Pro-life group urges Congress to pass Senate health care bill


IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pro-life-group-urges-congress-pass-senate-health-care-bill

good to see some rationality from the conservative side as well as someone who actually read the bill ;)
Wow... one of those 'social justice' advocacy, faux Catholic groups that Glenn Beck warned us about, founded just a few years ago in 2005, signs on to Senate bill despite its clear abortion advocacy! How could a real Catholic organization do that? Let's hear what real Catholic Bishops have to say:

Catholic bishops send message to faithful: We oppose ObamaCare - Stop Abortion Funding in Health Care Reform!
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3-11-2010
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/UPDATED-bulletin-insert.pdf
"I am deeply disappointed that the current un-amended Senate health care bill fails to maintain the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion and does not include adequate protection for conscience. I urge you to support essential provisions against abortion funding, similar to those in the House bill. Include full conscience protection and ensure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. I urge you to oppose any bill unless and until these criteria are met.”
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
(Also, I don't like to be a grammar Nazi, but that agreement mistake is rather easy to catch for most)
Yeah, the forum rules don't like grammar Nazis either.

Minor Problems

12.Corrections. There is no need to point out another poster's spelling or grammatical errors unless you think it is causing confusion. Remember that not all members are native English speakers. Communication, not correctness, is our goal. Examples: Don't correct members who spell Mac in all caps or who call the iPod touch an iTouch.
 

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA
Wow... one of those 'social justice' advocacy, faux Catholic groups that Glenn Beck warned us about, founded just a few years ago in 2005, signs on to Senate bill despite its clear abortion advocacy! How could a real Catholic organization do that? Let's hear what real Catholic Bishops have to say:

Catholic bishops send message to faithful: We oppose ObamaCare - Stop Abortion Funding in Health Care Reform!
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3-11-2010
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/UPDATED-bulletin-insert.pdf
"I am deeply disappointed that the current un-amended Senate health care bill fails to maintain the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion and does not include adequate protection for conscience. I urge you to support essential provisions against abortion funding, similar to those in the House bill. Include full conscience protection and ensure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. I urge you to oppose any bill unless and until these criteria are met.”


Umm sorry, the Senate bill clearly says no federal money can pay for abortions.

It simply allows people to buy with THEIR OWN money, an UNSUBSIDIZED insurance plan through the exchange that will cover reproductive services.

Way to distort facts to push your own agenda.
 

Surely

Guest
Oct 27, 2007
15,043
8
Los Angeles, CA
Yeah, the forum rules don't like grammar Nazis either.
:rolleyes:


Umm sorry, the Senate bill clearly says no federal money can pay for abortions.

It simply allows people to buy with THEIR OWN money, an UNSUBSIDIZED insurance plan through the exchange that will cover reproductive services.

Way to distort facts to push your own agenda.
Welcome to PRSI: where, for some people, facts are just minor inconveniences.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
Umm sorry, the Senate bill clearly says no federal money can pay for abortions.
The moderate Democrats dispute this claim and are clearly against the bill, calling their action courage against Pelosi's lies... of course the abortion provision is still in the Senate bill... it was never removed! That was the whole point of the Stupak Amendment in the House that the Senate rejected! As Americans we cannot support federal funds paying for abortions ending lives of American children. Vote against this health care disaster...

Abortion Foe Calls Health Care Resistance A Sign Of 'Courage'
A dozen socially conservative Democrats say they won't support the legislation without a prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money. Stupak wrote a provision to their liking for a House bill approved last November, but the Senate replaced it with wording he considers unacceptable. With the House closely divided, opposition from his faction could doom the measure and cripple Barack Obama's presidency.
 

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA
The moderate Democrats dispute this claim and are clearly against the bill, calling their action courage against Pelosi's lies... of course the abortion provision is still in the Senate bill... it was never removed! That was the whole point of the Stupak Amendment in the House that the Senate rejected! As Americans we cannot support federal funds paying for abortions ending lives of American children. Vote against this health care disaster...

