Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Senate rejects Nelson amendment on abortion

By Shailagh Murray
The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.

The measure, which failed 54-45, addressed the scope of restrictions on coverage of abortion services for people who receive subsidies to buy insurance. The outcome was expected, but could cost the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has threatened to filibuster the $848 billion bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Reid told reporters earlier Tuesday afternoon he would consider other language to allay Nelson's concerns. "If in fact he doesn't succeed here, we'll try something else," Reid said.

The vote came amid intense final negotiations on the bill, as Reid aims to wrap up debate on amendments and begin a long procedural stand-off with Republicans -- possibly extending 10 days -- before the bill can come to a final vote before Christmas.

Nelson also is participating in talks to establish an alternative to the public insurance option, and said he would continue to negotiate with Reid and his colleagues on the overall bill. "People are talking," he said before the abortion vote. "And that's usually a good thing."

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 8, 2009; 5:37 PM ET
Categories:  Health Reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Progress on public-option alternatives, but abortion amendment expected to fail
Next: House approves massive spending bill, D.C. budget

Comments

It's amazing how conservative our politics have become. Democrats propose a watered-down, pro-insurance, pro-pharma health reform bill, and it's treated like a single-payer, communist health-care takeover. And here's the latest example--a Democrat, of all people, threatening to filibuster his own party's light-weight, tilting-to-the-right-at-every-opportunity bill. Truly mind-blowing.

Posted by: dhenken1 | December 8, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Although I'm glad it failed, this requirement of 60 votes for everything is madness. We are rapidly moving towards dysfunction. We can only be thankful we don't have federal term limits and a super-majority for budget matters, otherwise we would definitely have collapsed by now.

Better that laws and budgets can be passed by a majority as in the House and in the Constitution. If we don't like them, or they don't work out, we'll vote different people in, either through primaries or general elections.

Posted by: Hopeful9 | December 8, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I think it's time to start looking for replacements for these anti-abortion Democrats that Pelosi welcomed into the party last election year.

If they are going to hold Democratic agendas hostage to their marginal anti-abortion interests, they don't belong in the party.

Another thing that guy Nelson is narrowly contesting: he's vying with Liebermann as "top drama queen of the health care reform senate debate".

Posted by: ephemerella | December 8, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

im just wondering why white men are shaping abortion under the health bills? seems stupid and odd to me!

Posted by: AllforOne | December 8, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

why don't you democrats practice birth control instead of killing babies? Also, why should others pay for your killing of the babies thru government insurance? Stupid is as stupid does and the democrat socialist party is the party of stupid.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | December 8, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Tilting to the right. If you are so far to the left that there is nothing to your left, I guess your comment is correct. And let's get off the men vs women on abortion. Women voted when there was a draft (male only), on combat troops (supposedly only mail) and various other bills. You can't choose only what you want. I guess there wouldn't be an opportunity for women to vote if men had to abstain on that Amendment. And should adults over 21 have voted to let 18 year olds vote?? Enough said!

Posted by: terencekahn | December 8, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Geez. Dealing with the Nelsons and Stupaks of the world is like going into battle and having your own troops shoot you in the back. Give them an inch and they want to take the whole damn mile.

Posted by: hoos3014 | December 8, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

So the democrats public option will cover abortion. I guess he did lie after all.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | December 8, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Term Limits would put them all on notice.
Term Limits would stop CAREER politicians from having life long corruption and deal cutting.

Abortion is MURDER!

Posted by: GregBoo | December 8, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"Charlietuna:" Yup, no question, I'm sure that every woman who ever requested an abortion, regardless of her age, options in life or level of education, was a Democrat who had refused to use birth control.

Come off it.

Posted by: Hyperlocal | December 8, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link:

How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 8 Number 2 Summer 2003...

Imagine all those babies the Liberals killed since 1973. Most of them could have contributed to society to the point where Social Security would not be in the mess that's it's in now and more tax revenue would have been generated.

Of course, there would have been a percentage that would have been on welfare voting Moonbat-Liberal-Communist as well.

Posted by: ANTILIB | December 8, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Dhenken1: you're missing the point. Almost any serious policy analyst will tell you this bill fails to address the growth in healthcare costs. In fact, last week's CBO analysis showed that the bill makes healthcare "affordable" by using govt subsidies, not by bringing down costs, and as a result, it will lead to unsustainable deficits w/o improving the overall system. Who cares if the bill is pro-pharma, pro-insurance, or pro-anything? What matters is whether it is good policy. It is not. It's dreadful.

Posted by: bdiddy2 | December 8, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

dhenkin1. I cannot understand how you can possibly say our politics have become conservative. We are closer to becomming a socialist nation because of a Marxist president and his communist administration. Try recognizing the truth which I know is hard for you.

Posted by: justsal123 | December 8, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

It is high and sad comedy for the senate to debate this 'bill' before a constitutional amendment has passed actually authorizing the federal government to insert itself in the health care/insurance system. Yes MediCare IS unconstitutional.

Posted by: akersk | December 8, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Mao 40,000,000
Stalin 20,000,000
Hitler 42,000,000 (war/civilians)
Abortions in the U.S. since 1973 50,000,000

Posted by: EliPeyton | December 8, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Like it or not, the Constitutional Convention created the Senate as a SOP to the small colonies to get unanimous consent. It is 100% UNdemocratic, and in modern times it has become even more so.
Zum Beispiel: there are 44 Senators, including Nelson from sparsely populated Nebraska, who come from 22 States that have a combined LESS Population than California - in the 1990 and 2000 census.

Bad and UNdemocratic as the Senate has always been; what makes matters worse these days are the rigged and gerrymandered House Districts that favour minorities, and insure incumbent victories. The ONLY PART OF THE US GOVERNMENT DESIGNGED TO BE DEMOCRATIC, has become completely undemocratic because Baker v. Carr has been turned upside/down by incumbents, minority preferences, and money.

Churchill said the "only cure for democracy is more of it"; the sway of money with modern media, TV, Carl Rove politics, etc. result in control of the US by Khazar/Zionists, the economy held captive to gamblers in finance, and a "health" system that is bankrupting any chance of solvency.

so, what else is new. Hitler advised the German to "Erwachen". We can't.

Posted by: awareadams | December 8, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

If men got pregnant we wouldn't be discussing this on any level.

Socialist you say....our military is a "socialist" program. You republican's want to end our military...

Posted by: sillygirl2 | December 8, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

charlietuna: the pro-life crowd is overreaching here. the cost of abortion coverage is a negligible portion of your premium dollar at best. it's simply not true that a tax subsidy that makes basic health care affordable for some amounts to tax dollars for abortion just because the policy covers it. next they'll argue that the deductibility of insurance premiums should be ended for policies that cover abortion because the itemized deduction amounts to tax dollars for abortion.

there's no reason to make women purchase a separate rider out of pocket, assuming one is offered by many insurance plans, just to make someone who probably does nothing to actually reduce the number of abortions able to pander to the pro life voters who don't do anything to change the climate that leads to abortion other than whine about Roe v. Wade either.

Posted by: JoeT1 | December 8, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

As a Canadian, I cannot believe the ramblings of the anti-abortion crowd,Republican or Democrat when it comes to the potential usurping of Roe v. Wade, which having stood for 36 years, is being used as a tool by both sides of the aisle as a talking point to get their own way - disgraceful !!

It was ensconced by The Supreme Court of the United States of America, no more and no less than the anointment of Geo. W. Bush as President of the United States in 2000(1) after a joke perpetrated in Florida.

They should be ashamed of such tactics in their ingracious attempts to defile the hard-won battle on behalf of the women in the USA and the rights they have under Roe v. Wade.

This has NO place in the annals of the Senate, and is a mockery of their job to finally get health coverage for ALL Americans, as we do here in Canada.

'Tis to weep, 'tis to weep for your country and its values being strewn all over the floor of the Senate in ANYTHING but a 'democratric' fashion by these two so-called bipartisan members, one of each stripe.

I say get rid of them both, and/or find them out of order. This isn't about abortion, it's about human rights and the religious right and the money-monger healthcare companies have no place in the debate.

They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

It is wrong that one or two senators can hold this bill hostage by insisting on an anti-choice amendment based on their religious beliefs. The argument goes that anti-choicers shouldn't have their tax money fund a procedure they object to.

How about opposing to pay for lung cancer treatments for smokers? They brought their illness on themselves, after all. How about opposing pay to for diabetes treatments caused by bad dietary habits? How about opposing to pay for long term care for paraplegics who didn't wear seat belts?

Posted by: gillyala | December 8, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is not Health Care. Those who support it are do it are commiting a grave evil. Those countries that support and fund
this type of behavior think they are
modern and up to date, but they are basically backwards and barbaric. Hopefully
more people will grow in moral clarity
on this issue in the future before we have
no future.


Posted by: johnw4 | December 8, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

gillyala right on!

Posted by: sillygirl2 | December 8, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The preamble to our Constitution statesthat "We the people" establish our government to "form" a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. A healthy citizenry is clearly an asset both to domestic tranquility and to the common defense, and good health is undeniably an intrinsic component of the general welfare.
Abraham Lincoln stated that our government is one which is "by the people for the people."

Posted by: bstrauss0913 | December 8, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

charlietuna666 |
WROTE "why don't you democrats practice birth control instead of killing babies? Also, why should others pay for your killing of the babies thru government insurance? Stupid is as stupid does and the democrat socialist party is the party of stupid".

Charlietuna666

You're a perfect example of why there should be abortion. And, why should I pay for wars and other things I don't agree with?

