'Baby killer' shouted at Democrat after bill's passage

[jillio]

Even in cases like mother life is at risk, or if the infant has no chance in surviving?

I feel that becomes a medically needed procedure.

Yes, even then. Sad, isn't it?

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



No? OK. I'm so confused..... Heathcare is inculded abortions, right? So who will pay for the abortion?

If a woman chooses to get an abortion, she will either have to pay for it herself, or have a plan with a private insurer that will cover the procedure.

 

[posts from hell]

If a woman chooses to get an abortion, she will either have to pay for it herself, or have a plan with a private insurer that will cover the procedure.

Not really.

There is nothing in the bill that specifically forbids abortion funding.

There is 11 billion dollars that will go to "community health centers" which will do the abortions. They do not need to conform to the Nelson regulation.

Remember the Hyde Amendment?

Even Medicare pays for around 300,000 abortions a year.

Source: Google.com

 

[Reba]

The bill happens to agree with your opinion. You are aware of that?

If that's true, then why didn't Stupak know that?

"...Just days earlier, Stupak, D-Michigan, was a hero of anti-abortion House Republicans who opposed the health-care bill. Stupak led a group of other anti-abortion Democrats who rejected the bill because they said it would allow federal funding for abortions beyond the current limits of cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger...."

Are you saying that those Democrats didn't know what the bill included?

 

[jillio]

Not really.

There is nothing in the bill that specifically forbids abortion funding.

There is 11 billion dollars that will go to "community health centers" which will do the abortions. They do not need to conform to the Nelson regulation.

Remember the Hyde Amendment?

Even Medicare pays for around 300,000 abortions a year.

Source: Google.com

Read the bill before you start spreading more false information. The links are readily available.:roll:

 

[TXgolfer]

Even in cases like mother life is at risk, or if the infant has no chance in surviving?

I feel that becomes a medically needed procedure.

Charities would still be more efficent for this.

I predict it will be covered......
We still have reconciliation to go through.....plus I don't expect Obama to keep his promise to not wthdraw his Executive order

 

[jillio]

Charities would still be more efficent for this.

I predict it will be covered......
We still have reconciliation to go through.....plus I don't expect Obama to keep his promise to not wthdraw his Executive order

Oh. So women with a medical need should have to rely on charities? Nice.:roll:

 

[Babyblue]

Yes, even then. Sad, isn't it?

Indeed, since it will put lives at risk. Ending up costing the taxpayers more money than terminating the pregnancy.


So it needs to be federally funded.

 

[posts from hell]

Read the bill before you start spreading more false information. The links are readily available.:roll:

What false information? Can you please show me where in the bill it outright forbids funding for abortions?

Because if there is nothing that specifically forbids the money to be used for abortions... The chances are that a portion of it will be used towards abortions.

Really, that is how it works.

Take care. I'm done here.

 

[Babyblue]

Charities would still be more efficent for this.

I predict it will be covered......
We still have reconciliation to go through.....plus I don't expect Obama to keep his promise to not wthdraw his Executive order

Doubt that. Since several charities are limited in fundings and are church based which would be against funding such procedure.

 

[TXgolfer]

Indeed, since it will put lives at risk. Ending up costing the taxpayers more money than terminating the pregnancy.


So it needs to be federally funded.

Why Federally funded? If the country is split down the middle the there are 150 million pro choicers......Many of them rich. Plenty of people to support a charity. And a charity wouldn't face the expense of legislation.

 

[jillio]

If that's true, then why didn't Stupak know that?

"...Just days earlier, Stupak, D-Michigan, was a hero of anti-abortion House Republicans who opposed the health-care bill. Stupak led a group of other anti-abortion Democrats who rejected the bill because they said it would allow federal funding for abortions beyond the current limits of cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger...."

Are you saying that those Democrats didn't know what the bill included?

Who says Stupak didn't know that?

 

[TXgolfer]

Doubt that. Since several charities are limited in findings and are church based which would be against funding such procedure.

Easy start a new one. Charities have boards of a dozen people. When funded federally it must be approved and debated by 535 people.....then one guy has to agree with them.....Then 9 more have to agree it is constitutional..... Charity is more efficent

 

[jillio]

Indeed, since it will put lives at risk. Ending up costing the taxpayers more money than terminating the pregnancy.


So it needs to be federally funded.

Yep. Gotta look at the whole picture and play the tape all the way through. Too many are getting hung up and obsessive about some minor point without looking at it from the broader and more complete perspective.

 

[Reba]

Under the bill, federal funds will not be used to pay for abortions.

Then why were Stupak and the other pro-life Democrats against the bill?

 

[jillio]

Why Federally funded? If the country is split down the middle the there are 150 million pro choicers......Many of them rich. Plenty of people to support a charity. And a charity wouldn't face the expense of legislation.

Why should women be forced to rely on a charity to fund a medically necessary procedure?

 

[jillio]

Then why were Stupak and the other pro-life Democrats against the bill?

Numerous reasons. The bill is not about the singular issue of abortion. No matter how obsessed some are with the topic.

 

[posts from hell]

Because Federal funding will not be used to pay for abortions.

Just quoting here.


If pro lifer had a hang up about federal funding that "will not" be used for abortions...

I dont get it, at all, really..

 

[Reba]

Who says Stupak didn't know that?

If he knew that abortion wasn't included, why was he against the bill until he got Obama's promise for the executive order? If it wasn't in the bill that wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Babyblue]

Why Federally funded? If the country is split down the middle the there are 150 million pro choicers......Many of them rich. Plenty of people to support a charity. And a charity wouldn't face the expense of legislation.

Then if that is true then awareness of such needs to be out more. Since I have never heard of it.

If the pro choicers are out to help fund abortions. They need to let the people know what is available to them.