The bill passed by the House last November included a provision offered by Rep. Bart Stupak, D- Mich., and Rep. Joe Pitts, R- Pa., that required that no federal funds be used to pay for an abortion or "to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except when the mother's life was in danger, or in cases of rape or incest. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pleased that that sweeping ban isn't in the Senate bill, which Pelosi is asking her members to vote for. Some Democrats who voted for the House bill say they can't vote for the Senate bill, partly due to the abortion issue. The Senate bill "does not meet my standards for assuring that no federal funds are used for abortion-related services," said Rep. Joe Donnelly, D- Ind.
The Senate insurance reform bill may be snagged by a dispute over potential funding of abortion.
Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:41 PM EST
Live Poll
The Senate insurance reform bill may be snagged by a dispute over potential funding of abortion.
Leave a Comment:
Answer: Fact
The Senate bill segregates insurance premiums used to pay for abortions, but that doesn’t go far enough for anti-abortion advocates. They also fear that a provision in the Senate bill appropriating funds for community health centers might end up being used to pay for abortions. The Senate bill has no provision stating that the annually renewed Hyde amendment, which forbids Medicaid from paying for most abortions, applies to that part of the bill. But the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) said the centers “do not plan to, nor are they seeking to, become providers of abortion.” Amy Simmons, a NACHC spokeswoman, said, “We have no objection to applying the Hyde Amendment to the new funds, as it is applied with the current appropriation, so long as the mechanism does not imperil the passage of health reform now.”
Keeping abortion money separate is still pro choice paid far by tax dollars. Abortion was, is, and will be a political firestorm. It's one more thing healthcare reformers will have to answer for. I don't believe the public is going to let up on this at all and if Pelosi is going to try and circumvent procedure---that's one more thing they'll be answering for. No, seats are going to be coming open in Nov. and not even scrapping this plan will save them now. They're stuck on this thing like a broken record. The public is sick of it. I don't know if the folks that I talk to are Dem or Repub. I know they don't like what's going on at all and they're looking right at BO as the cause.
In my opinion, the government should allow their funds to be used for abortion, whether or not the mother's life is endangered, or in cases of rape or incest. Abortion should be one of the ordinary services performed, just as biopsies, or any other procedures are, with the consent of the woman on whom the procedure is to be performed. In addition, any female person who is able to become pregnant, whether she is over 18 or under, should be allowed to have an abortion without notifying her parents.
In my opinion killing someone because they are inconvenient is wrong.
As far out there as this sounds I am just making a logical argument -- The *equivalent* of saying that tax dollars should go toward making abortions an every day practice is like saying that tax dollars should also be made available to seize the fetus out of women who are deemed unfit parents. If women can utilize tax dollars to pay to terminate the heartbeats of an unborn child, then an equitable tradeoff would be to allow tax dollars to be used to save the heartbeat of a fetus from a woman unfit to be a parent. One should not be allowed to exist without the other. At some point folks, whether you like it or not, science is quickly catching up to the point where a fetus WILL be able to survive outside the womb -- at that point, personal rights will be granted and exercised by that fetus to exercise its right to live and its right to pursue retribution against any parties attempting to infringe on those rights. What I'm saying is that very soon, the question of "when does life begin" will no longer be used as a battle cry-- it will be FACT. And THAT's a DOSE OF REALITY you will be able to right about.
TAZ-
...and what will we do? Hold a microphone to the woman's vagina and record the unborn fetus request, <small>"Please, mommy dearest, I'll be a good child for you...just love me, and feed me...I'll even wash my own clothes..."</small>
Or, maybe, you support life panels that will decide the fate of a woman's life, and if the woman has an abortion; what, throw her carcass in the slammer? For murder? I know my comment here is a little extreme, even more extreme than yours, and I am sorry for the the implied tone in which you may perceive this comment to make. I just cannot agree with the "tone" of your comment.
I am not a strong supporter of abortion. I think, when possible, the woman should be required to have three days to think through the procedure before actually going through with the procedure. I fervently support adoption over abortion. However, the fact is abortion will happen and it is the individual woman's right.
If a woman wants an abortion she will get it. Regardless of what you think this has been going on forever. There are herbs that will induce, meds that will induce and the good old back alley. This is not for you to choose for her. That is between her and her God. I don't beleive most women take this decision lightly. And Taz what do you think we should do with all seized fetuses? Are you aware that The number of children in foster care is staggering? Are you aware that a lot of these children are abused?
At one time I would have agreed with you, but, unfortunately, a lot of them do take it lightly, too lightly. I know I had abortions in the 70's when it wasn't nothing but a thing to do. After being irresponsible and having sex out of wedlock, or for that matter, sex without a committment from the father, and realizing that you would be raising the child alone.
The issue is should tax scraped funds go to finance irresponsible behavior? I say, NO. Even not placing a moral value on abortions, I do not think federal funds should finance irresponsible lifestyles. Because, you know what? Most women who have abortions will have another one, and another one...