You probably don't even know what Socialism is, and if you had any smarts, you would realize that it's the "Democratic" party, not Democrat. That's one of the assinine comments the Republicraps keep repeating. GET A LIFE.

Posted by: girard73 | December 8, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

GREAT!!!!

This atrocious bill is now DEAD!

All Americans should rejoice!

Posted by: LoonyLeft | December 8, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

A Moron Asked: "im just wondering why white men are shaping abortion under the health bills? seems stupid and odd to me!"

Let me break it down for you in really easy to understand language. Each state has representatives that are voted in by the people of that state. That includes people that are black, and people that are women.

Now these representatives go to work for you making laws.

Here's a quick fact for you. A poll from October showed that 54% of black voters in Nevada approved of Harry Reid and more women approved of him over men.

So, that's how white men like Harry Reid get to decide on abortion.

Make sense? Now if we could only get the unborn babies to decide on abortion, that would be the way to do it.

http://www.RightWingInc.com

Posted by: RightWingInc_com | December 8, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

sillygirl2 You are truly silly and ignornat I might add. Defense is one of the constitutional mandates of the govco. Unlike the healthcare, education, social security and bunch of other programs that have been bankrupting this great country

Posted by: charlie11z | December 8, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

To the pro-lifers who think that this means abortion will be funded by your taxes: This amendment only allows PRIVATE insurance to fund abortions. Public funds are not allowed to fund abortion, despite the fact that it is a safe and legal procedure.

Posted by: pmax | December 8, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, but isn't abortion, whether you like it or not, currently recognized as a Constitutional Right? How can you not provide funding for a recognized constitutional right. Why is this so difficult to understand.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | December 8, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is not health care, but an intervention causing the death of an innocent person. More likely than not the interventional murder is for convenience-not necessarily the woman's, but for somebody's convenience. Having counseled grieving women post-abortion, my conclusions are that most women with continuing support are able to carry their babies to full-term and make better decisions regarding their choice to keep or adopt rather than have the baby killed.

Posted by: char_im | December 8, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

pardon me....how has it become my moral obligation to pay for someone's abortion as it is currently disguised as 'healthcare"? No, this is not healthcare....it is an option not predicated on anyone's healthcare. i choose whether im going to have sex or not...and live or not live with the consequences. on the other hand, i do not choose a brain tumor, breast cancer, etc.

Posted by: schechter40 | December 8, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Eli Peyton - Your arithmatic is scandalous. The war mongers you mention did their awful deeds in short order considering the 36 years since Roe v. Wade.

It's disingenuous to verily state that 50 million abortions have taken place in that 36 years without taking into consideration the actual NEED for most likely the vast majority of them for health reasons or simply fending off an eventual miscarriage that could end up in death for the female.

Also, if an embryo is determined to be malformed and definitely NOT to develope into a feasable human being, it is the need, no the DUTY of the system to aid the pregnant female by informing her of such and recommending termination.

It DOES get ugly and by FAR, the vast minority of abortions are performed simply because the woman does not want nor desire a child at all or at the time she has found out that she has conceived.

That's her right under Roe v. Wade. NOTHING else matters.

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Okay - You want to kill your baby. Don't make me pay for it.
Your choice.

Posted by: Sophie1970 | December 8, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

THANK YOU JONATHAN ALTER!!

Ed Schultz is nice and means no harm...BUT HE IS WRONG!.....

I support this bill if it will stop these d*am phamacutical companies from going up on prescription ASAP!

I support this bill because I pay for my own private insurance and I want to be able to get insurance that won't discriminate me for having pre-existing conditions!

I support this bill BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE FIVE LIBERALS WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSEVADEMS DON'T SELL US DOWN THE ROAD...

ANOTHER THING ALL POLITICS IS GOING TO BE LOCAL FROM THIS DAY ON

ANOTHER THING ED - OBAMA IS NOT THIN-SKINNED A LITTLE NAIVE BUT NOT RIGHTLY THIN-SKINNED...IF HE CAN TAKE THE TEABAGGERS

REPUBLICANS YOU WON'T GET BACK IN

Posted by: dove369 | December 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Any assertion that Nancy Pelosi needs to get her party in line is ridiculous, Ben Nelson has the highest approval rating of any member of Congress, higher than that of the president even. The Conservative wing of the Democratic Party was crucial to the Democratic Congressional victories in the last two elections, and they have as much right for their voices to be heard as for Nancy Pelosi and her exceeding low-popularity ratings have. This debate needs to stop being so polarized, so polarizing, so that some actual change can be effected, and the American people can get Health coverage, our system is predicated upon compromise.

Posted by: piedphifer | December 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

It's a Constitutionally protected RIGHT for crying out loud. It's amazing how the Republican Taliban in America has undercut a woman's right to choose.

The vote should not even have been close. If you don't like abortion, don't get one, but you have no right to keep others from it. When you try to do that, you're just trying to force your religious beliefs onto others, like, you know, the Taliban does in Afghanistan.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | December 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Well there are some religious people who are truly scared to vote for a pro-choice candidate because they think they will go to hell if they do. It is such a polarizing issue to say the least and because so much of America is so religious, the better candidates will lose elections on issues like gays and abortion. As much as some Dems and a couple of Republicans in the northeast, try to take a middle ground on these issues don't do well. I think that much of the White American south has been entrenched in these issues that everything else doesn't make sense.

Posted by: dave51473 | December 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Only a soulless REPROBATE
could
support
this
BILL .

It opens the gate to unimaginable EVIL .

Drs will be performing abortions and selling STEM CELLS !

The HEATHENS running this country are effing JAKELS !

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | December 8, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

iceman12:

Thank God you can't vote here. How about you just worry re: Canada's politics?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

A poser with multiple choice answers:

Three perfectly fine, healthy instances of Human DNA go into a room ... but only two come out. What happened?

A) An Execution

B) A Murder

C) A Choice

If you picked A or B, there is hope for us.

Posted by: MDDem1 | December 8, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

It's the holidays, lighten up! Check out this politically INcorrect Christmas song at: www.myspace.com/rogerweber

You'll get a laugh!

Posted by: Roger9 | December 8, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

jmdziuban1 and lost(indeed)horizon10:

The SECOND Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but no one is saying that the federal government should pay for those!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, it WOULD be terrible if you could be forced to keep a child when you don't want it. And if the government can do that, what's to stop them from just as easily forcing someone to ABORT a fetus when they DO want to keep it???

Imagine what an absolutely horrific state of affairs THAT would be.

Oh, wait, you don't have to imagine it. It's exactly what fathers go through every single day in this country...

http://johngalt.podomatic.com/

Posted by: JohnGaltPodcast | December 8, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I love the term, "Pro-Life" - I'll bet every comment here against abortion was made by someone who supports sending young men and women off to be killed in our wars. How "pro-life" is that? And by the way, charlietuna, isn't using birth control killing babies too? isn't it against your religion to "spill your seed"? Women have a right to their own lives too.

Posted by: suesher | December 8, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

sillygirl said: "Socialist you say....our military is a "socialist" program. You republican's want to end our military..."

Your name says it all! You are wrong.

The military is one of the few defined roles of government. It was declared in the constitution ("provide for the common defense").

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note to liberals: "general welfare" does not mean food stamps.

Please do a little bit of research before spouting off on comment boards next time.

http://www.RightWingInc.com

Posted by: RightWingInc_com | December 8, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

My wife and I just turned 30 and my insurance was raised to $500 per person. I'm terrified that if we have a kid of what it will cost if we decide to have a child.

This is happening because Insurance companies in my state are trying to people onto a high deductible plan, where they can basically make money for nothing.

My state is Massachusetts. We have mandated everyone into having to purchase insurance and done NOTHING to control costs. My fate will be the same as every American if we don't have a public option to keep private insurers honest.

So, while I respect the opinion of those who would never choose an abortion for themselves under any circumstance, I am baffled as usual by the short-sightedness of their position.
Who will pay for the pregnant woman's health care bills if she is forced to carry the child by law? Who will pay for that child's checkups and medical expense?

If there is no health care reform perhaps we can start by taking the churches and religious group who have long since given up altruism for political ambition.

Posted by: Ecksley | December 8, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

schechter40:

To be fair, some people "choose" to smoke (like Bryant Gumbal). Should treatments for lung cancer not be insured? While some pro-abortion advocates try to equate an unborn baby with cancer, they are not the same things.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I didn't know that we had so many God eyes in our elected representatives,I for one don't intend to forget their names come election day.I firmly believe in God's law don't judge unless you live a prefect life,thats not your call.I never know we could elect a large group of water walkers.
Plan and simple YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to reverse a Supreme Court Decision

Posted by: popeyegrandpa | December 8, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

To My Democrat Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great.

Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.



To My Republican Friends:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Nuff said.....

Posted by: BriarRose | December 8, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Just to prove my point, there were two town hall meetings by a Conservadem named Gene Taylor in MS and another one in TN. Both conservative congressman were so intimidated by many of the voters in these conservative districts, they were putting down their own party. The one in rural Missisipi was on CSPAN. There were some whites on one side of the room who looked scrappy, greasy and poorly dressed, and kept asking questions to the Congressman like is Obamacare going to kill grandma? Will their be a new pill to euthenize seniors? Will their be death panels? Will the day after pill be covered through Obamacare? It was appauling to hear these white trash idiots spouting out lies. Gene Taylor responded by sounding like a Republican. He said he had no reason to support Obama's health bill.

