Call your reps: No on Obamacare funds for abortion
President Obama says it’s a “fabrication” and “distraction” to assert that the Democrats’ health care takeover bills subsidize abortion.
Well, not to distract you, but the NYT reports today:
Representative Bart Stupak, a Democratic opponent of abortion, is pressing for a ban on health care subsidies for abortions.
Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call. Opponents of abortion cite as precedent a 30-year-old ban on the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions.
A vote on a Senate amendment is expected today, via CitizenLink:
Members of the U.S. Senate Financial Services Committee will be voting Tuesday on amendments which would keep abortion coverage out of the health-care bill.
Sen. Max Baucus’s, D-Mont., proposed health-care bill includes specific language that would allow abortion to be subsidized with taxpayer funds.
Recently, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has introduced several amendments that would prevent any government funding of abortions and protect current conscience laws for health care workers…
…If you would like to take part in this vital effort to keep your tax dollars from funding abortion in health care, please call these Senators:
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.): 202-224-5521
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.): 202-224-2441
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.): 202-224-2043
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.): 202-224-4843
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.): 202-224-5274
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): 202-224-5344
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Illinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsObamacare cronyism: The First Lady’s patient-dumping, privacy-meddling scheme
May 16, 2012 08:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsInsurers issuing new round of rebates must credit Obamacare
May 14, 2012 11:26 AM by Doug Powers
66 CommentsNY Senator: Honor Mother’s Day by supporting pro-abortion group
May 12, 2012 10:44 AM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
White House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
Categories: Abortion,Health care
When calling the D’s on the list might I suggest you tell them they should vote no or else they might just make the President’s statement that the bill wont cover abortion a complete fabrication.
On another note, my brother in law sent me a picture of my niece/nephew to be. In the picture you can clearly make out this precious child and she is only 2 months along. My wife and I were amazed at how far the ultrasound technology has come since our last child (our youngest is almost 6). After seeing the picture I cannot even fathom how anyone could claim that an unborn child is not really a person yet.
Well I fired one off to Bingaman, but as far to the left this clown is, I doubt it will do any good.
O.T. but check out Obama worshippers lifting up prayers to him.
Oh sure, they’re elective, for now.
Maybe. But if we get them to agree to not fund abortions THIS year are we saying the rest of the “Health Care/Insurance Reform” is acceptable? Either way the denigration of the Human Child continues and we are reduced to being but mere more animated organisms. Ezekiel Emanuel is doing well and is our new Doctor Death.
But I would not want our President to think I am guilty of “fabrication” and “distraction”–I shall leave that to the experts in his administration.
How do you know Obama is lying?
ans: His lips are moving.
My senator Lympie Snowejob wants abortions for all. She doesn’t give a crap what the voters and taxpayers think. She’s obama’s lap puppy.
When whatever answer his gives is proceeded by the phrase “let me be clear”.
Truesoldier:
I might as well kick this debate off again.
Are you for or against abortions in the case of say, an Ectopic pregnancy at 8 weeks? Does such an abortion constitute murder? Is the health and life of the woman more important than the life of a fetus in that case? Thank you.
zero—what percentages of all abortions are done purely as afterthought birth control?
thank you.
Spacey:
I am not addressing that issue. Personally, I do not like the idea of abusing abortion as birth control. I think it’s a serious decision that requires serious thought. What I am doing here is trying to make the point that the life of an 8 week old fetus is not equal to the life of the mother.
Obviously Zero is going to take the lefts favorite approach, so let me spell out plainly what I, and I beleive most people who are against abortion believe, that when we talk about being against abortion we are talking about abortion by choice not medical neccesity.
So here is a question for you zero is the convience of the woman(i.e. not wanting to have the baby just because it will cramp her lifestyle) more important than the life of an innocent child?
Or even better, is the life of a person conviceted of murder and sentenced to death worth more than the innocent child who is about to be aborted for no other reason than to spare the woman from having an unwanted child? You guys on the left seem quite fond of trying to halt executions.
zero–fine; I am not addressing your issue.
Truesoldier:
Obviously you are going to make this a polarized debate and pretend that there aren’t a whole lot of grey areas between “pro-choice” and “pro-life.”
well, let’s talk about this neccesity then. We are talking about two lives correct? One must die in order for the other to live or be healthy on the case of an etopic pregnancy. It’s a no brainer, the fetus must die. Now, if we were talking about two adult humans, where one needs a heart transplant and the other has a heart of course you aren’t going to kill one adult to save the other. Their lives get equal consideration. Why is the fetus not equal?
