies. That would be "more unwanted pregnancies than there were before 1973 and legalized abortion", you fluffbrain, not "more unwanted pregnancies this year than the year after abortion was legalized". I swear, you must have a Post-It note over your computer's power button with "ON" written in big letters so you can find it.

Let me share with you this little concept the rest of us like to call "logic" (You may have heard of it). If abortion is illegal - or what passed for illegal in this country before the advent of Roe v Wade, which was merely closely regulated - the cost of having sex is relatively high. Women who are contemplating having non-marital sex know that they might have to bear and raise a child, and men know they might end up having to support a child. Therefore, both men and women become more reluctant to engage in casual sex, particularly unprotected sex. (Knowing how your - for want of a better word - "mind" works, let me hasten to add that I did NOT say no one ever has casual, unprotected sex at all. Get someone to read you the definition of the word "reluctant" before you respond.)

However, if abortion on demand is legal, motivations and incentives are different. Contraceptives and abstinence become less attractive and less of a priority. After all, they have an easy safety net if they feel like being reckless. And as more women choose to engage in non-marital sex, society becomes more accepting of the practice, and actually comes to the point where other women feel pressured to have sex, including women who would never dream of having an abortion. From there, it's just simple mathematics to figure out that the more women who are engaging in non-marital sex, the more of them are going to turn up pregnant.

But you don't have to take my logic for it, especially since I'm fairly sure that logic and your "brain" are like matter and antimatter and would cause an implosion if they came into contact. Studies have shown that legalized abortion, by raising the rate of unprotected non-marital sex, increases the number of unplanned births. The rate went up from an average of 5% in 1965-1969 to over 16% twenty years later (1985-1989). And for blacks in particular, it went from 35% to 62%. - "Divorce, Fertility and the Shot Gun Marriage", Alberto F. Alesina and Paola Giuliano, Harvard University Institute for Economic Research Working Paper, No. 2117, June 2006. "An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Childbearing", Akerloff, Yellen, and Katz, 277-317.

And do I even really have to demonstrate for you that the number of unwanted pregnancies ending in abortions have gone up since abortion was legalized? Really? Do you really want to argue whether or not there were millions of abortions every year prior to 1969, or that there were millions of single women getting pregnant every year prior to that? Seriously? How much of a dumbass do you really want to make yourself appear to be in public?

 

[Cecilie1200]

ALL surgery is ELECTIVE surgery in that sense, Care.

This nation is facing a choice of paying an abortionist now, or paying for a mother and unwanted child for the next 18 years in so many cases that this strikes me as nothing more than a sensible policy.

It just boils down to $$$$ for you....doesn't it...?

....how much are YOU worth....? ....how much will YOU be worth when YOU are old and gray and not a $$$$ producer any more.....will it be OK then to just snuff YOU out.....?

If and when I become a drain on my family, both for care and financial support, I would definitely hope one of them would quietly snuff me out while I'm sleeping.

I don't think you'll need to worry about that in the least.

On the other hand, I've never viewed any of my family members as "drains" of any sort, but then, I liked all of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

in American marriages in the 1950's, of those that had children within the first year of marriage, 70% of these children were born within 7 months of when they were married....

I don't think women kept their legs closed as much as you think in the past, men just owned up to the pregnancy and married them if they were pregnant.

Yes, and that ultimately created all sorts of emotional problems in later years. My sister was born out of wedlock when my dad was serving in WWII, and to this day (age 70), she still believes that "Mom liked you best..." Seriously, the fact that she might not have been wanted has affected a lot of her own decisions in her adult life.

Aside from the fact that your parents weren't very good at parenting, what is your point here? That they should have aborted your sister instead of - crazy idea - finding some way of convincing her that she was loved and teaching her not to be such a whining little nit? Is the fact that your mother was promiscuous supposed to prove that most women of that era were?

By the way, I have a newsflash for you. My sister really WAS wanted more than any of us other children, and she's STILL a sniveling little emotional wreck who blames every problem in her life (she's 47) on my parents not raising her well enough. So I'm thinking the problem is less the heartbreak of being allowed to be born out-of-wedlock rather than being dismembered in utero, and more just a problem of not getting enough swift kicks in the ass while growing up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It just boils down to $$$$ for you....doesn't it...?

....how much are YOU worth....? ....how much will YOU be worth when YOU are old and gray and not a $$$$ producer any more.....will it be OK then to just snuff YOU out.....?

If and when I become a drain on my family, both for care and financial support, I would definitely hope one of them would quietly snuff me out while I'm sleeping.

Maybe they'll do it sooner...........sorry....bad joke....