The other side of the room at the town hall meeting had African Americans and a few Whites who were well dressed. A mostly African American Veterans group was there. The questions were clear and consise and these people had served our country but were not yet elligable for medicaid. Many of them complained about high prescriptions and so on. Again Mr Gene Taylor said they made good points but couldn't promise anything. One of the white rednecks asked why Rep Taylor was friends with Schumer? Again Taylor denied knowing Chuck Schumer and said he wasn't a friend, and told the gentleman in the audience, he was mixed up with blue dog US Rep, Heath Schuler. When the white side of the isle brought up Pelosi it sounded as though they would lynch the woman if she was ever in their state. It was a very sad reality that exists in many places in America. It showed that Rep. Taylor has probably not encouraged many literacy programs in his district. I hope he has a lot of money because he doesn't deserve a penny of money from the DNC. You don't need people who badmouth their own party.

Posted by: dave51473 | December 8, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Ecksley:

Where, exactly, are you proposing we start taking the churches and religious groups? Are you going to try to kill them too?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The poster lady who stated that if men got pregnant this conversation wouldn't be.

With the tone of the males on the pro-life side, she's bang on !! They don't give a rat's @$$ about the women involved nor have they experienced childbirth, and/or the vagaries of an unwanted pregnancy.
If THEY want to stop unwanted pregnancies THE MALE PRO-LIFERS SHOULD BY LAW "NOT" BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX OF ANY KIND, especially with a woman !!

THAT would stop their complaints in their tracks !!

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

popeyegrandpa:

That's right, don't forget these valiant DEMOCRATS who voted against killing the Amendment: Sens. Nelson and Casey, of course, David Pryor of Arkansas, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Edward Kaufman of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

suesher said: "I love the term, "Pro-Life" - I'll bet every comment here against abortion was made by someone who supports sending young men and women off to be killed in our wars."

Let's look at the big picture suesher. Americans are not sent off to war to "be killed". They go off to war (voluntarily) to protect the freedoms that YOU enjoy in the United States. Freedoms like making a fool out of yourself on comment boards for example.

You see, without the brave soldiers that make huge sacrifices for morons like you, we would not have any freedoms here.

It's funny how now that GWB is out of office, the anti-war crowd is non-existent. Is Obama's war that much nicer than the rest?

http://www.RightWingInc.com

Posted by: RightWingInc_com | December 8, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame conservatives hate America so much that they want its citizens to die.

Posted by: pmax | December 8, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

As I said, iceman12, luckily you can't VOTE here. Bye bye!

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I think there is a need for Shailagh Murray's article to be more precise about the facts of the vote.

Just to be very clear: the senate voted on whether to TABLE the proposed amendment not on whether to PASS it. Only 51 votes were needed to table, giving plenty of room to Senators to hide their true feelings on the issue.

In other words, the 54-45 vote on tabling does not tell us much about whether Harry Reid will get the 60 votes he needs for the health care bill. And (given the risks had the tabling vote failed) the vote does suggest that there was strong confidence that at least 51 Senators would protect a woman's right to choose.

Shailagh Murray's article makes it sound like the vote tells us more than it does about how the vote on the health care bill will go. This contributes to a kind of panic about the bill and to the anxiety and fear people have about it.

Posted by: PhilosophyProf | December 8, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

pmax:

You realize that Congress could just as easily make every unborn child on U.S. soil a "citizen", right?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Some may religiously follow Nostradamus as a leading oracle of all times . . . though for the current times, one can argue that the most prominent oracles would include The Beatles (Revolution or Taxman ), Rare Earth (Hey Big Brother), or the Rascals (People Got To Be Free).

Posted by: rbblum | December 8, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"You probably don't even know what Socialism is, and if you had any smarts, you would realize that it's the "Democratic" party, not Democrat. That's one of the assinine comments the Republicraps keep repeating. GET A LIFE."

Posted by: girard73 | December 8, 2009 6:23 PM

Your right about only one thing. It is the Democratic party. Unfortunately for you, we are not a democracy, we are not run by mob rule.
Unlike the Democrat(ic) party, which for years had in its founding platform the return of slavery, The Republican party, created to destroy slavery, is REPresentative of the peoples will, not who can scream "gimme, gimme, gimme" the loadest.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com

Posted by: realetybytes | December 8, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake, they may not buy thre gun directly but the gov't does expend money to ensure the right to bear arms, as to direct use of funds it's an apples and oranges comparison, if national healthcare passes it would be more similar to buying guns for military personnel as it involves a federal program -the military, or the right to vote having polling funded by the gov't.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | December 8, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

To combat the person who wrote "Only a soulless REPROBATE could support this BILL . It opens the gate to unimaginable EVIL .

Drs will be performing abortions and selling STEM CELLS ! This may sell on the Senate Floor from senators from the Deep south and Utah, but Stem cells save lives and what the pro-life people fail to ever admit is examine the fact that many abortions are not from girls who simply don't want to keep their child for the heck of it. They have serious medical problems or were victimized by sexual assault or may risk their own health or life with the pregnancy. It is easy for pro lifers to put these statistics out there, like on the Catholic cable station, with figures like 995 abortions performed in a one hour episide. These are hocus pocus figures, and in many third world countrys with unsafe medical conditions, terminating a pregnancy is the only way to save a woman's life. As much as I think there are other alternatives to abortion and it isn't the best decision, there are a lot of facts that many people don't understand. The pro-life movement is based on 10% Facts and 90 percent emotion.

Posted by: dave51473 | December 8, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

PhilosophyProf:

Please see my post to "popeyegrandpa" above. As of now, Senators Nelson and Lieberman are BOTH threatening to filibuster the whole bill (I can just imagine how many GOP will join that effort ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I do not want my tax dollars to be used to kill babies. I am tired of this Government shoving things down my throat that I do not want. When Obama is finished bankrupting this country and the people learn that there is no more money either in the banks or in the government, we will have a civil war. Obama is taking us there. All we can do is vote against every incumbent in future election. We need to throw the bums out. All of them. Before its too late.

Posted by: strent2583 | December 8, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Curious that Democrats (per Harry Reid) think that anyone that wanted to not pass freedom for slaves or to discuss thoroughly the concept of that freedom would be considered Immoral and Racist Hatemongers in the light of today's look back on political history.

Yet, these same Democrats (that have history pretty much confused anyway)...cannot imagine that in the future, once rationality returns to the citizens, and when science proves that life has always began at inception, thereby creating a life to be protected under the constitution, that those advocating abortion are not acting immorally and do not face future hatred and revillation for their murders of these living fetus humans.

As long as anyone can consider any life as PROPERTY rather than a LIFE...then Owning Slaves is no worse than a Mother presuming to hold a fetus as PROPERTY and having a right to murder that life.

Seems pretty much like the Democrats just want to do whatever they want to do and demand the right to explain it away anyhow they choose...and to take others to task for opposing views.

Where did Democrats get all that self-righteous entitlement priviledged attitude, anyway?

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

strent2583:

Amen!

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"tilting-to-the-right" Actually, Nelson is 'tilting' to God, a commendable trait regardless of what the godless believe.

Posted by: Letsgetapizza | December 8, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

popeyegrandpa - My sentiments exactly. 'Water-walkers' took the words right out of my mouth. Good stuff.

As I said before, NO sex life for the male pro-lifers and IF they happen to be found guilty of aiding and abetting an unwanted pregnancy, by definition they should be jailed !!

Pratice what you preach, and if you move off the 'mark' for your own needs, too bad, you would be guilty of lying straight into the face of your own faith.

You may have the 'faith', but keep it to yourself. The 'church' and 'religion' have NO place in the governance of ANY free country, be it the USA or Canada where I'm from and born these 65 years plus, and our moronic prime minister is railing just like your pro-lifers with his holier-than-thou pronouncements and is full of himself in the job - typical 'conservative' values, well meant a LONG time ago, yet now proven to be the worst kind of values this side of the universe, and even that is denied by them, the universe, that is.

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

This is excellent news. Now we can defeat these godless heathens on the left for sure and take back the Dem party. Do you actually think devout Anti communist JFK would have hired Van Jones or Anita Dunn? Of course not he would have slapped them silly. I remember when Joe Lieberman was considered a reliable liberal. Now against the radical leadership of the Dem party ole Joe almost looks conservative. This is not my fathers Dem party for sure.

Posted by: dencal26 | December 8, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"As a Canadian, I cannot believe the ramblings of the anti-abortion crowd" So then, you disregard God's law, as a Canadian. Do you think you'll get special treatment, as a Canadian??

Posted by: Letsgetapizza | December 8, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

It is high and sad comedy for the senate to debate this 'bill' before a constitutional amendment has passed actually authorizing the federal government to insert itself in the health care/insurance system. Yes MediCare IS unconstitutional.

Posted by: akersk | December 8, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Here, here!

Posted by: JAH3 | December 8, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

SINCE WHEN DOES MURDERING A LIVING HUMAN BELONG IN A HEALTHCARE BILL OF THE US GOVERNMENT?

IS THAT PART OF THE DEATH SQUAD DEAL?

I THOUGHT HEALTHCARE WAS ABOUT KEEPING THINGS LIVING....NOT MURDERING A FUTURE CITIZEN.

HOW MUCH HATRED AND MEANNESS DO DEMOCRATS HAVE LEFT WE HAVEN'T SEEN YET?

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Gee, what a surprise. A bunch of PLM nuts decrying a woman's right to choose. Get a hobby, you whiners. R v W is intact; abortion is legal and was legal when the country was founded. Get over it.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I am getting very weary of particularly women who say we are taking away their choice. This is ridiculous. Of course you have a choice. If you do not want to get pregnant, use birth control. If women don't want to ever get pregnant, have a hysterectomy or have your tubes tied. If you guys don't want to accept the responsibility that comes with fatherhood, then go get clipped. How difficult is this! But if you do get pregnant, you have created a life - one of the most precious miracles created by God - and IMO no one has the right to destroy that life.