We can answer that question after you answer mine. You seem to think it’s ok to abort in the case of an Etopic pregnancy. So this must mean that you consider the life of a fetus as slightly less than an adult, correct?
Anyhow, I am pro-death penalty for criminals. Why do I have to constantly remind you folks that I am not a leftist and that the left vs. right spectrum is very simplistic?
spacey:
Yes, probably because an Etopic pregnancy forces you to address the idea that the life of a fetus and the mother are not equal which is contrary to what I am always told here.
zero: and my question forces you to realize that the decision with ectopic pregnancy is not the issue at hand here.
spacey:
I have already said I will answer your question. Here’s a hint: it’s a continuum and all of these things (elective vs. necessity) are intertwined.
Well, since you like to test me, there’s a hint in my posts too…
To answer your question zero no the life is not worth less.
I have actually gone through an eggtopic pregnancy with my wife and I will tell you that it tore us up. We looked at every option available to try to find a way to save our child, yes our child not fetus or unborn but child. As of right now there is not the technology available to save the child and to continue the pregnancy would kill not only the mother, but the child too. It was with very heavy heart that my wife had the injection that ended the life of our child and to this day it still hurts to think that there was nothing we could do.
Truesoldier:
OK, well let’s say there was a chance to save the life of the child but it would almost certainly (say 90%) kill your wife. What then?
What if technology made it possible to recognize the etopic pregnancy at 4 days (before a brain even appeared)? What then?
Has any one heard of an entopic pregnancy going to term? Your logic is flawed, zero. These pregnancies all end in the ovum being aborted, naturally or otherwise.
Truesolider:
Also, Etopic pregnancies do not 100% of the time kill the mother. It is possible to take the pregnancy to term. I am not saying that was the case in your particular case, but it can happen.
cicerokid:
The fetus can migrate or grow outside the womb. It’s very rare, but not impossible. I could do a search for cases, but it’s not central to my point.
Notice I answered zero’s question; yet still no answer from zero to my questions. Instead we just get a bunch of ‘what if’ scenerios.
I will cut right to the chase:
At some point in the development of a fetus it starts out as a single cell, it has no brain, no thoughts, no feelings. It can’t be called a person and is not equal to a human being.
There is a continuum all the way along. I can’t see how anyone could say an unborn child is 100% human and worthy of the same considerations as an adult right from the point of conception all the way to birth.
True:
I just asnwered your question. I was typing it the same time as this post:
But it is human life. Enlighten me, through what stages a fertilized human egg is a legitimate candidate for abortion, where the mother is not in peril.
Rogue:
Enlighten you? With what? My opinion? I’ve already said it’s a continuum.
Ok and your answer is this:
My question was this:
So am I correct in assuming that you feel that the woman should be able to choose convience as your answer appears to be hinting too? I ask as I want to make sure I am clear on this and not jump to conclusions as you did earlier.
True:
It’s a continuum. I’d have to ask how old is this hypothetical fetus in your question? My answer will be different at 5 weeks then it would at 25 weeks.
What did I jump to conclusions about? You said:
How else am I supposed to take that other than thinking that you believe any fetus is equal to an adult? What did I misunderstand?
The question is, do we really need this Health Care Package? No one fully understands it, it is not finialized, congressmen have not read it, and the public has not a clue as to what all it covers.
Kind of like signing a blank check and giving it to a panhanderler.
Mach1Duck:
Yes. I do agree there. I also don’t like the idea of public funding for abortions in principle.
Where my wife is not in peril, my answer would not. Human life is human life, unbound by the perimeters of time.
Rogue:
Does that mean that a blastocyst (that does not have a brain) is equal to a human? If yes, how?
“I knew you before you were in the womb”.
God
cicerokid:
In other words, you are claming that your particular Holy Book is the word of god. That’s no way to form the basis of laws especially since not all Americans agree and the 1st Amendment says we don’t have to.
My argument carries as much water as yours. Isn’t this a great country?
cicerokid:
What? Well, then can I invoke a deity of my choice and claim he is on my side?
Do you think our country would be so great had the founding fathers been muslim, or hindu?
cicerokid:
Once upon a time the Mid-East had a great many thinkers that made a lot of sense. Had the Muslim relgion or the Hindu religion become adopted by the Romans and later the Europeans, and had the Enlightenment and the Reinsance still occured, then yes, I don’t see how things would have turned out very differently. One of the things that sets modern Christians aside from Muslim lunatics is that Chritians have worked out which bits of the religious text are to be ignored as irrelevant in the modern age.
Apparently, “zero” doesn’t have a job…
ErinF:
Either that or a day off, or maybe I had a slow day, or maybe I get other people to do my work for me. Or maybe…
Anyhow, ad hominem isn’t going to cut it, Erin.