I would like to not pay for that woman to kill her child through my taxes. How about that?
I would like my taxes to not pay for a war I don't support that is killing our young people..you know, the people that were babies, once...or for senate vacations, er...fact finding missions, or policies that close American factories, or for a whole slew of things that need to be changed. But that isn't the issue.
How is it not the issue? I suppose you are against the war, and also against abortion, since human life has value?
If it is a matter of the relative "innocence" of the human beings in question, you can't get much more innocent than an unborn child.
Or is there some other reason you're against the war? And not against abortion?
If you don't care what happens to the living, I dont care what you say about the unborn; you are not morally qualified to be included in the discussion.
The unborn are among the living. Is your opinion really that only those who care what happens to the unborn (the living), as well as the born (the living), are qualified to be included in the discussion?
Here is the connection that some are attempting to presume of the abortion issue and health care reform:
If a person receives government money, and then alternately pays for an abortion, they are trying to say that the government money financed the abortion; however indirectly, or directly. This whole issue is nonsense, and not a real issue.
The senate health care reform bill does not fund abortions. To conclude that it does fund abortions one would also have to conclude that if a person recieves any governmen t money at all, and then procedes to have an abortion, then, the abortion was paid for with government funds.
If we allow this kind of interpretation, then, only the rich will be allowed to have save, non-life threatening abortions. The fact of the matter is we cannot legislate morality, period. Abortions will happen. It is better to allow woman their own free choice.
The problem with your comment is that you don't care if that baby is killed. So of course, you don't care if taxes are used to pay for killing it. Thus the issue is nonsense to you.
If the senate health care bill does not fund abortions (as you state) then no one should mind a restriction making that specifically restricted is added. Because who would mind prohibiting something it isn't doing anyway?
Oh but it is funding them...so they do mind.
Abortion is too much of a hot topic. Just pay for birth control and leave abortion out of it.
I am an advocate for health care for all, however, no federal funds should be utilized for abortions, or abortion services of any kind.
If the President and the Congress let the American people down to fight for abortion, then they all need to be voted out of power!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to the US Supremem Court, abortion is a legal medical procedure. NEVER should these boundaries be crossed. If the law needs to change then change it if you can. And watch the end of personal freedoms for doing so. But regardless, deciding to not cover a MEDICAL issue is where the slippery slope starts. What would be next? Obesity, drug addiction, tobacco use? Because there will be a NEXT if this is allowed to happen.
And for the record, my husband didn't receive the medical treatment he should have for years due to the costs and lack of insurance. He died from complications of those medical issues. While politicians are messing around arguing over stupidity, and trying to make sure their bread stays buttered, people are DYING. Now, sleep well tonight.
Slavery was also legal once, like abortion is now. And slavery was also wrong--even while it was legal. People spoke against the evil of slavery then, as they speak against the evil of abortion now.
Until the law - the will of the people - is changed then it is still the law. I support abortion for reasons of my own, but that isn't the argument here. The argument is picking and choosing which laws you want to follow. I believe the abortion debate is being used by certain people and businesses to further their own agendas to sway the public away from health care reform, just as it has been used so often when politicians and their moneyed supporters (read: lobbies) didn't want us to "think" too much about any given subject. Throw a little smoke and shift the mirror...again and again..until we're so sick of it all we demand to move on to something else.
The nation voted for Barack Obama along with his platform of health care reform. It doesn't matter how explosive the situation, or how you "feel" about it. If we are a nation that is as good as our word, our law, then those laws must be upheld within all circumstances and applications. Period. Anything less is Un-American. If the laws have merit in that we the people have elected to follow those laws, then change the law as you will or support the decisions and move on. If the law changes then policy and the money will follow. Meanwhile this is being used as one more excuse to sit on our hands and do nothing while countless health care atrocities take place, just as someone starts to shift the mirrors and ready the smoke machine for the next challenge.
I would have spoken against slavery and hidden slaves in my house and helped them escape even while it was legal to have slaves.
Same with abortion. I will speak against it, support organizations that give young women support when they choose not to kill their babies, and otherwise vote for things that support what is right, regardless of the legalities.
The law should be trying to mirror moral realities, not dictate them. But then, I believe in an outside standard of morality, other than just my own made up opinions.
Those are replusive comments. You want people to pay for other women's abortion when they feel its a taking life. The huge mojority of the time, abortion is not a life saving procedure, or even a health matter. Next, you'll want taxes to pay for breat enhancements and botox. Disgusting. Also, you want to take away parental rights. I am guessing you are a teenager.
AMERICA NEEDS THOSE BABIES !!WE ARE ABORTING UOR BABIES AND ADOPTING FORIGN BABIES- WHICH MAKES NO SENSE!!!DO WE WANT TO BE LIKE EUROPE AND JAPAN - AGRAYING NATION??I THINK NOT!! ALSO They die a horrific death-as bad as stepping on a land mine!!! and for what??womans rights??yuk- if thats a right i don't need rights!!plus do you really feel we can trust this leadership?? i don't!!! i did in the beginnining-but not now-if they push this thru w/out the consent of the people let the US TEA PARTIES BEGIN- in earnest!!!!!