Posted by: GramsA | December 8, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

iceman12:

Good luck with your prime minister.

dencal26:

Good luck taking your party back.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

God isn't in charge of our laws. And neither are you phony Christians. This isn't a theocracy and your Bible has no bearing on laws whatsoever. Your beliefs and superstitions mean nothing to anyone but you.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

One big difference that I have found between far right Americans and Far left Americans is that there is more of an excessive use of angry and violent terms coming from the right. So far this year, two politically motivated killers were the guy who killed George Tiller, the Dr who performed late term abortions, and a totally innocent guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington DC. Obama was at several events where loaded guns were carried by right wing freaks, far closer than they should have been. The Town halls displayed Obama as an African Tribesman, and don't tell me that isn't racist; The last 10 years we had Tim McVeigh, the Atlanta Bomber who hated the world and hated abortion so he killed some innocent people. Over the past 30 years, left wingers have been relatively peaceful. I never remember anyone from a liberal organization during one of Kerry or Obama's rallies who would ever use the words "Kill him" in reference to the president. A Baptist minister publicly prays for Obama's death during his church service. Left wing people use facts and right wing people use emotions. These are scary times. All I can say is Beware!!!

Posted by: dave51473 | December 8, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

What the Senate is asking us to support is to have federal dollars directly or indirectly going to Insurance Policies that cover “Elective Abortion”. One example of many abortions this Pro-Life Democrat would find extremely objectionable is Sex Selection abortions, completely legal in the USA, where the only reason to abort a completely healthy fetus is because it is the wrong gender. News reports say there are thousands of these abortions performed each year and the number is growing. Another example is when a person who decides to abort a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or more times, the current Senate language would allow insurance payment directly or indirectly with my tax dollars. It is estimated that over 70.000 abortions a year are for a person who is having a 4th or more abortion. Some may not personally feel there should be restrictions on these types of abortions but PLEASE do not ask me to have my tax dollars be involved directly or indirectly in paying for them or any other abortions of completely healthy developing children.

Posted by: btubtu | December 8, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Abortions at will are the same as Female cosmetic surgery....an option somehow allowed by a confused Supreme Court..but clearly not a health issue. Two folks made the baby...one person gets to decide to kill it without anyone else getting a say so...so I guess it is just elective Mommy Murdering surgery...that vacuuming of body parts and chopping up and grinding up of a little life.

Elective surgery. Get your own insurance if you find a company skanky enough to pay for your sex play consequences. I am not paying for your dead orgasm.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

We males have a right to talk about abortion because young boys are frequent victims of abortion. We are victims' rights advocates. Limiting the debate to pro-youth-anasia women is tantamount to requiring all juries to consist solely of convicted criminals.

Posted by: Clasticon | December 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

At one point I was against paying for other peoples abortions but I think the republicans should go for this. A one time payment will be better than paying for some snot nose welfare cases' health care, school, housing and food for 18 years. And besides, democrats will lose most of their government money sucking voter base in the process. This is a win win for republicans.

Posted by: sixpackokc | December 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Big deal! If one wants an abortion, pay for it. At least then, the costs would stay low enough to be affordable. Every time the Gov't gets involved prices soar! Today's healthcare, burdoned by Gov't meddling, franchising, bundling and graft is already too expensive. So, they are going to fix it with more of the same? Good grief!

We have the cheapest, safest and most abundant food supply on earth. All with no Gov't store, distributor, broker or farm. If the Gov't did the same to our food supply as they are about to do to our healthcare, all but the rich would be beggars. Grocery stores would be run by food nutritionists that would pre-determine what you can have according to some panel of experts, of course. A milk run would cost you a mint, because no purchase would be allowed without accompanying purchases of each of the basic food groups, of course.

If you like absolute micro-management of your life, you are going to love Gov't healthcare. Of course the costs will drive even more out of middle class and into poverty while insuring today's rich as tomorrow's aristocracy.

Posted by: mac18 | December 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

iceman12 said: "With the tone of the males on the pro-life side, she's bang on !! They don't give a rat's @$$ about the women involved nor have they experienced childbirth, and/or the vagaries of an unwanted pregnancy."

iceman, I'm betting that the women with the unwanted pregnancies have not been sucked out of their mother's womb in hundreds of pieces just because they were not wanted. I'll bet they have not experienced that. So why should they get to decide that fate for someone else? Same argument isn't it?

Here's the solution. If you don't want a pregnancy, keep your legs together.

http://www.RightWingInc.com

Posted by: RightWingInc_com | December 8, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't want my tax dollars funding International wars and not providing healthcare for the 40 million Americans without it. Why don't pro life people as well as anti war people both ask the government for a tax deduction or a return because they don't believe in it? Lets see how far that gets us.

Posted by: dave51473 | December 8, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

notation:

You will "note" that I didn't say God is in charge of our laws or that this is a theocracy. Just because "Thou shall not murder" is in the Bible doesn't mean we get rid of REAL murder laws, does it? You and I simply have a disagreement where on the time continuum (sp?) human life deserves to be protected.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I do not need God to tell me not to kick a dog, nor do I need God to tell me not to kill a baby in the womb.

I figured that all by myself without religious encouragement. Just makes sense. We have laws that make it illegal to take a life. I have seen the living pictures of a small living fetus in the womb. That is a little person, not a chunk of tissue and liquid.

Call it anything you like, but anything other than outright murder is trying to play denial and like you know more than anyone else. Just lazy irresponsible immature people. Not a grown up act. Murder.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: notation

Gee, what a surprise. A bunch of PLM nuts decrying a woman's right to choose. Get a hobby, you whiners. R v W is intact; abortion is legal and was legal when the country was founded. Get over it.

Why is prostitution illegal then? Isn't it a woman's right to choose? I don't see you fighting for it to be legal. Aren't we trampling not only her right to choose but also her right to work. Why are you not decrying the unfair anti-prostitution laws.

Posted by: funkyone09 | December 8, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

sixpackokc:

I'm almost tempted to allow government-paid abortions for ALL registered Democrats (almost ; )

RightWing_Inc.:

Careful going to far in your rhetoric (rape victims can't "keep their legs together"). Better to take the high road rather than trash the morals of misguided mothers.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

joelevin:

Good post : )

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Just to be objective, Obama is in a tough position on the right to life issue. Based on the polling that has been done, America is evenly divided on being pro life and prochoice, but when I see polls that support overturning Roe VS Wade, the number of people who support that are about 30 percent. I think a majority of Americans think their have to be tougher laws on it, but it is a disappointment that the issue has come between improving the costs of our healthcare. It is shameful that our leaders on both sides are lingering on it, when Obama has already stated he respects the Hyde Ammendement. In Comparison to Bill and HIllary, I believe that Obama is more understanding of the pro-life cause and shows sensitivity to it. HIllary in contrast would be more of a femminist and more insistent on funding it.

Posted by: dave51473 | December 8, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

There are already sufficient restrictions in place regarding government funding of abortion. These amendments are simply manipulations by Senators, who want to use this inappropriate venue to further their anti abortion cause. This particular proposal was an outrageous infringement on a woman's privacy, her own relationship with her doctor and her ability to buy the policy she chooses. This is a health care bill, not a bill pertaining to the settled law on abortion. I would never, ever try to talk a "pro-life" friend into supporting a woman's right to choose, and I would appreciate it if I was treated the same way. It's amazing that so many of the same people who accuse the government of wanting to infringe on their health care rights, for no logical reason, are dying for the government to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

Posted by: Koko3 | December 8, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

pmax said: "It's a shame conservatives hate America so much that they want its citizens to die."

pmax, Conservatives don't want people to die. We are opposed to killing babies. It's the liberal democrats that want us to pay for abortions.

Liberals hate America. If they didn't, why are they trying so hard to change it?

http://www.RightWingInc.com
Anti-Obama

Posted by: RightWingInc_com | December 8, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Why is the congress allowed to take up a subject that is unconstitutional ,they do not have the powers to even talk about health care and forced it on the people .
they should all be tared and feathered , and be tried for high crimes .and then
inprisoned

Posted by: blaserelectric | December 8, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

OK...HOW ABOUT THIS?

SINCE WOMEN GET TO DECIDE TO MURDER THE FETUS, BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT BABY GOT THERE...HOW ABOUT A COMPROMISE...

WOMEN GET FREE ABORTIONS IF THE FETUS IS FEMALE, BUT IF IT IS MALE, THEN IT HAS TO GO TO FULL BIRTH AND THE MOMMY GETS TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING THE MALE CHILD NEEDS UNTIL HE IS 18.

OK...PRETTY FAIR...THAT WAY, NO WOMEN GET TO TELL THE DAUGHTERS THAT ABORTION IS OK BECAUSE THEY HAD ONE...THEY WON'T BE HAVING DAUGHTERS.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

RightWingInc_com:

I believe that reference was to all the mothers would would die from back-alley abortions.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Jesus was a liberal. Those of you who are republican's and walk around holier than though judging and being intolerant are anti Jesus!

Open your heart and care about others, animals and our home the environment. It isn't all about you or money!

Posted by: sillygirl2 | December 8, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Iceman12 - - -Cite me the article or study showing refuting the below information. 92% of abortions are for social reasons. It's just not convenient. Period.

The 2004 study, which appeared in the September 2005 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (formerly Family Planning Perspectives), surveyed 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large abortion centers across the country. The survey was then followed up with in-depth interviews with 38 women at four centers.1

Women in the first group filled out an eight-page survey identifying their reasons for coming to the clinic, hospital, or doctor's office to have an abortion, and listed their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, marital status, etc. Women from the first group who agreed to sit for 30–60 minute recorded interviews discussing those decisions in more detail constituted the second group.