Classic. It MIGHT happen so I should be forced to pay taxes to fund abortions for any reason (which is what this is really about!). SHEESH
Chap,
Looks like I will be 2-4-2. You said that Obamacare would not fund Illegals or abortions. I still say yes. Whay say you now?
Soap:
You really need to read all my posts. I have agreed in this thread that I don’t like the idea of public fudning for abortions. Geeezzz… really. Please read my posts before attacking me.
Zero,
I tried. I got bored because you took the “what if” route and made it your own littel abortion thread.
The thred was about providing funds for abortions through Obummer-care.
Sorry you felt “attacked”. I ran with your first post – that is all.
Soap:
Every time I throw out some thoughts because I take issue with something someone said everyone else happily follows me off-topic. They seem to enjoy doing so. Going off-topic is apparently no big deal here.
There’s no need to apologize. I could have used another word other than “attacked.” How about “challenged” or “disputed?” Just because you got bored that is no excuse to “run with” and infer something that is not there.
Remember what assuming does?
Zero,
The same thing happens over and over when the abortion thread comes up.
You “assume” I am the only one bored with the same people doing the same routine.
It “seems” not “everyone” joined in but some people took issue with your statement which, I guess, is what you were looking for.
As far as taking the “thread jack” excuse; that was my point totally. Just because “X” happened, “Y” should not be the result i.e.;
Just because a mothers life might be in danger because she is with child does not give the gooberment the right to tax me and apply the monies for all abortions of lazy women.
Just because someone thread-jacks does not give everyone thread-jack “rights”.
Soap:
So, you and others are bored. Then why are you still in this thread? Furthermore, if you are going to be a part of the thread the least you can do is take the time to read replies instead of jumping in the middle and just making up stuff about my position.
If you don’t like the thread jack then leave.
No one in the whole length of this thread has agreed with the idea of government handing out money for abortions, not me, not anyone. So, then, rather then let the thread die, I think it’s a fine place to have an abortion debate. If you don’t like it, LEAVE.
If you’re not human, what am I to call you?
At what point are you human?
A child is not an adult. You’re just parsing different stages of development. Still human, with all the codes that will fullfil it’s potential.
Rogue:
A blastocyst.
As I have said, it is a continuum. At some point you must give a fetus (or newborn) equal status to a human being in a legal / moral sense. There’s many different frameworks you can use to come to this.
My skin cells have all the codes to become a human. Place a skin cell nucleus into a gutted egg cell and you could have a human.
That said, giving a blastocyst equal status to a newborn or an adult is nonsense. It’s no more aware then a skin cell. A cow (for example) is infinitely more aware and capable of feeling pain (which is not to say pain is the only criteria one should use).
A cow is not human.
A human blastocyst, newborn, adult, is. Who are you or am I, to judge at what point to infer human status. You cannot, I cannot. There is s definitive point and that is the fertilization of the embryo. After that, all bets are off. The rest is just development time and geography.
Rogue:
Yes, which is exactly why the life of a fetus (with a developing brain) gets a higher rating in my book. However, it’s still a continuum. A blastocyst has no brain and nothing of the sort that could be called a thinking mind. A 3rd trimester fetus is likely less “aware” then a chimpanzee, however, the fetus (in my mind) gets a higher rating.
Of course we can. I can start with the idea that a blastocyst has no mind at all. It’s no more aware than a skin cell. This is an objective fact.
No, all bets are not off. You choose this point just because it saves you the trouble of dealing with hard questions. It also results in truly bizarre moral dilemmas. Should we attempt to save a severely mutated blastocyst that will almost certainly end in a natural abortion if the technology becomes available? Should IUDs be considered murder? Culling duing IVF? There is, of course, the ESC thing as well. It’s just silly. I can’t understand why you persist with this. A blastocyst has no brain!
As I have said in the past, I must conclude that the idea of a soul has a part in this. It is the only way your argument seems to make any sense at all.
Wrong, I can deal with hard questions. I choose this point because I have come to a cosmic conclusion. I will err on the side of life as long as my wife would not be at undue risk. The vows of cleaving to my wife supercedes in the area making a hard choice between the life of my unborn or the life of my spouse.
Rogue:
Clearly you take it further. You seem to assert that a blastocyst is equal to an adult human being. Therefore, culling during IVF, IUDs, harvesting ESC, and (a new one to add to the list when the technology becomes available) allowing severely mutated unborn “children” to be naturally aborted is tantamount to murder or criminal neglect.
It’s absurd.
