 |
|
| Religion Forum Index » Christian Orthodox Forum » Abortion still alive in ObamaCare... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ~AGG~... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Abortion still alive in ObamaCare
Urgent: E-mail your representative and two senators today!
November 2, 2009
Despite repeated attempts by pro-life legislators on both sides of the
aisle, taxpayer funding for abortion is back with a vengeance in ObamaCare
proposals.
Thus far, all 17 proposed amendments that would prohibit taxpayer funding
for abortion in ObamaCare have been defeated, and pro-life Congressman Bart
Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, said of the House's 2,000-page bill (H.R.
3962), "Language in the bill still does not do enough to prevent federal
funding from going to abortion services.
"I am disappointed the Capps Amendments has remained intact (in the House
bill), mandating abortion services for the first time in the nation's
history."
To help you understand just how far reaching this bill will be, AFA is
hosting a free live webcast on Tuesday, November 3, at 8:30 p.m. EST. We'll
also answer your questions by email about health care live on air.
Register now for the free live webcast Tuesday, Nov. 3 at (no spam) 8:30 p.m. EST for
"Government Takeover of Health Care: Counting the Costs"
http://action.afa.net/webcast/HealthCareSummit.aspx?id=2147489220
In the Senate version, the 10% of doctors who submit the most reimbursements
for Medicare patients will have their pay docked by five percent. This
inevitably will lead to rationing of care for seniors, and make "death
panels" inevitable as doctors strain to stay below the threshold.
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) describes the House bill this way: "This
2,000-page bill includes a job-killing employer mandate, an individual
mandate that requires Washington bureaucrats to define what kind of coverage
is acceptable, burdensome tax increases, Medicare cuts, and a huge expansion
of Medicaid that will break already strained state budgets." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ~AGG~... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alexander Arnakis" <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7081f5pi7l7bhlrc5a7cju0j2mbqe8bucj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:04:17 -0500, "~AGG~"
Australian_Capital_Territory at (no spam) Pacific-Rim.act.au> wrote:
***Problem: By not specifically banning federal funds for abortions,
interpretations are open to finding loopholes (the so-called stealth
method)
so that federal funds can be used to kill unborn children. Every time the
GOP tried to introduce an amendment to forbid funding of abortions, the
Democrats shot it down. You cannot defend the Democrats' actions, Alex.
The world would be a better place if someone had aborted *you* in the
womb! Fucking asshole.
Democrats' concerns over abortion may imperil health bill
Bloc could withhold support over fears of a governmental role
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
While House leaders are moving toward a vote on health-care legislation by
the end of the week, enough Democrats are threatening to oppose the measure
over the issue of abortion to create a question about its passage.
House leaders were still negotiating Monday with the bloc of Democrats
concerned about abortion provisions in the legislation, saying that they
could lead to public funding of the procedure. After an evening meeting of
top House Democrats, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) said, "We are
making progress," but added that they had not reached an agreement.
The outcome of those talks could be crucial in deciding the fate of the
health-care bill. Democrats need the vast majority of their caucus to back
the bill, since nearly all congressional Republicans have said they will
oppose the legislation.
"I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the
floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is
allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said
last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation --
enough to derail the bill.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast Stupak as
"attempting to ban abortion coverage in the private insurance market."
The abortion dispute centers both on federal subsidies that would be
provided for people who cannot afford health-care coverage themselves and
the much-debated government insurance alternative, which is included in the
House version of the bill but is still being debated in the Senate. Under a
1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions,
except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother.
Democratic leaders early this summer backed a provision that would allow
people to use subsidies under the bill to buy insurance plans that cover
abortion, but only funds from individual or employer health-care premiums
could go toward paying for an abortion. Effectively, insurance companies
would be tasked with segregating money from government payments from those
coming from private sources, and only the latter could be used for abortion.
But Stupak and some Democrats, along with congressional Republicans, have
criticized this provision as an accounting distinction. They say the federal
subsidies and the private payments are combined for a person to buy a health
plan; therefore, federal dollars are helping fund insurance plans that allow
abortions.
In July, during the debate on the legislation in the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, Stupak unsuccessfully tried to insert a provision that
would bar any health-care plan that covers abortions from being included in
the health-care exchanges the law would set up for people to buy insurance.
The Senate rejected a similar effort last month in its bill.
Conservative groups such as National Right to Life have also blasted
allowing the government-insurance option to cover abortions. They say the
cost of such abortions would be paid through the government because it would
run the plan.
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signed by 183 lawmakers
who Stupak helped organize, a group of mainly Republicans wrote: "The U.S.
government should not be in the business of promoting abortion as health
care. Real health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking
life."
Keenan said a provision such as Stupak's would cut abortion coverage from
the health plans of women if their employers decided to enroll in the
health-care exchange. But after spending many of the past several days on
Capitol Hill working on the bill, she said she wasn't sure if there are
enough House votes to pass it with the current abortion language in it.
"It's too close to call," she said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:19 am
|
|