There were a number of responses women gave to the question as to what was "the most important reason" they had their abortions: they were "not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong," cited by 25%; they "can't afford a baby now," cited by 23%; feelings that they had "completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown," cited by 19%; and "having relationship problems/don't want to be a single mother" was cited by 8%.

An additional 7% identified not feeling "mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young," while 4% cited their view that the child "would interfere with education or career plans."

Notably, only 4% cited a "physical problem with my health" as the main factor in their abortions, while 3% identified "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" as the most important reason behind their decisions.

Less than 0.5% cited each of the following reasons as most significant: rape, a husband or partner's desire that a woman have an abortion, parental wishes, or a desire to keep others from knowing the woman had sex or got pregnant. AGI listed the remaining 6% as "other."


Posted by: Alaskadoc | December 8, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"I don't want my tax dollars funding International wars and not providing healthcare for the 40 million Americans without it. Why don't pro life people as well as anti war people both ask the government for a tax deduction or a return because they don't believe in it? Lets see how far that gets us."

Hey, I'm all for that. Let's have a number of check-off boxes on our tax returns (like the ones we already do for various causes), and let folks decide where the money will go. Personally, I'm willing to let THAT decide the amount of defense spending, because I guarantee you that the next time a 9-11 type act occurs, you and everyone else will be checking off that dreaded "military" box like nobody's business...

http://johngalt.podomatic.com/

Posted by: JohnGaltPodcast | December 8, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

taking = taxing.

It's about treating churches like any other political action group. Since they insist on mixing theology and politics (when it suits them).

Posted by: Ecksley | December 8, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Jake D - C'mon, Jake - You can do better than that !! I'm just a poor hunter-gatherer from Canada, living in an igloo and skiing in June(I've actually been a party to a true story that certain Americans actually thought that once they crossed the 49th parallel, that it was year-long snow, ice and skiing).

Don't knock me Mr.America, by the name of Jake. When a journalist comes across the border crossing from the USA to Canada at Vancouver/Seattle, telling the border/customs people that she was crossing to give a 'talk' on the Olympics, they questioned the validity of her story, as the winter Olympics are to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia in February and why would she be coming over at such a late time for a 'done-deal' ??

She retorted that she was to 'talk' about the Chicago summer olympics and that she had NEVER even heard of the winter olympics in Vancouver.

Now does THAT give anyone the right to disdain ME, when a paid journalist, supposedly learned in the 'olympic way' doesn't even know about Vancouver's olympic games in Canada and the USA has a FULL team to compete !!

I could 'story' about countless ignorances of our country by Americans, but as a lot you're quite the good people. You just cannot think outside your own borders and listen to others.

I've forgotten more about the USA than most likely most Americans even know.

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

The country was founded on a constitution not on a bible and not by some Theocrats.

Posted by: dave51473 | December 8, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Ephemerella wrote. I think it's time to start looking for replacements for these anti-abortion Democrats that Pelosi welcomed into the party last election year.

Spoken like a TRUE COMMUNIST.
What happen to this big tent you dems are always taking about?

Posted by: solongUSA | December 8, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

joelevin:

You had one good post, but then you lost me with that last one.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Dem libs prove again they love killing babies...enjoy the party of death. I'll take life over death everytime.

Posted by: powerange | December 8, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Nelson needs to return to the Taliban caves, taking Stupak and most Republicans with him. Having Democrats like these in office is as bad as the Bushies and new Republicans. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

Posted by: revbookburn | December 8, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Excsley and dave51473:

You will "note" that I didn't say God is in charge of our laws or that this is a theocracy. Just because "Thou shall not murder" is in the Bible doesn't mean we get rid of REAL murder laws, does it? You two and I simply have a disagreement where on the time continuum (sp?) human life deserves to be protected.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Pmax, "To the pro-lifers who think that this means abortion will be funded by your taxes: This amendment only allows PRIVATE insurance to fund abortions. Public funds are not allowed to fund abortion, despite the fact that it is a safe and legal procedure."

Not too safe for the baby though, right?

Posted by: Virgil1 | December 8, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

If southern blue dogs vote for this now, they're history at next election. Reid, Webb, Warner and the liberals approved sex change operations, higher precription cots, higher taxes on the middle class and free kidney transplants for illegal aliens but approval of abortions and the public option will kill the bill, hopefully sooner than later.

Posted by: Patriot12 | December 8, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

sillygirl12:

Do you HONESTLY think that Jesus supported abortions?!

Alaskadoc:

Is that you Dr. Baldwin-Johnson?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I thougth that President Obama said that the Health Care Bill wouldn't pay for abortion? Joe Wilson was right, he did lie.

Posted by: akwa01 | December 8, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama's Child Safety Czar that wants all kids to learn how to be a homosexual, and even provides them with "Fisting Kits" and instruction of how to practice safe oral sex....how about he gets to furnish school girls with a do it yourself abortion kit...you know, like a bottle of aspirin and a coat hanger.

With nationalized health...abortions just might get rationed away....so only minority girls get one...and the older ones that just want to not be bothered with a kid...they get to pay.

Obama has people in his Czar and advisor groups that can get on this without any legislation...just put some kits into the schools, with a day or so of slide presentations to show how to do it...even the boy friend could be part of the deal maybe...and especially both sets of parents...that is an education that saves the nation money and reduces the cost of public health services too.

What's wrong with that solution. Cheap and fast and don't have to wait until 2014 to get started with it.

Read my hips...no new taxes.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

alaskadoc - maybe progeny from PalinLand !! ONLY 1209 abortion patients in LARGE centres(centers in the USA) and 38 intensive interviews ??!!

What about the 'other' 50million minus the ones YOU mention, as another poster alluded to, whom I also rebuked ??

A load of cr*p from the far right to be so disingenuous to use such a pathetically small study to back ones words.

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Jake D.
sorry about that...called cynicism and sarcasm...liberals understand that elitist talk. doesn't matter that it has no logic...they work off of pure emotions and other peoples' money.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

To all of you cursing your "conservative" Democrat representattives:
It was their platform/election that got you over the hump and into power. Now, you want to throw them overboard. Wow, what a thankless bunch of small-tenters you are!

If you didn't abort your young, you'd eat them.

Posted by: YouDude60 | December 8, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse


Jake said: "I believe that reference was to all the mothers would would die from back-alley abortions."

I see. Then they should still keep their legs together.

http://www.RightWingInc.com

Posted by: RightWingInc_com | December 8, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

No need to apologize : )

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

dhenken1 said:

"It's amazing how conservative our politics have become. Democrats propose a watered-down, pro-insurance, pro-pharma health reform bill, and it's treated like a single-payer, communist health-care takeover."

Nothing has changed. The majority of Americans have never favored tax-payer funded abortion on demand. That majority is just now standing up and being heard.

As for "Democrats propose a watered-down, pro-insurance, pro-pharma health reform bill, and it's treated like a single-payer, communist health-care takeover."; who are you trying to kid?? Single payer, communist "health-care" is still in the hopper. Harry and Nancy are still angling. They favor the classic, big-government solution of "killing a flea with a sledge hammer.

The deal is this: There are plenty of options to reduce insurance costs. Portability (open competition without state restrictions... what better example of interstate commerce?), liability limits for physicians and hospitals and no care for illegals (who have basically destroyed the health care system in California) are but a few of the ideas that come to mind. Open markets and competition with a government "safety net" (if necessary) would be smarter, but that would remove the impetus for a HUGE government program, something far too many politicians won't allow.

Get over it.

Posted by: DMikeS | December 8, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

RightWingInc_com:

Please see my 7:06 PM post to you.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Mao: 40,000,000? Are you serious? Try 300,000,000

Posted by: ecs33 | December 8, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Power sez: Dem libs prove again they love killing babies...enjoy the party of death. I'll take life over death everytime.

And when you're pregnant, you can make that decision for yourself. You don't get to make it for anyone else, bub.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Jesus was a liberal. Those of you who are republican's and walk around holier than though judging and being intolerant are anti Jesus! Open your heart and care about others, animals and our home the environment. It isn't all about you or money!"

Uh, actually, you're 100% wrong. Jesus believed in and urged CHARITY. Charity is the VOLUNTARY giving of your time and resources. It is NOT the forced redistribution of weatlh at gunpoint. If you can show me in the Bible where Jesus picks up a spear or a sword, takes gold pieces from one man, and gives them to another, we'll talk.

In fact, liberals take away the impetus to do Jesus-like acts by doing it FOR THEM under the penalty of law.

By the way, as far as being "judgmental," Reverend Martin Luther King called upon us to judge folks not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. You'll notice he didn't say "don't judge at all." That's a silly, postmodern notion created by people who just want to give up and have society be a free-for-all. Even Jesus, after chastising the stone-throwers, turned to the woman and told her to "go forth and sin no more." So quit using Jesus as an excuse for your fellow-traveling behavior...

http://johngalt.podomatic.com/

Posted by: JohnGaltPodcast | December 8, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Why should tax payers fund abortions?-Have all the abortions you want, pay for it yourself!

Posted by: marcy2 | December 8, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

notation:

You will "note" that I didn't say God is in charge of our laws or that this is a theocracy. Just because "Thou shall not murder" is in the Bible doesn't mean we get rid of REAL murder laws, does it? You and I simply have a disagreement where on the time continuum (sp?) human life deserves to be protected.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

marcy2:

Who knows, maybe taxpayer-funded flag burnings will be next ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with women having their own right to abort, but not with MY money. If women consistently receive free abortions, where is the incentive to use birth control? I know that in current times the typical woman would find it very difficult to get an abortion. However, you never know how a society may evolve. Society could decay to a point where a woman may have no emotional attachment to the baby she aborts.