I never said or asserted any such thing. I said that it is human life and not for me to destroy unnecessarily. And before we had all these technologies, for thousand of years, pregancies that miscarried, typically because of a birth defect, either the unborn or some issue with the mother, were and are a natural (albeit unfortunate) progression. Murder! Criminal neglect!
Now who’s being absurd?
Rogue:
I am not the one that is claiming a blastocyst is equal to a human life, or did I misunderstand you?
Is your position that a blastocyst is a human life; however that life is worth slightly less than an adult human? If you don’t think harvesting ECS, IUDs, culling during IVF, etc. equals murder then that MUST be your position. Would you like to clarify?
…incidently, that is more or less identical to my position. Our scales of just how much concern should be given to various stages might not match up, but it seems we both attribute different levels of “value” to different stages of development.
I thought I was pretty clear. I value the human life through all stages. technologies that cull/harvest/destroy that life (ie: the taking of that life) is murder for want of a better term. Natural abortions(miscarriages) are not, for that is the natural. Intervention for the saving of my spouse is not, for the vows of cleaving supercede. (as previously stated).
Rogue:
So, as I said earlier you believe:
…and that’s “murder” for lack of a better term. I say criminal neglect because obviously everything should be done to save a human life. If the technology becomes available, would you advocate attempting to save the life of severely mutated unborn “children” that would otherwise naturally abort?
Do you think culling during IVF, IUDs, and harvesting of ESCs should be illegal? It is, after all, “murder” for lack of a better term.
If these are your positions, then that is absurd, as I have said.
Asked and answered.
Rogue:
No. You did not answer concerning the legality. You said it is “murder” for lack of a better term but that’s it. You did not say anything about legality.
Should IUDs, culling during IVF, harvesting ECS be illegal and prosecuted as murder?
Also, if technology becomes available, should every effort be made (as though it were a newborn) to save the “life” of an unborn “child” that has such severe defects it would otherwise naturally abort?
I’d like direct answers please.
And I would like a million dollars or at least a glass of milk and some Oreo cookies.
We have law that legalizes abortions, but penalizes me for driving without my seatbelt on! And you want me to parse man’s legalities for you?! Please!
Rogue:
Dodge. These are simple, straightforward questions that you apparently refuse to answer.
Seatbelts? What is your point? OK, fine you want the seatbelt laws to go away? I can dig that. I am not a fan of the nanny state anyhow. Seatbelts has nothing to do with your position on “murder” (for lack of a better term).
My questions still stand, unanswered. I can only surmise that you recognize the absurdity of your position and are attempting to deflect.
I’ve made my position clear. Your position is to not see.
Sometimes when a three year old keeps asking “Why?”, the answer is “Because”
Maybe you need to pray to God for your answers. Have you tried that yet?
Rogue:
What is unclear about my position? I have said again and again it’s a continuum. A blastocyst is no more a thinking being than my skin cell is and should be treated as such. A 3rd term fetus should (IMHO) be regarded as an innocent life. There are grey areas in between.
I do not think culling during IVF, IUD’s, or harvesting ESCs is any kind of murder. You apparently do, and I can only guess you think it should be illegal. That is absurd.
Furthermore, one wonders if you think a severely mutated unborn “child” that would otherwise be naturally aborted deserves efforts to save its life. I certainly hope not. That is bizarre and arguably inhumane.
That is also the stock answer given when one cannot explain an absurd position.
We both know he won’t answer.
…and just so you don’t fall back on the “well what makes a 3rd trimester fetus a human?” answer, I will answer it now. It’s subjective and arbitrary points must be chosen. Otherwise, you end up with the absurd position you hold.
That would be my argument also. Just because you have the tech to pull such tragedy before the body rejects it, does not mean you should, unless you also have the tech to later correct such mutations without causing inhumane pain. (see corrective heart surgery in the womb)
As you said arbitrary, who chooses such points, you? Me? Other men? The ego of it all!
Absurd or not, my position errs on the side of human life. Your position depends on which way the frickin wind blows, or which way somebody else tells you it’s blowing.
Rogue:
Thank goodness. well, then having said that, you must admit that such a severly mutated “life” should not be given the same considerations as an adult human. Afterall, the corrective procedures would be something on a genetic level and would completely change the very nature of that “life.”
I still don’t see an answer to my questions on whether or not you think culling during IVF, IUDs, or harvesting should be illegal. You have said it’s “murder” (for lack of a better term). Well is it enough “murder” that it should be treated legally as “murder?”
I’m sure enough sensible people could work it out. Afterall, who decides our laws right now? Certainly not an invisible deity. It is you, me, and other men and women. The ego of it all! Imagining that we could make laws for ourselves!