Abortion Foe Calls Health Care Resistance A Sign Of 'Courage'
A dozen socially conservative Democrats say they won't support the legislation without a prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money. Stupak wrote a provision to their liking for a House bill approved last November, but the Senate replaced it with wording he considers unacceptable. With the House closely divided, opposition from his faction could doom the measure and cripple Barack Obama's presidency.
You don't actually read anything anyone posts do you?

I posted an excerpt from the bill that clearly states the abortion language.

You are wrong.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
I posted an excerpt from the bill that clearly states the abortion language.
You're right - and I did note - what you illustrated; you posted an anonymous photo excerpt, unlinked to any authoritative source, that shows two paragraphs out of 2,000+ pages, of language the Senate has cobbled together detailing nothing at all about supposed state requirements. Meanwhile a dozen socially conservative Democrats, AND EVERY REPUBLICAN, wants some straightforward prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money! If the "language" on abortion is not in bill, as you allege, why are Democrats so fearful of adding a proviso against abortion funding? One sentence will do it. One sentence added to 2,000+ page bill? C'mon... one sentence....
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
The bill should allow payment for abortions. Abortions are a legal medical procedure in this country. Banning payment for abortions would be akin to banning payment for open heart surgery, especially if not having an abortion would put the mothers' health in danger.
 

Surely

Guest
Oct 27, 2007
15,043
8
Los Angeles, CA
The bill should allow payment for abortions. Abortions are a legal medical procedure in this country. Banning payment for abortions would be akin to banning payment for open heart surgery, especially if not having an abortion would put the mothers' health in danger.
Agreed.
 

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA
You're right - and I did note - what you illustrated; you posted an anonymous photo excerpt, unlinked to any authoritative source, that shows two paragraphs out of 2,000+ pages, of language the Senate has cobbled together detailing nothing at all about supposed state requirements. Meanwhile a dozen socially conservative Democrats, AND EVERY REPUBLICAN, wants some straightforward prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money! If the "language" on abortion is not in bill, as you allege, why are Democrats so fearful of adding a proviso against abortion funding? One sentence will do it. One sentence added to 2,000+ page bill? C'mon... one sentence....
Because prohibiting people from buying their own coverage, with their own money that includes reproductive services would be changing current law.

But I don't expect you to understand this.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Abortions are already funded by the government 100% for those who meet income qualifications.
(edit) Rape, incest or life of mother in danger.

Read and decide for yourself. The third link is the bill that is under consideration.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:6:./temp/~c111fnqLYb::

ITN, there are procedureal reasons you can't just add that one little sentence. Reconciliation is for budgetary changes, not policy changes. But, I'm sure they taught you that at your college. Refresh my memory, where did you go to school?
 

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA
(edit) Rape, incest or life of mother in danger.

Read and decide for yourself. The third link is the bill that is under consideration.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:6:./temp/~c111fnqLYb::

ITN, there are procedureal reasons you can't just add that one little sentence. Reconciliation is for budgetary changes, not policy changes. But, I'm sure they taught you that at your college. Refresh my memory, where did you go to school?
Wow, so the conservatives want to force women who are raped to have the children? AWESOME!

Oh the mother is going to die, unless she has an abortion, KILL THE MOTHER!

Wow just wow, conservatives hurt my brain.
 

StruckANerve

macrumors 6502
Dec 31, 2008
392
0
Rio Rancho, NM
(edit) Rape, incest or life of mother in danger.

Those are the only times it should be covered under a public insurance plan. Any other abortions are nothing more than birth control and should have to be paid out of pocket by the individual. I am also wondering what kind of stuff will be in this Health Plan regarding in-vitro and other types of similar procedures because those should not be covered either.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
I am also wondering what kind of stuff will be in this Health Plan regarding in-vitro and other types of similar procedures because those should not be covered either.

Why? I'm assuming you think it's the mother's fault or father's fault that they have a medical condition that causes them to be infertile. I am not advocating paying for it, but why are you so against it?