Posted by: ecs33 | December 8, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Abortions are fine maybe, if that is how you think. It is just the paying for them by a person that had none of the fun of getting the PG in action sorta misses the target of reason for me.

Planned Parenthood...now those folks LIKE abortions. In fact, they were started as a social experiment to get free abortions for teenage black girls, so that there would be less black kids born without two parents and having to be raised by grandma. The idea was eugenics...adapt the species by genetic managment getting rid of the less desirable human traits...and it was aimed at the black folks.. Did not go through congress, was privately funded. No republicans either. Just looking out for the black folks.

Now, with integration, white girls get to participate right up there with unmarried pregnant black teenagers.

What could be more fair and balanced and nor racist?

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I hope that total jerk Harry Reid goes down with his 2000 page horror story of a bill. He is a disgrace to his country and to the US Senate.

Posted by: rjr1 | December 8, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

You will "note" that I didn't say God is in charge of our laws or that this is a theocracy. Just because "Thou shall not murder" is in the Bible doesn't mean we get rid of REAL murder laws, does it? You and I simply have a disagreement where on the time continuum (sp?) human life deserves to be protected.

Posted by: JakeD

Splitting hairs now, are you? "Murder" is a legal term. Abortion is not murder and was not considered such even when it WAS illegal. Murdering a person is an infringement of that person's rights. A fetus does not have rights and aborting one isn't murder. Try to figure it out.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I know - men have nothing at all to do with the issue of life. Lets see there are currently over 3 billion females on earth and many more billions of females that lived before us. Now how many woman started and came into existence as a result of a male supplying a sperm cell? Everyone of the billions. How many woman were started and came into existence as a result of a male not supplying a sperm? A big fat ZERO.

A woman with another woman or by herself can try to concieve a child a million times but it won't happen.

Nature sure seems to thinks it takes a female AND a male to produce a human being. This is not a Religious or Far Right belief it is a scientific fact.

Posted by: btubtu | December 8, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

it's the 2 trillion dollars to the CEOs, stupid!

Single-Payer - the anti-bloodsucker option!

Posted by: ryan_heart | December 8, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow. There are a lot of exceptionally stupid people here, I'm afraid. At least, I wish I could say it was exceptional. Signs are, it may well be pretty normal. It does make me wonder whether it was really money well spent to invest the considerable money it must have taken to teach some of you to read and write, though, when this is the result.

Anyway, here are a few points. Try to follow. They're important. Just because something is a RIGHT does NOT mean somebody ELSE -- like the government -- has to PAY for it! Example. We all have the right to free speech and to the press. So we all have the right to drive through town with a sign on our car, say, making some kind of a point.

But the government doesn't have to pay for our gas, or for our sign, or for our car. And if a bill came up to pay for those things, and someone voted against it, that would NOT mean that that he was against free speech. It would mean he was against the government SUBSIDIZING that particular right. Get the difference? It's not so bad! Read it over a few times till that familiar confused feeling goes away.

Now here's another point. It's a little harder, though, so if that last one left you confused, maybe you should stop now. Suppose there were no fillibuster and you only needed 51 votes. Sometimes, it would STILL happen that, of the 52 people supporting a particular idea (say), 3 of them would only do it if certain changes were made. In that case, those 3 could tell the other 49 what changes had to be made, or the bill would fail. This situation happens sometimes in democracies and republics. It's because you have to get over 50% (or whatever%) and each little piece of that matters. If you don't like it, what you really want is for the 49 to be able to tell the other 51 how things should be.

"But the senate is undemocratic! And so is the fillibuster!" Well, you know what? You're right. The senate WAS a cop to the little states. Know why? Because they wouldn't join the country otherwise. And guess what? They didn't have to join! And the big states wanted them badly enough to give them that. So.... they made that deal, and why are you whining about it? The small states didn't particularly WANT a democracy, which was not unusual among the founders generally. Presumably, y'all supporters of health care want the citizens of each state to participate, not just California and New York and Pennsylvania. Don't you think it's fair, then, that the issue should be decided under the rules that each state came in under? Since they very likely would NOT have come in otherwise? Not least because they did not want to be governed by selfish, ignorant d hordes of people, like you, from beyond their state?

I for one applaud the lack of democracy in our senate and in the fillibuster. Our founders would be proud. Read them.

I apologize in advance for any distress an encounter with reason may have caused.

Stuart

Posted by: stuart83 | December 8, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

angry white guy amendments... listen guys, you can NOT force women to be recepticals. The good news is Nelson just lost 80% of the women vote in Nebraska and won't be back. Hopefully he will beat by a women since he just does not get it.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 8, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

The whole abortion thing is a states rights issue, the Fed never belonged in it to begin with.

A twisted, illogical Supreme Court Decision did that, but thats the way you do it when you know you can't pass an ammendment to the Constitution, since the States would never have ratified it and probably still would not, while many States would have legal abortion anyways if it was up to them as it should be.

If Federal funds are available and she voluntarily participated in sex then I see no reason why she can't pay for it herself.

On the other hand, she will teach the kid to be another mentally ill lefty, so go ahead forget everything I wrote and get rid of it!

Posted by: TDPRO | December 8, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Actually, here in California, Penal Code Sec. 187 DOES outlaw the "murder" of a fetus (just not as against his/her own mother). You may have heard of the Scott Peterson case, in which he was found guilty of TWO murders?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Btubu thinks that because sperm are required for pregnancy to occur men are equal partners. Wrong. When you carry the fetus and bear the risks of pregnancy, you'll have a say. Otherwise, bug off. Not your uterus, not your decision.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Well...I NEVER know what "Jesus would have done"..never met him, he was gone by the time I got here, he left no personal diary, just mentioned pretty throughly by a bunch of Jewish guys that wrote stuff down and had to wait for some Italian to invent a printing press before it could get out there before the Koran beat it to the NYT Best Seller List.

Somehow, though, if I thought really hard about how I imagine some smart guy that loved children and people how would he have felt about women up and deciding to kill little kids before they got whatever reward was held for them in living free on earth. And doing it "just because it was their body" this child was growing in...like the child was not important. (Kinda like your car isn't as important as your garage...makes no sense to me at all).

Well, I think maybe he would have founded abortion clinics and absolutely not allowed selfish and hate filled women to go around killing off his dad's gift...this little life that had a soul and promise of a chance at happiness. Yeah,...he'd a loved them too much to let them get born and suffer abuse and neglect from those kind of women...and he'd a been really pissed at the guy who just plopped a shot into the dark and didn't give rip about where it landed....just flipping watermelon seeds out the window onto someone's plowed field...and they intended to grow arugula, not watermelons...you get the drift. So that would be the deal...the Jesus Christ Memorial Child Taking Away Abortion Clinics for the Perpetually Self Absorbed, Lazy, Non-Mommies of the World. JCMCTAACFTPSALNMOTW.

WOW. That's not your Mommy's Oldsmobile, is it?

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Iceman12 - - -Cite me the article or study showing refuting the below information. 92% of abortions are for social reasons. It's just not convenient. Period.

The 2004 study, which appeared in the September 2005 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (formerly Family Planning Perspectives), surveyed 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large abortion centers across the country. The survey was then followed up with in-depth interviews with 38 women at four centers.1

Women in the first group filled out an eight-page survey identifying their reasons for coming to the clinic, hospital, or doctor's office to have an abortion, and listed their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, marital status, etc. Women from the first group who agreed to sit for 30–60 minute recorded interviews discussing those decisions in more detail constituted the second group.

There were a number of responses women gave to the question as to what was "the most important reason" they had their abortions: they were "not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong," cited by 25%; they "can't afford a baby now," cited by 23%; feelings that they had "completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown," cited by 19%; and "having relationship problems/don't want to be a single mother" was cited by 8%.

An additional 7% identified not feeling "mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young," while 4% cited their view that the child "would interfere with education or career plans."

Notably, only 4% cited a "physical problem with my health" as the main factor in their abortions, while 3% identified "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" as the most important reason behind their decisions.

Less than 0.5% cited each of the following reasons as most significant: rape, a husband or partner's desire that a woman have an abortion, parental wishes, or a desire to keep others from knowing the woman had sex or got pregnant. AGI listed the remaining 6% as "other."


Posted by: Alaskadoc | December 8, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

notation:

Scott Peterson was found guilty of the murder of his wife AND unborn child. Is THAT okay with you?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

The great thing about liberals is that their agenda guarantees political suicide. It's Darwinian. Our ancestors throughout time have had to put up with genetic mutants with dumbass beliefs, but over time common sense prevails and the wingbats die off - or move to Berkeley.

Posted by: UCLAMatt | December 8, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Jakey claims:Actually, here in California, Penal Code Sec. 187 DOES outlaw the "murder" of a fetus (just not as against his/her own mother). You may have heard of the Scott Peterson case, in which he was found guilty of TWO murders?


Wrong again. The fetus was viable and the mother didn't make the decision to abort it. Figure it out, dear. No third party has the right to make a decision for a woman concerning HER pregnancy.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

That's WHY fetal homicide laws ALL have exceptions for abortion. It isn't your right or anyone else's to decide what happens to the fetus in someone else's body. Not your uterus, not your call, shaky Jake.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Soooooooooooooooooo, how are the drunken sailors in the Congress and the Man Child in the Oval Office spending our Tax Revenue today ???