When exactly do people have a right to kill you.....? When they are "burdened" ? How much burden are we talking about exactly? Whatever happened to being "my brother's keeper" and all that compassion and helping of others you liberals like to talk so much about.....?

What kind of sick, selfish bastard considers the family members they're supposed to love a "burden", anyhow?

 

[xotoxi]

What is CNSNews?

Is this another one of those pretend news organizations?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh gawd...like abstinence really works, especially with teenagers whose raging hormones are on fire 24/7. All the abstinence only crap funded by the federal government during Bush's terms succeeded in doing was making liars out of teenagers. How many whose parents forced them to sign a contract not to have intercourse before marriage then decided that oral sex wasn't part of the deal?

At least teenagers are used to using condoms, unlike most people over 30 who will fiercely avoid using them because they grew up knowing the difference.

I see....you give bad teen behavior a pass because they have "raging hormones on fire 24/7"....

...what a wimp limp liberal attitude....as if human beings can't learn to control themselves....

...besides.... the "raging 24/7" applies mainly to boys.....ultimately it is the girls that usually control things....as they are not typically as "raging" as the boys....

Teenagers having sex isn't evil, it's a biological function taking instructions from the brain. Most teenagers' brains aren't developed enough to have the "control" button in ON position all the time.

Just to advance a wild theory here, but maybe that's why nature gave them adults called "parents" to teach them how to control their hormones and impulses instead of letting themselves be controlled. I swear, I've seen people more invested in training their dogs not to piddle on the carpet than you seem to be in teaching children to become responsible adults.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is CNSNews?

Is this another one of those pretend news organizations?

Your computer is connected to the Internet, you know. Why don't you go look it up and find out?

 

[MaggieMae]

If you think I am going to for one moment apologize for the republicans being in charge of congress and the job they did Care then don't hold your breath. My feelings are though that when a party takes up the mantra of change and then elects the same people who have been there before i.e. Pelosi, Reed, Obama etc. it doesn't represent change it represents more of the same with a different letter after the name. While it's easy for democrats to say we have a right to spend the nation into oblivion because the republicans spent unwisly thats rather like saying let me crash this jet because the other aviator couldn't fly it. When all one needs to do is take the time to learn to fly it properly. Since Duch left office last year, you may want to look in one year what the deficit will be at the end of thise year. Obama in fact will triple what Bush did in one year what Bush did in his entire term So is this change you really want? I will say it once again, one day our bill is going to come due and on that day, it's not going to be a good day for this nation unless we get this spending under control and and proposing 2 bills in a row each of which will cost over a Trillion dollars is not a good way to start. In fact if Obama gets his way, at the end of his first year in just 3 bills alone he would have indebted this nation to China to the tune of 3 Trillion Dollars. I'm sorry care but that is not a legacy I wish to leave my daughter in the name of socially norming everyone, when there are clearly better ways to solve these issues.

The bottom line for me is that although I still want health care reform, with at least some sort of government subsidy to cover the people caught between a rock and a hard place, I can't see spending the amount of money it will cost (although the trillions estimated are based on ten-year forecasts, not just a single year). That's why I don't think any kind of reform is going to get passed.

HOWEVER, were it not for the crashed economy in the first place which is already costing untold billions, I would actually be out there campaigning for health care reform myself instead of just opining about it. But one thing for sure, even if nothing does get passed, this time around health care isn't an issue that's going to get swept under the rug for another 8 years while all the naysayers get to sit on their asses again, smug in the belief that the private sector can handle the skyrocketing costs just fine. So, in the meantime, I'll be waiting to see what those "better ways to solve these issues" actually accomplish.

 

[MaggieMae]

in American marriages in the 1950's, of those that had children within the first year of marriage, 70% of these children were born within 7 months of when they were married....

I don't think women kept their legs closed as much as you think in the past, men just owned up to the pregnancy and married them if they were pregnant.

Yes, and that ultimately created all sorts of emotional problems in later years. My sister was born out of wedlock when my dad was serving in WWII, and to this day (age 70), she still believes that "Mom liked you best..." Seriously, the fact that she might not have been wanted has affected a lot of her own decisions in her adult life.

Aside from the fact that your parents weren't very good at parenting, what is your point here? That they should have aborted your sister instead of - crazy idea - finding some way of convincing her that she was loved and teaching her not to be such a whining little nit? Is the fact that your mother was promiscuous supposed to prove that most women of that era were?

By the way, I have a newsflash for you. My sister really WAS wanted more than any of us other children, and she's STILL a sniveling little emotional wreck who blames every problem in her life (she's 47) on my parents not raising her well enough. So I'm thinking the problem is less the heartbreak of being allowed to be born out-of-wedlock rather than being dismembered in utero, and more just a problem of not getting enough swift kicks in the ass while growing up.

