Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2009, 03:47 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,034,478 times
Reputation: 9407

Advertisements

A key Democratic senator said Tuesday that he won't vote for an overhaul of the health care system if the bill does not clearly restrict federal funding for ending pregnancies.

The comments from Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was a sign that the abortion dispute that nearly derailed the House health care bill will play a critical role in the Senate.

Nelson told Fox News that he's "very pleased that the Stupak amendment passed in the House," a reference to a proposal by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that toughened restrictions on federal funding for abortions.

Abortion Haggling Looms Over Health Care Debate in Senate - FOXNews.com

*****************************
As if the public option wasn't a big enough obstacle; abortion, the mother of all controversies, will be a huge speed bump in the passage of the healthcare reform bill.

Tis not a good day in the Land of Liberals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2009, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,422,135 times
Reputation: 1208
I guess it is not just crazy, right wing, religious, nut jobs that oppose federal abortions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,212 posts, read 19,414,366 times
Reputation: 21673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Queen View Post
I guess it is not just crazy, right wing, religious, nut jobs that oppose federal abortions.

DINO's.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:02 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,726,924 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Queen View Post
I guess it is not just crazy, right wing, religious, nut jobs that oppose federal abortions.
Nope, there are even Democratic Senators who have to grandstand for their electorate and kowtow to conservatives who want every government finance bill to explicitly say it won't finance abortions.

The sticky-wicket is when the crazy, right-wing, religious nut jobs who all agree that government shouldn't stick its nose into how businesses are run in this country want to make an exception, and put out of business insurance companies that extend healthcare coverage that does cover abortions.

The government shouldn't tell business what to do, except when it's government telling businesses to do business the way the crazy, right-wing, religious nut jobs want it done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,422,135 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Nope, there are even Democratic Senators who have to grandstand for their electorate and kowtow to conservatives who want every government finance bill to explicitly say it won't finance abortions.

The sticky-wicket is when the crazy, right-wing, religious nut jobs who all agree that government shouldn't stick its nose into how businesses are run in this country want to make an exception, and put out of business insurance companies that extend healthcare coverage that does cover abortions.

The government shouldn't tell business what to do, except when it's government telling businesses to do business the way the crazy, right-wing, religious nut jobs want it done.

If their electorate elected them because they would vote against federally funded abortions then the people of which are most likely dems agree with him.

Which backs what I said it is not just the right wing that do not want tax dollars paying for abortions.

As for government telling businesses what to do I am not sure what that has to do with the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:20 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,726,924 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Queen View Post
If their electorate elected them because they would vote against federally funded abortions then the people of which are most likely dems agree with him.

Which backs what I said it is not just the right wing that do not want tax dollars paying for abortions.

As for government telling businesses what to do I am not sure what that has to do with the topic.
If there's not a public option, then how do you think you restrict federal funding? No public option means the only public funding is in the case of subsidies to the poor who cannot afford the full price of the insurance premiums. So the government would be restricting the insurance coverage offered to the poor. Kinda sounds like discrimination? After all, every legislative measure against abortion in this country doesn't restrict people with the means to afford abortions, it restricts poor people. Poor people who work for hourly wages, and have the least amount of flexibility with regards to getting time off for any medical procedures. Poor people who are more likely to be rural people and who have no local access to an abortion provider to begin with. Now, we can prevent poor people from purchasing insurance that will help them pay for abortions. Because, after all, they'll be more likely to put kids they can't afford up for adoption, and all those people who want children, newborns preferably, but can't have their own will finally have a buyer's market. Hurrah!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:31 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,034,478 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
If there's not a public option, then how do you think you restrict federal funding? No public option means the only public funding is in the case of subsidies to the poor who cannot afford the full price of the insurance premiums. So the government would be restricting the insurance coverage offered to the poor. Kinda sounds like discrimination? After all, every legislative measure against abortion in this country doesn't restrict people with the means to afford abortions, it restricts poor people. Poor people who work for hourly wages, and have the least amount of flexibility with regards to getting time off for any medical procedures. Poor people who are more likely to be rural people and who have no local access to an abortion provider to begin with. Now, we can prevent poor people from purchasing insurance that will help them pay for abortions. Because, after all, they'll be more likely to put kids they can't afford up for adoption, and all those people who want children, newborns preferably, but can't have their own will finally have a buyer's market. Hurrah!
The Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to have an abortion. Whether those women have the financial means to pay for an abortion should not be the subject of any legislation ever! Especially in legislation pertaining to the use of tax dollars. A singular right does not equal a plurality of funds. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:37 PM
 
Location: AZ
1,046 posts, read 3,471,545 times
Reputation: 682
That's just silly. I don't agree with abortion in most instances. At the same time it's legal, so it should be included. Unfortunately we don't get to chose how our tax dollars are used. If I did I would quit funding the current wars, Israel, DEA, ATF, Federal Reserve......the list could go on and on. It's legal. It should be funded until it is illegal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,422,135 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
If there's not a public option, then how do you think you restrict federal funding? No public option means the only public funding is in the case of subsidies to the poor who cannot afford the full price of the insurance premiums. So the government would be restricting the insurance coverage offered to the poor. Kinda sounds like discrimination? After all, every legislative measure against abortion in this country doesn't restrict people with the means to afford abortions, it restricts poor people. Poor people who work for hourly wages, and have the least amount of flexibility with regards to getting time off for any medical procedures. Poor people who are more likely to be rural people and who have no local access to an abortion provider to begin with. Now, we can prevent poor people from purchasing insurance that will help them pay for abortions. Because, after all, they'll be more likely to put kids they can't afford up for adoption, and all those people who want children, newborns preferably, but can't have their own will finally have a buyer's market. Hurrah!
There has to be a period where we draw the line. We cannot have every procedure covered by federal tax payers. I have no issue with having a public option so long as there are steps taken to ensure that businesses will not drop coverage and let their workers go on it and that the public option does not so undercut private insures that they go out of business. If the public option wants to offer abortions to people as part of coverage then make them pay a bit more in premiums. I fear that the public option will become the Cadillac of health insurance. All groups will be fighting to get the procedures they want covered, that can't happen but I fear will will have may federal cases claiming discrimination against the public option because it does not cover a certain procedure that a group thinks should be covered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2009, 04:39 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,034,478 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundball View Post
That's just silly. I don't agree with abortion in most instances. At the same time it's legal, so it should be included. Unfortunately we don't get to chose how our tax dollars are used. If we did I would quit funding the current wars, Israel, DEA, ATF, Federal Reserve......the list could go on and on. It's legal. It should be funded until it is illegal.
This philosophy is mind-boggling. You must be a liberal.

According to your theory, since beer is legal, the government should buy me a 6-pack every week.

Are you sure you know what you're saying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top