U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 03-12-2010, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Marion, IA
2,796 posts, read 5,659,098 times
Reputation: 1584

Advertisements

If Obama and the Dems knew how to compromise they'd have this health care thing passed by now. Why are they so hung up on this issue?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2010, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,529 posts, read 7,542,753 times
Reputation: 2861
Well, the short answer is because they are stupid and can't compromise to save their lives other than offer bribes. That's all I can figure. However, I'm quite certain that are a lot of issues other than publicly funded abortions that are dividing the dem party on this HC bill. That's just one of the public ones that we know of.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
19,680 posts, read 16,427,997 times
Reputation: 4246
The Senate Bill actually does ban federal funding of abortions, the language is a bit different from the House Bill, but the Senate bill bans it.

Stupak wants the language of the House Bill to be in the Senate Bill. However, if anything is changed with the current Senate Bill, whether its abortion language or another detail (regardless if its something big or very minor) the Senate will need to vote on the entire bill again which will result in a Republican filibuster.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 12:48 PM
 
29,986 posts, read 38,991,632 times
Reputation: 12791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
The Senate Bill actually does ban federal funding of abortions, the language is a bit different from the House Bill, but the Senate bill bans it.

Stupak wants the language of the House Bill to be in the Senate Bill. However, if anything is changed with the current Senate Bill, whether its abortion language or another detail (regardless if its something big or very minor) the Senate will need to vote on the entire bill again which will result in a Republican filibuster.
Will you provide a link to the exact wordage in the Senate bill that bans taxpayer funding not only for abortion but also to facilities that provide abortion, like Planned Parenthood clinics and others?

Or would you suggest that once these clinics receive governement funding that they put the funds is a special account labeled: not for payment of abortion related services, salaries, facility costs, etc... .

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
19,680 posts, read 16,427,997 times
Reputation: 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Will you provide a link to the exact wordage in the Senate bill that bans taxpayer funding not only for abortion but also to facilities that provide abortion, like Planned Parenthood clinics and others?

Or would you suggest that once these clinics receive governement funding that they put the funds is a special account labeled: not for payment of abortion related services, salaries, facility costs, etc... .

Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with this discussion unless you want to use the health care bill to change abortion law. The bill bans any public funding for abortion (pg 116-120). It specifically states federal funds of abortion would be banned and it would comply with the current law of the Department of Health and Human Services (which bans abortion funding).

The real difference between the House and Senate language is how it deals with PRIVATE Insurance Companies that enter the Health Exchange. The House Bill bans Private Insures who enter the Health Exchange from offering any kind of abortion services, the Senate Bill allows for the Private Insures to provide voluntary abortion coverage as long as the beneficiary pays for it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,775 posts, read 12,076,901 times
Reputation: 15409
It's not. Stupak is lying when he says that the current bill would allow for taxpayer funding for abortions. It's as simple as that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:47 PM
 
29,986 posts, read 38,991,632 times
Reputation: 12791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with this discussion unless you want to use the health care bill to change abortion law. The bill bans any public funding for abortion (pg 116-120). It specifically states federal funds of abortion would be banned and it would comply with the current law of the Department of Health and Human Services (which bans abortion funding).

The real difference between the House and Senate language is how it deals with PRIVATE Insurance Companies that enter the Health Exchange. The House Bill bans Private Insures who enter the Health Exchange from offering any kind of abortion services, the Senate Bill allows for the Private Insures to provide voluntary abortion coverage as long as the beneficiary pays for it.
Still waiting for you to provide the link with the actual ban language from the Senate bill pointing out how taxpayer funds would not be co-mingled with those funds used for abortions. I suspect the reason you do not is because that specific language does not exist.

The House bill at this point is a non-issue as the focus is on pushing through the Senate bill as it is worded now through the House for Obama's signature.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:48 PM
 
29,986 posts, read 38,991,632 times
Reputation: 12791
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
It's not. Stupak is lying when he says that the current bill would allow for taxpayer funding for abortions. It's as simple as that.
Prove it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
19,680 posts, read 16,427,997 times
Reputation: 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Still waiting for you to provide the link with the actual ban language from the Senate bill pointing out how taxpayer funds would not be co-mingled with those funds used for abortions. I suspect the reason you do not is because that specific language does not exist.

The House bill at this point is a non-issue as the focus is on pushing through the Senate bill as it is worded now through the House for Obama's signature.
It SPECIFICALLY STATES that abortion funding would be elective and that if any plan has abortion funding they would need to collect separate payment from the beneficiary for it.

(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS-

(A) IN GENERAL- If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [provides elective abortion coverage], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:

Refresher Course: the Senate HCR Bill Bans Federal Funds for Abortions - Blog - OpenCongress

Just because the language is different does not mean the Senate plan allows for federal funding of abortions. What this is really about is Stupak is trying to ban Private Insurers from offering elective abortion coverage if they enter the Exchange even though none of the $$ going to abortion would be from public funds.

Regardless the whole issue really is moot because the change simply can't be made. Stupak wants the change made before the House votes on the Senate bill, but if that change was made, the Senate would have to vote on the full bill again, which would mean a Republican filibuster. So at this point even if Pelosi and Obama, said yes lets make the change, and use the House language on abortion, they could not, because the GOP would just filibuster the bill in the Senate.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2010, 04:09 PM
 
228 posts, read 474,697 times
Reputation: 94
Personally I oppose abortion but justify it in circumstances where either the mother or child's life is at risk, if the mother was raped or a victim of incest, or if there's a genetic condition that can kill the child later in life.

But I don't approve of stupid teenage kids who knock each other up then figure they can get an abortion and problem solved. Those are the types of people who should not be eligible for any funding for abortion, they must either carry the child to term or pay a heavy tax on the price of the abortion. Maybe then stupid teenage kids wouldn't fool around as much.

Only question is how many people get abortions compared to the rest of the country's population?
Rate this post positively 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:13 AM.

© 2005-2020, 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