You know Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer/Voter/Citizens, the plans for the Tax Revenue that they are commiting us to, prior to determining where the Tax Revenue will come from and in what form !!!

It's called SPEND and then TAX !!!

YOU, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer/Voter/Citizen are only considered by THEM as a source of Revenue !!! Beyond that, your opinion and input into the process is something THEY would prefer not to be bothered with !!!

EVERY Congressman that votes for this Legislation should be given a one way ticket home following the 2010 Elections !!!

Posted by: thgirbla | December 8, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Republicans love to talk about abortion and murder. They want to ignore they are killing over 40,000 Americans every year who don't have health insurance. Who is the bigger terrorist treat to this country Bin Laden (3,000 dead because of 9/11) or Republicans.

And something never talked about over 50% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortions.

Posted by: DennisJC | December 8, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Maybe someone will hit you with a clue stick, Jake. Fetuses do not have rights under the Constitution. Even Scalia says so. If you have a problem with that, do notify him. Apparently, you believe you're more qualified to interpret the Constitution than he is.

Get back to us all with the results.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

notation:

False? Are you claiming that he wasn't so convincted of TWO murders? BTW: Scott Peterson would still be guilty of TWO murders, even if he had killed Laci Peterson while she was at an abortion clinic being prepped for an IDX. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Looks like 2010 may be a good year for Red Dog Reagan Democrats (conservatives) and not so liberal Independents to assert themselves in the Democratic Primaries across the country: both House and Senate. I would like to see a challenge for every Democratic incumbent. Might knock a few off before the November 2010 elections!

Posted by: RedDogRD2010 | December 8, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

You liberal morons that think killing babies is a choice are the same idiots that thought Micheal Vick was not punished enough for dog fighting. You freaks always put animals over human life. You are truely pitiful.

Posted by: unreal3 | December 8, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

DennisJC:

ANSWER: bin Laden.

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

unreal3:

Sadly, they do put lower animals over human life.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Joelevin sez:Somehow, though, if I thought really hard about how I imagine some smart guy that loved children and people how would he have felt about women up and deciding to kill little kids

How do you explain the Bible verses in which God orders the destruction of children who are already born, then? Tells his followers to dash them against the rocks? Hmmm?

And no "little kids" are "killed" in an abortion, doofus.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

The bill should mandate abortions for anyone on a public option, or receiving government subsidies to pay for insurance. Start with the fetus, and move up the list until healthcare is affordable for the leeches.

Posted by: rpatoh | December 8, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

A woman does have the right to choose. When your in the bed having 5ex. If you choose to have sex, protected or unprotected the outcome can be a pregnancy. So if you make the choice of 5ex then you live with the outcome. Murdering a babie because it doesn't fit into your lifestyle doesn't cut it. Forcing me to pay for abortions through taxes also will not cut it. No government program should ever pay for this. if you want coverage for murder, you pay for it out of your own pocket.

Posted by: unreal3 | December 8, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

notation:

God killed every living human being (with the exception of Noah's family) with a flood. That's HIS right, not your's or any mother's.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Jake the Fake sez: False? Are you claiming that he wasn't so convincted of TWO murders? BTW: Scott Peterson would still be guilty of TWO murders, even if he had killed Laci Peterson while she was at an abortion clinic being prepped for an IDX. Next canard?


Don't quite grasp the concept of "choice" do ya, dear? Scotty doesn't get to make the "choice" for Laci. Laci does. If Laci chooses to abort, it's not murder. You can try to spin it all you want, honey, but that dog won't hunt. It wasn't the fetus' rights that were infringed upon; it was Laci's.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Jake the fake Christian brays: God killed every living human being (with the exception of Noah's family) with a flood. That's HIS right, not your's or any mother's.

Umm, yeah, dude, it is my right.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

You are wrong. The California Supreme Court (I'm not talking Scalia here) has held that the fetus has an independent RIGHT to life as against everyone except his/her own mother. Funny how you can't grasp that inherent contradiction.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

At least the Democrats don't take truck loads of Tax dollars to Iraq and can't account for where it went!
Democrats are the only ones who took the largest deficit in US history balanced the buget and turned it into the largest surplus. Only to have Republican spend all the surplus and turn it into a new record in the largest deficit in US history.
It will be Democrats who will once again recue the country from the largest Republican financial deficit, economic resession, bank failure and job loss.

Posted by: DennisJC | December 8, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, not for much longer.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing about statistic and numbers. Fun to sling about...but rarely justified. DennisJC ole buddy...where do you get 40,000 Americans that DIE BECAUSE of NO INSURANCE? No one dies because of NO INSURANCE. They might DIE without MEDICAL treatment...but there was medical treatment before insurance ever existed. And some folks lived longer than others, and some got sick and died.

How many people die in car accidents in America in a year?

How many people in America die homeless or of drug overdoses?

How many fetuses die each year murdered in an elective abortion?

I assure you, in a nation of 300 million folks, 40,000 deaths is not a lot over a year. And healthcare is available for emergencies without ins.

Republicans do not kill folks that do not have insurance, nor do we pay for other peoples personal responsibilities except through our personal charitable giving, and our income taxes.

Republicans give infinitely more charitably that Democrats EVER have and pay MORE TAXES as well.

Your rant sucks the big one.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Unrealistic3 sez:A woman does have the right to choose. When your in the bed having 5ex. If you choose to have sex, protected or unprotected the outcome can be a pregnancy.

Nope. Consent to have sex doesn't equal the responsibility to continue a pregnancy to term. You can believe it should, but you can also believe in the tooth fairy. Doesn't mean squat to anyone else.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

mmmmmmm dar those nazi communist democrats ain't gonna kill my baby. long live the trailer park revolution!!!!

Posted by: bogardp | December 8, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

notation:

Try to grasp this. Laci Peterson goes to the abortionist, pays for an abortion, signs all the paperwork, and is on the operating table. Scott comes in and kills her, along with the baby SHE CHOSE TO ABORT, that's still a double-homicide. Live with it, hun.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Jake lies: You are wrong. The California Supreme Court (I'm not talking Scalia here) has held that the fetus has an independent RIGHT to life as against everyone except his/her own mother. Funny how you can't grasp that inherent contradiction.

And therein lies your Achilles heel: A woman has every right to end a pregnancy. No one else has the right to do so against her will.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

MY Achilles heel?! LOL

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Laci Peterson CONSENTED to the abortion and was knocked out on the operating table, in my hypothetical scenario above, less than a minute away from the abortion being completed. YOU are the one who can't deal with that!

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Jake the Clueless:Try to grasp this. Laci Peterson goes to the abortionist, pays for an abortion, signs all the paperwork, and is on the operating table. Scott comes in and kills her, along with the baby SHE CHOSE TO ABORT, that's still a double-homicide. Live with it, hun.

It's not the fetus' right that's abrogated, dearie. It's Laci's. That is WHY she would not be convicted of fetal homicide for having an abortion before viability. The fact that someone else decided to kill HER fetus after viability, when elective abortion would not occur legally, is the reason it is homicide.

You really aren't Rhodes scholar material , are ya, sweetie?

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Good luck getting that GED, Jakey.

Abortion will still be legal even after you grow a brain.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable! More Vaticanization of America. This is from Alternet:

"For his part, Nelson said that the amendment’s language was not finished, and that groups opposed to abortion — notably the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — needed more time to review it.

So there we are ladies: Your lives in the hands of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a small group of men who don't even represent the majority of their own faith much less the majority of Americans.

So, who in hell are these bishops? We did not vote for them. They do not serve in either the SEnate or the House."

Somebody had better tell that to the Catholic Congress.

As for this Catholic fool Nelson, he should be forced to resign due to conflict of interest.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 8, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

notation...you are clearly a person who choses not to think for yourself as a reasonable man would. Because a particular bunch of judges in a Supreme Court setting "decide" how to interpret the constitution, and do so as activists rather than juris...does not make them right...just the law at that time... Go check out Plessey v. Ferguson...that was the Supreme Court law of the land, until a later Supreme Court bunch revisited it and held a different legal interpretation...and changed the laws.

The Church once held that the world was flat and the sun rotated around the earth. That changed when brighter folks discovered the truth.

The decision that a fetus is not a human is a construct of a man under 20th century prejudices and trying to be socially progressive. Has nothing to do with reality nor the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution had NO IDEA that American Men and Women would have so little regard for life that they would consiously and intentionally kill one in the womb...would have never crossed their mind that the perversion of society would cross such a crooked bridge. I have faith in the goodness of man. Eventually, science will prove a whole lot stronger than the present case for global warming, that the little creature forming up in the womb was always a life in the making, just as insects go through STAGES in maturity before they become adults...but life is there all the same. Judges can interpret law, but not determine life...they cannot make it, they cannot rule for it...they can only protect it. Killing criminals is another construct of the Judges...lots of Democrats don't think that or war killing is OK either...just killing babies.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

notation:

People v. Taylor (2004)

“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought.” (People v. Hansen (1994) 9 Cal.4th 300, 307 (Hansen); § 187,
subd. (a).) “[V]iability is not an element of fetal homicide under section 187,
subdivision (a),” but the state must demonstrate “that the fetus has progressed
beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks.” (People v. Davis (1994) 7
Cal.4th 797, 814-815.)

“Malice may be either express or implied. It is express when the defendant
manifests ‘a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature.’[3] (§ 188.) It is implied . . . ‘when the killing results from an intentional act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life’ [citation]. For convenience, we shall refer to this mental state as ‘conscious disregard for life.’ ” (People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 107.)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s112443.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The Dingo's ate my baby...