Do you really believe this? That we are short on unwanted children in this country? You do read, don't you?
And if you don't need rights there are several countries that might be more accommodating to your tastes.
I support Roe vs. Wade!! However, this is my choice as a woman and the government should not pay for my abortion if make that choice. If one of the young women of today get pregant....it is not the government's job to pay for her choice. This has nothing to do with providing medical coverage for the American's! I am sick and tired of these young women sleeping around and having babies by multiple fathers then expect Medicaid to pay their bills. This has got to STOP NOW!!!
Yeah, nancee, I think they need a few more like you in Tehran. You'd fit right in there. I am so sick of all the anti-abortionist rhetoric: stepping on a land mine? From where do you get this hysterical crap? And is that worse than forcing someone to have a child they would rather not have, and then have that someone throw the child from a 6 story window in a fit of rage? Or, have said someone take the baby out in the desert, run over it several times and bury it in the sand?( Both incidences did occur in the area in which I live.) Or, how about the freaks that microwave their babies? Shake them to death? Drown them? Or, burn them? All stories taken straight from the headlines! Or are those deeds not QUITE so deplorable since they didn't involve having an abortion? YOU may not need rights, but I know of QUITE A FEW WOMEN WHO WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!! And why are people adopting from foreign countries? Probably because adoption laws in this country are SO stringent, that prospective parents are likely to be too old by the time they're able to adopt! But, I assure you that there is absolutely NO shortage of adoptive babies, toddlers in the US! However, too many of the "tea party" constituents would turn their noses up at those children most in need of adoption: the "too old" children- ones who have been in "the system" for all of their young lives, the physically and mentally handicapped, the minority children. You're so self-righteously indignant about a woman exercising her rights, but I'd be willing to bet you and yours wouldn't deign to "lower" yourselves to adopting the (perceived) "UNadobtable"! I would rather money be spent on one abortion than the yearly cost of supporting a child who was intentionally and maliciously abused by their own parents, or, in later years, supporting more inmates who are in prison because their parents didn't want them and neglected them to the point they have become sociopaths or worse. Then, there is the issue of rape and incest; should a woman be forced by anyone to carry the product of these two heinous actions if she doesn't want it? And if she can't afford the abortion, should she be made to give birth to the result of either of those acts just because YOU don't think she should? That's precisely the way women are treated in other countries. Move there if you don't want your rights, but don't expect a huge majority of women to follow suit, nor to admire you for it.
sunpigs wrote: "I am so sick of all the anti-abortionist rhetoric: stepping on a land mine? From where do you get this hysterical crap? And is that worse than forcing someone to have a child they would rather not have, and then have that someone throw the child from a 6 story window in a fit of rage? Or, have said someone take the baby out in the desert, run over it several times and bury it in the sand?"
You seem to be saying that it is better to be killed in the womb because a woman that would do that would probably later throw you out a window and kill you, or otherwise abuse you. Which raises an interesting philosophical question.
Is life worth living when it involves risk, and pain, and loss? And then you get old and die in a best case scenario!
My answer is, probably not, if this life is all there is. I don't believe that is true, personally, so I think it is worth it. But I see where you're coming from :(.
From Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem In Memoriam:27, 1850:
This question doesn't make the facts clear. FACT: The Senate bill does NOT allow federal funds to pay for abortions! In fact, the Senate bill is even more restrictive than current laws. Bart Stupak is grandstanding to get his 15 minutes of fame and his objections have no basis in reality. Why can't the media point out that Stupak is just dead wrong?
I am glad I was wrong. I like it the way it is right now! I never thought it would really get this far but I sure am happy that is is!
Cain killed Abel. Husbands kill wives. Criminals kill victims. Mothers kill their unborn babies. It is sadly true that these evils will continue. It is an abomination to make legal what is morally depraved. Mothers who abort their unborn babies will also abuse the ones they do have. Abortions skyrocketed after legalization, as also child abuse rates. I also wonder if wife-abuse, girlfriend-abuse, also increased.
Degradation of any form of human life degrades all of human life. Affirming the dignity of the unborn would have the effect of granting respect to life at all stages and conditions.
Obama was fortunate to have been born before abortion was legalized. Most likely, had it been legal at that time, he would have been aborted.
I do not want any of my tax payments causing the death of a future black president, or future jazz musician, or author, or truck driver, or any black baby boy or girl. Right now they are most likely to be aborted even though blacks are a minority. Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood wanted to "get rid of" those she felt were undesirable. The unwanted. That a man who is considered "black" even though he is only a small percentage--half white, Arabic, and about 15% African, promotes Planned Parenthood and its agenda to kill black babies is beyond belief! It is time for all Blacks to awaken and rise up in outrage and address this moral abomination. This eugenics against their race masquerading as health care must be exposed for what it really is. Murder of innocent unborn children.