Your position also seems to come out against IUD birth control and culling during IVF. Culling during IVF makes it possible for people who would not otherwise be able to have children to have a child (as opposed to 8 children, for example, putting all 8 at risk BTW). It also seem to come out against the ability to produce ESCs that might be necessary to cure certain kinds of disease or otherwise. In those senses your position might err on the side of the “life” of an entity that has no mind and certainly no more feelings, thoughts, or “life” than my skin cell; however it errs against the lives of others (unborn multiples or living adults). My position seems to be the one erring on the side of life, not yours.
Just like every other law we have.
Do those techniques not take human life?
Do we not already have laws against the taken of human life?
Are other laws that provide for these techinques not in direct conflict?
ESCs are a red herring. There is no science that points to ESCs curing anything. Adult stem cells however, have provided promising results, thus negating the need to take a human life in the odd chance of saving another sometime in the future. Is that your position? Exchange one life for another?
How about I kill you now, so that some bum can live down the road later? Sounds equitable to me.
Rogue:
Obviously, it depends on how you define a “human life.” As I have said, I do not think a thing without a brain can be considered a “human life.” It’s the idea of personhood. Come on dude, surely you expected this response, I have been saying it all along.
Anyhow, address my points. I contend your postion is the one that errs against human life as I have previously laid out.
Rogue:
ESCs show real promise. Do I have to quote the Mayo Clinic as I have on these threads in the past? Adult stem cells are not as plastic. Period. They are limited in what they can do.
Besides, you ignored my point about culling.
Rogue:
I have a brain, feelings, memories, thoughts, an idea of self. A blastocyst has none of those things, at all. No more than my skin cell.
Rogue:
You deny research that could very well lead to huge medical breakthroughs. It doesn’t matter is the technology is years away, it’s still possible.
You deny couples that could not otherwise have children the chance to have children without having to likely have absurd numbers of multiples as opposed to one child.
You deny couples that might not be ready for children a near ironclad method of birth control.
Why? All because you regard a thing that is no more a thinking, conscious, living entity then a Myxozoa (the most simple animal I can think of) as a “human life.” Its positively absurd and does not err on the side of life.
…sorry for the rapid fire posts, I am doing several things at once and various thoughts are coming to me at differnet times.
I cannot define the begining of human life other than the miracle of the fertilized egg. To do so at some other point in time after such, is arbitrary and subjective. Until such time that your idea of human life and mine coincide, we will forever be at odds. And you will forever be erring on the side of death for the future unknown.
Rogue:
No, that’s not completely accurate. Let’s err on the side of extreme caution and say the point at which at least a single neuron differentiates (ok two neurons, you need synapses after all). That is well after the blastocyst stage and is not subjective. At least there you have something that would later make up a CNS.
Nonsense. There is no mind to kill in a blastocyst. In any case, as stated, you would insist that parents that desire IVF bare multiples (risking death), you insist couples that use IUDs are murders, and you deny very promising life saving research. You are the one on the side of death.
You win. You know when human life begins and I don’t. Kill away.
Rogue:
Oh don’t be like that. I thought we were having a civil conversation on a Friday afternoon. It’s an objective fact that a human needs a brain to have a mind.
I can’t imagine you would say that a completely (and I mean completely, zero brain activity save for the brain-stem) brain-dead person that is in every sense of the word a vegetable should be considered “alive” simply because the heart still beats.
How then, can you call something without a single neuron, “alive?”
Surely, you can agree that an objective point in the development of a fetus would be when at least one neuron forms? No?
…heck a blastocyst doesn’t even have a brain-stem.
…or a heart for that matter. It’s a clump of cells, literally.
But hey, what of it’s potential? I thought you were the one all about future potential. (see ECS) Convenient flip flop.
We are. But I have to go now. I don’t know when I’ll be able to post for a while.
Rogue:
Don’t be silly. There’s a sperm cell in you right now and an egg cell in a woman you don’t know that has potential to combine to become a unique human being. You better go find this woman and sleep with her otherwise you are taking away this child’s only chance at life!
In any event, there’s no flip flop at all. I am talking about two entirely different kinds of potential. In the one sense, potential for life-saving medicine, and in the other sense, the potential exsistance of a human mind that does not yet exist. Come on. You can do better.
I am sorry to hear this. I don’t expect that you will return but I hope I’ve given you something to think about.
Likewise I’m sure.
Rogue:
I think it just confirms in my mind the idea of a soul is at the center of this. Naturally my mind is made up on this. However, I can see how you would think the way you do if you thought a soul entered the egg upon fertilization. That is what you believe is it not?