You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

My insuarance...which covers 100% of almost everything...and I'm not kidding, will not cover any part of an abortion unless it is medically needed.

Obama's pending order does nothing to prohibit spending on abortion services as provided in the Senate bill. The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

An executive order does not have the force of law that legislation would provide. That is not the rule of law. That's the rule of man. One man can sign an executive order and one man can repeal that again, the president of the United States.

Obama's pending order does nothing to prohibit spending on abortion services as provided in the Senate bill. The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

Quote exactly the serious pro-abortion parts of this bill. Give me that page number and the exact language. Either do that or shut up about this bill being pro-abortion. I will not allow you to lie anymore. Put up or shut up.

There was obviously something in the bill that abortion proponents didn't want in there (mainly federal funding of abortions) otherwise Obama would not have had to offer an executive order to them to satisfy them that payment of abortions would not occur under this plan. Because he would not allow the American People to read or see the bill until after it was voted on ( a promise broken that he gave in his campaign to be transparent, BTW) noone could know for sure.

There was obviously something in the bill that abortion proponents didn't want in there (mainly federal funding of abortions) otherwise Obama would not have had to offer an executive order to them to satisfy them that payment of abortions would not occur under this plan. Because he would not allow the American People to read or see the bill until after it was voted on ( a promise broken that he gave in his campaign to be transparent, BTW) noone could know for sure.

Oh, it's obvious now, huh? I already explained this but since you seem to need a remedial course here it is again.

The anti-abortion democrats in the house had what they thought was stronger language against federal funding for abortions than what the Senate had. This was called the Stupak amendment. There was NO federal funding for abortion in the bill, but being the zealots that they are, they wanted added assurances.

The Senate bill that the house voted on had language to make sure there was no federal tax dollars in the insurance exchange used for abortion coverage. But this language didn't satisfy the anti-abortion democrats in the house. Stupak and his 7 followers were holding out their vote until Pres. Obama signed the executive order. It satisfied him and the others.

But - now here is the important part - NONE OF THAT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE BILL THAT ALLOWED FEDERAL FUNDS TO BE USED FOR ABORTION.

I believe it was done just to provide political cover for those anti-abortion democrats when they run in November. They wanted to be able to say to their constituents that they did this, because the anti-abortionists are so unreasonable as to expect this.

The Hyde Amendment is the law of the land and nothing in this bill changes this.

Now, when you try to make your case AGAINST this healthcare you don't seem to have any trouble finding what's in it - so once more I say:

SHOW ME THE PRO-ABORTION LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL OR STOP SAYING IT CONTAINS IT. PERIOD.

And here is my question to you: If the American people were not allowed to read this bill (sinisterly hidden - ooohhh) then how is it that you, and the right wing political pundits you quote, know so much about what is in it? And what it will and won't do and cost?

Edited March 23, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

Good grief!!! I cannot believe that someone is still trying to make federal funding for abortion an issue relating to the health care bill.

Well I guess I shouldn't be shocked. These are the same people who ranted and raved about the war in Iraq having merit long after we knew, for sure, that the WMD stuff was a load of garbage!

As for your insurance company refusing to pay for an abortion, just remember that the folks who run the insurance companies are the same wealthy dudes who have convinced ignorant Americans that there is something in the bill that provides federal funding for abortions.

And for them, it really is NOT about the abortion issue. It is REALLY about their greed for the almighty dollar. Not paying for a medical procedure, whatever it is, only makes them richer.

Obama's pending order does nothing to prohibit spending on abortion services as provided in the Senate bill. The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

You know, I don’t see the difference in you being morally opposed to your tax dollars funding abortion and me being morally opposed to my tax dollars going into these senseless wars. I’m not advocating that tax dollars be used for abortion mind you, the Hyde amendment is in effect and that is not my point anyway. The point is that we all have differences of opinion as to what we think should be paid for with our tax dollars. If I had a choice between funding legitimate family planning (even if it included abortion services) and continuing to kill our soldiers and innocent civilians half way around the world, I think I would choose the former.

You know, I don’t see the difference in you being morally opposed to your tax dollars funding abortion and me being morally opposed to my tax dollars going into these senseless wars. I’m not advocating that tax dollars be used for abortion mind you, the Hyde amendment is in effect and that is not my point anyway. The point is that we all have differences of opinion as to what we think should be paid for with our tax dollars. If I had a choice between funding legitimate family planning (even if it included abortion services) and continuing to kill our soldiers and innocent civilians half way around the world, I think I would choose the former.

I'm sure your President feels the same way as you do, so why doesn't he pull them out of there? He should end this war right now. What the heck is his problem?

I'm sure your President feels the same way as you do, so why doesn't he pull them out of there? He should end this war right now. What the heck is his problem?

He is pulling the troops out of Iraq. But he wants to be as responsible pulling out as bush was irresponsible putting them in. It takes some time, but by Aug. 2011, they should be out. The Marines are already.

Yeah he's pulling them out of Iraq and sending them all to Afghan. That's even worse!

You know rodriguez, I don't think that Afghanistan is worse than Iraq. And I understand why he thinks we can accomplish something in Afghanistan. But if we pay attention to the history of war in Afghanistan, it is easy to think we're just pouring money down a rat hole. And I too wish we'd get the heck out of that mess.

Guess it all has to do with Al Queda and Pakistan and Israel and Iran, etc., and other things that are pretty complicated and sensitive. But I detest war and especially one against a country that has not attacked us.

He is pulling the troops out of Iraq. But he wants to be as responsible pulling out as bush was irresponsible putting them in. It takes some time, but by Aug. 2011, they should be out. The Marines are already.

Yeah right.:frown: He is allowing all those people to be killed over there. He could get them home today, as commander in Chief of the armed forces, but he chooses to let them die! He wants war!:smile2:

Oh it is worse. My husband has been to Iraq and my brother in law has gone to afghan. The only difference is is you hear about Iraq more in the news! We are losing more soldiers in Afghan than we've lost in Iraq! Right now Iraq is pretty laid back the same can't really be said for afghan.

Yeah right.:frown: He is allowing all those people to be killed over there. He could get them home today, as commander in Chief of the armed forces, but he chooses to let them die! He wants war!

Wrong, again, as usual. Obama is on record as having been against the war in Iraq. He is not the one who started it but he will be the one to end it. Obviously you don't know anything about the logistics of removing troops from a country and what it involves. :smile2:

Had Obama been president instead of bush (I can only wish!!) we wouldn't be in Iraq and he wouldn't have blown the chance to catch bin laden like bush did.

As for letting soldiers die - well the blood of those who died in the needless war in Iraq is on the hands of bush, not Pres. Obama. Don't try to rewrite history.