Cece -- you really are a classic *****. I'll bet you can clear a room really fast. Yep, there's only one thing to do when confronted with evil--slam the door on it. Don't bother responding to me in the future. You're about to be all alone in my ignore file.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, and that ultimately created all sorts of emotional problems in later years. My sister was born out of wedlock when my dad was serving in WWII, and to this day (age 70), she still believes that "Mom liked you best..." Seriously, the fact that she might not have been wanted has affected a lot of her own decisions in her adult life.

Aside from the fact that your parents weren't very good at parenting, what is your point here? That they should have aborted your sister instead of - crazy idea - finding some way of convincing her that she was loved and teaching her not to be such a whining little nit? Is the fact that your mother was promiscuous supposed to prove that most women of that era were?

By the way, I have a newsflash for you. My sister really WAS wanted more than any of us other children, and she's STILL a sniveling little emotional wreck who blames every problem in her life (she's 47) on my parents not raising her well enough. So I'm thinking the problem is less the heartbreak of being allowed to be born out-of-wedlock rather than being dismembered in utero, and more just a problem of not getting enough swift kicks in the ass while growing up.

Cece -- you really are a classic *****. I'll bet you can clear a room really fast. Yep, there's only one thing to do when confronted with evil--slam the door on it. Don't bother responding to me in the future. You're about to be all alone in my ignore file.

Please refer to my post in the other thread, advising you not to dump your personal life out on the table for inspection, and then whine and snivel like a ***** when people comment on it instead of standing back in awe of your sainted victimhood. By all means, PLEASE ignore me, because if I'm going to have to listen to your driveling on about your issues, I'm going to want the standard $200 an hour that therapists get.

In closing, let me just reiterate that from your own posts, it would probably be better if you never mention your family in public, and certainly not as "evidence" in a political debate. You're not helping yourself, and you're not really much of an argument in favor of women in politics.

Happy vapors. Buh bye.

 

[HUGGY]

Try the opening salvo. Show me quoted material from any Democrat, asshole, not from some right-wing internet rag's interpretation.

Actually, it seems that Obama's presidential campaign itself told the pro-abortion website RHRealityCheck.org that "Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service - just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan.

And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way."

So it's not that crazy an idea that the health care plan he wants contains the provisions he said he wanted it to contain, now is it?

Huh? Reproductive care covers a whole wide range of women's health issues, are you kidding? Just as people automatically see ABORTION when they see any reference to Planned Parenthood, it's hogwash that ALL they do is abortions.

I have yet to see how any of this discussion is anyones business but the woman that needs to make that choice.

 

[Maple]

Well that's a very novel thought but the problem is they sign these bills before they ever read them, i.e The stimulus bill.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well that's a very novel thought but the problem is they sign these bills before they ever read them, i.e The stimulus bill.

While I understand that it's not possible for Congressmembers currently to read every single word of every single bill personally, and I don't have a problem - in theory - with them having staffers who specialize in the relevant issues who study the bills and summarize their provisions for them, I think it shouldn't be allowed for them to vote before their staffers have even had time to read the damned things. Enough with the manufactured "crises" and rushing legislation through Congress for the soundbyte value.

 

[Political Junky]

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats in both the House and the Senate want abortion be included as a health benefit in both government and private insurance plans, leading to millions more abortions, a Republican lawmaker warned.

Taxpayer money would be used to pay for abortions in the government-run health care option.

But congressional Republicans, strongly opposed to an abortion requirement in health care reform, are pushing for a ban on using taxpayer money to pay for such procedures.

On Tuesday, pro-life members of Congress said the plan’s approach to abortion is essentially the same as the Freedom of Choice Act, which would strip states’ right to limit abortion, establish abortion on demand across the country and allow federal funds to pay for the procedure.

“It’s really trying to pass the Freedom of Choice Act through this legislation and wipe out all state law -- state law that abides by the Constitution, abides by everything that was said by the Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade,” Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“Despite the fact that large majorities of Americans don’t want to fund abortion, the Obama-Kennedy-Dingle bill will nevertheless force every taxpayer and every premium payer in the United States to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.

“Despite President Obama’s statement to the pope just last week that he wants to reduce abortion, the ugly truth is that the so-called health care reform bill, if enacted and if not amended, will lead to millions of additional dead children and wounded mothers,” Smith said.

Obama Health Care Plan Will Provide Taxpayer-Funded Abortion on Demand


So?

Exactly ...