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.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #835160
   On November 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 pm, Michael said:

   What? No one has an opinion on an abortion piece? Obviously the attention of MM readers is glued on election results.

   Stupak is correct in being concerned because he tried to add a pro-life amendement and was told in no uncertain terms by Pelosi, “no way.”

   Typical doublespeak on the abortion issue from Democrats. I’m surprised they tolerate Stupak in their midst.

   Michael Swartz
   http://www.monoblogue.us

2. #835170
   On November 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm, Dan Lee said:

   Most of us are too busy reading too deeply into the election results in NJ,VA, & the close race in NY, & fooling ourselves into thinking Obama’s influence has diminished, & that this is a referendum on Obama & the Democratic party..

   /sarc off

3. #835171
   On November 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm, California Red said:

   But the Republicans are the ones that are blocking Obama’s reforms. It’s the Republicans that are in the midst of a civil war over party ideology. It’s the Republicans fault the Democrats can’t get anything done with control of the House, Senate, and White House. We are not allowed to say that the Democrats are the party in disarray.

4. #835183
   On November 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm, b-cat said:

   Whatever Fox News says about this is not news.

5. #835263
   On November 4th, 2009 at 12:00 am, Republicanvet said:

   Abortion foes are upset that the measure would require plans that offer elective abortion services to set aside at least a dollar a month from each of their patient’s private premium dollars in an account strictly apart from any federal funds.

   I’m sure each of the plans that allow this would certainly highlight the fact that money from the premiums would be set aside for abortions.

   /sarc

   If leftists are so rabid about abortion, why not create a separate fund where they can donate to fund them themselves? Why force everyone to pay for them, other than greedy Planned “Parent”hood, and the leftists collecting campaign donations from them.

6. #835269
   On November 4th, 2009 at 12:07 am, emjem24 said:

   Why do the Dems need abortion to be in this bill? So the bill isn’t intrusive enough without this aspect? Why is it even part of this legislation?

   Yes, I know… too obvious questions to ask.

   Here’s a cost effective measure: using birth control to prevent “unwanted” preganancies that Dems continue to say is the reason abortion is needed. How much anguish, lives, and unnecessary expenditure would that save?

7. #835287
   On November 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am, simcoe said:

   Hey, Dem, what would you take from your president, that is not his to give away to begin with, for your affirmative vote? What would you take in lieu of an aborted ripped to shreds or chemically burned to death in the womb baby? Or your affirmative vote to have its brain suctioned out through its nose baby? One who never hurt another living soul, depending on you for every need except it breath to sustain its innocent little life baby?

   What is your price, Dem?? Fill in the blank check.

   Would you fill it in with enough money to hire five of your family members for your office?

   Would you take enough for a new limo? Enough for a new winter condo on the slopes or summer home at the beach or on the lakeshore?

   Would you take that cabinet post?

   Would you take an eternity in HELL?

   But you’re still alive. Therefore, it’s not to late to repent and seek forgiveness from your Creator God.

8. #835297
   On November 4th, 2009 at 12:46 am, Reg.conservative said:

   .R. 3962, the Pelosi Health Care Bill:
   Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government;
   Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage;
   Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care;
   Page 255—Section 345 does not include a requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits;
   Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign;
   Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”— with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts;
   Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs;
   Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage;
   Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000;
   Page 1174— Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000.

9. #835363
   On November 4th, 2009 at 5:55 am, BadIdeaGuy said:

   Abortions may be performed by licensed doctors, but I don’t consider them “health care”. Pregnancy may cause illness symptoms, but it’s not an illness.

   It makes me sad to think that so many in Congress would cast their lot with those who view the unborn like some sort of a tumor.

   I guess death panels aside, is there anything in the bill prohibiting assisted suicide? Since this administration isevidently dedicated to honoring Peter Singer ‘ethics’ at every juncture, we may want to discuss this too.

10. #835390
    On November 4th, 2009 at 7:03 am, rooster said:

    CNSNews.com
    Since April, 114 Children Have Died from H1N1 — but 700,000 Have Died from Abortion
    Tuesday, November 03, 2009

    So the marxist in chief has declared the swine flu a national emergency?

11. #835461
    On November 4th, 2009 at 9:01 am, Truesoldier said:

    Abortion foes are upset that the measure would require plans that offer elective abortion services to set aside at least a dollar a month from each of their patient’s private premium dollars in an account strictly apart from any federal funds.

    Obviously they are setting the funds aside, so they can claim they are not federal $’s and can be used for abortion. Here is the big question, if you have this account and never use it where does the money go to? My guess is that it will go to pay for abortions for those who dont have enough in their account…Just one more way to redistribute the wealth.

12. #836002
    On November 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Abortion foes are upset that the measure would require plans that offer elective abortion services to set aside at least a dollar a month from each of their patient’s private premium dollars in an account strictly apart from any federal funds.

    Too bad no one thought of this earlier. The Nazis could have taxed the Jews to build Buchenwald.

    I guess this is what’s known as a “Progressive Idea.”