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 8, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

joelevin:

Don't be confused about her post. Justice Scalia NEVER said that a State's Constitution cannot grant rights to unborn children. In fact, that's where he thinks the abortion debate should be decided, not on the federal level.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

notation...the title "doofus" has been claimed already by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Frank...others are chosing to assume it every day.

Not my name.

Posted by: joelevin | December 8, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

GOOD! I'M A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN .. BRINGING AN UNWANTED CHILD INTO THIS WORLD - OR ONE YOU CAN"T AFFORD TO RAISE - IS A SIN..

Posted by: genbarlow | December 8, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Jake, they may not buy the gun directly but the gov't does expend money to ensure the right to bear arms, as to direct use of funds it's an apples and oranges comparison, if national healthcare passes it would be more similar to buying guns for military personnel as it involves a federal program -the military, or the right to vote having polling funded by the gov't.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | December 8, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, the truth comes out. Obama says there is nothing in the bill for illegal aliens, and that there is nothing in the bill that allows abortion.

Now the left is complaining that there is nothing bill that is pro abortion.

So what is it lefties, is there nothing in the bill about abortion? Or is Obama lying to us again? What's next? Do we get the honor of paying for illegal aliens health care as well?

Obama's been lying to us, and playing to his base all along.

Now the truth comes out that Obama has once again lied. Nothing new here, liberals lying and claiming truth.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | December 8, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

genbarlow:

Where is that "sin" listed in the Bible. Jesus wasn't "wanted" and his parents certainly couldn't afford him.

jmdziuban1:

Thanks for the analogy.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

So let me get the logic straight on this one. Bringing an unwanted child child into this world that the parents do not have the financial means creates a need for social programs to take care of that child and family and thus places the burden for raising it on tax payers wallets. So legalized abortion actually decreases the need for government spending, which is what you republican morons are supposedly all about. Oh no! Did i just point out another one of your hypocrisies?

Posted by: bogardp | December 8, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Nelson has as much stated that he is part of Cathpac. He is one of the Vatican's boys in
Congress. He has a conflict of interest.

He needs to go.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 8, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

AllforOne said:

"I'm just wondering why white men are shaping abortion under the health bills? seems stupid and odd to me!"

White men? Is race and gender the only point of reference for you?

Look, outlawing abortion is NOT what this debate is about. We're talking about federal funding of abortion through some huge new entitlement program. It's not about women, it's about how ANYONE who pays taxes feels about having their tax money spent on abortion. Surely you can get that straight in your libtard mind?

Posted by: DMikeS | December 8, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

In 2006 we voted Democrats in to take control of government. We didn't want jobs, to pay for our homes, to pay taxes, or to take care of our off-spring. We recognize the right of terrorist to get justice for the wrongs we have commited throughout the world, so we especially don't want to fight them. Since early 2007 our Democratic leadership have benn moving us down the path toward Utopia. They printed $2T for our President to spend and it hasn't hurt a thing. He has over $200B left to spend and he isn't going to use to help greedy Capitalists. He will use it to help all Americans live lives free of the drudgeries of holding a job. We get unemployment (freedom) checks, subsidized utilities, public transportation, and free food. Add to these the right to health-care insurance and we'll have evrything. It doesn't cost anybody anything. We don't need anybody's taxes, we just need to print more money. We can't afford material progress because it's killing the environment. We only need economic progress, and we should be willing to sacrifice as much as is required to our leaders who make the hard choice of giving us anything we want.

Posted by: rpatoh | December 8, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"Iceman wrote - "As a Canadian, I cannot believe the ramblings of the anti-abortion crowd,Republican or Democrat when it comes to the potential usurping of Roe v. Wade, which having stood for 36 years, is being used as a tool by both sides of the aisle as a talking point to get their own way - disgraceful !!

It was ensconced by The Supreme Court of the United States of America, no more and no less than the anointment of Geo. W. Bush as President of the United States in 2000(1) after a joke perpetrated in Florida.

They should be ashamed of such tactics in their ingracious attempts to defile the hard-won battle on behalf of the women in the USA and the rights they have under Roe v. Wade.

This has NO place in the annals of the Senate, and is a mockery of their job to finally get health coverage for ALL Americans, as we do here in Canada.

'Tis to weep, 'tis to weep for your country and its values being strewn all over the floor of the Senate in ANYTHING but a 'democratric' fashion by these two so-called bipartisan members, one of each stripe.

I say get rid of them both, and/or find them out of order. This isn't about abortion, it's about human rights and the religious right and the money-monger healthcare companies have no place in the debate.

They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Iceman - Stay in Canada! Until you live here your opinion is without credibility!
All your canadian buddies are oming here for their healthcare when push comes to shove!!!

Posted by: thornegp2626 | December 8, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The Dems have the necessary seats in both houses to pass any bill they can agree on as a party. They have a President who will sign whatever they pass. If they can't get a bill passed, no matter what it's topic is, it's their failure. I love it.

Posted by: JHG_sec405 | December 8, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

bogardp:

We don't allow mothers of BORN children who are financiallt strapped or on government assistance to kill their babies, right?

P.S. to notation (assuming you have some legal training): you will see that Justice Kennard tried to make your argument in her dissent but got no one to buy it. At least here in California, the unborn fetus is a SEPERATE murder victim, unless the "murder" is by the mother.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

thornegp2626:

That's what I tried to tell him too : )

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

The Vatican needs to deal with its child molesting priests, which it continues to protect.

Cardinal Lavada, the Vatican's no. 2 man, first bankrupted the Portland ARchdiocese, protecting pedofiles, then went on to do the same in San Francisco.

Lavada's pedophile ring, the largest priest pedophile ring in the US then (more than 20) were called Lavada's boys.

Lavada obstructed justice, walked in on a molestation scene and walked out, tried to destroy a whistle blower priest.

HIs punishment? Sent to the Vatican to oversee priest sex abuse cases worldwide.

Pig. The Vatican is not in a position to weigh in on anything that concerns morality.

Further, they are not elected US officials. They are a sick, foreign entity.

Revoke their tax exempt status and get their shills out of Congress.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 8, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

there is no long commentary necessary. i am neither pro nor anti abortion, as a matter a fact there are many politician that i wish were aborted before they could inflict a lot of damage on us unsuspecting americans, but here is my take:
i did not have the pleasure and excitement of having intercourse then why should i pay for it. period. end of discussion. let those pay who had the fun. what is so hard to understand. if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Posted by: pferd | December 8, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Like Nazi Germany, this country is doomed!!!

Posted by: houston123 | December 8, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

pferd:

What about taxpayer-funded abortions for rape victims?

Farnaz1Mansouri1:

Just as soon as you can get the votes, you can revoke tax-exempt status / throw Senators out of office. I will fight you every step of the way though.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

notation:

Did I scare you away?

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - Hey, you think that a possible reason this country allows abortion (other than its a woman's right) is so that a financially strapped family doesn't have to go on government assistance in order to support an unwanted child?

Christ wake up and realize that this is no longer 1950, not every American family is the Cleavers. Maybe you would realize that if you ever left the trailer park, but I understand if its easier for your likely overweight butt to hide behind a keyboard and troll all day.

Posted by: bogardp | December 8, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

We need legislation that prohibits abortion restrictions until such time as there at least 50 female Senators and 218 Representatives to vote on abortion legislation.

As it stand now abortion restrictions are nothing but man crap.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 8, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

BABY KILLERS BE GLAD, THIS IS YOUR DAY, ONLY JUST WAIT, IT WILL GET HOT FOR YOU!!

Posted by: houston123 | December 8, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Iceman12 wrote:
Also, if an embryo is determined to be malformed and definitely NOT to develope into a feasable human being, it is the need, no the DUTY of the system to aid the pregnant female by informing her of such and recommending termination.

It is an AID to the pregnant female to recommend termination? I'm looking at my beautiful autistic son right now. How dare you say that he should have been aborted! I have a someone who comes to the mission I run (yes, egads, a religious organization helping people!) that has a severly retarded daughter. How dare you say that she should have been aborted! And what about the second after birth when we find that the child is malformed. Should we just do society a favor and kill the child then. After all, he (or it) won't be a feasable human being. How dare you push your beliefs on me. You seem to think that religious people and their beliefs have no business in the running of a country. Does that mean that just because our beliefs stem from our faith that they are less important than your beliefs?

I also am amazed at the folks who say that comparing abortions to the people murdered by Hitler or his ilk is hocus pocus, but then they say that most abortions are done to save the life of a mother. Who are you trying to fool! Give me a break!

If you pro-death folks (if some of you insist in calling us anti-choice then I will insist on calling you pro-death) want to have your abortions, we can't do a whole lot to stop you, but don't ask us to pay for them.

Oh, and I do have a response to gillyala who wrote:

How about opposing to pay for lung cancer treatments for smokers? They brought their illness on themselves, after all. How about opposing pay to for diabetes treatments caused by bad dietary habits? How about opposing to pay for long term care for paraplegics who didn't wear seat belts?

No, gillyala, we don't want to deny health coverage to them. You see, that would be like murder, and we're against murder. That's the point!

Posted by: tink38570 | December 8, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Abortion--the remedy for those too irresponsible to use birth control. Most bizarre that so many liberals decry the killing in conflicts but support the arbitrary murder of fetuses.

Posted by: judithod | December 8, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

You will lose. The majority of American Catholics feel precisely as I do. They are disgusted and embarrassed by the likes of Vatican shills like Nelson and by the need for Catholic bishops to approve of health care provisions.

This is a clear violation of our theoretical separation of church and state. Why not bring the Pagans in? The Jews? The Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? Siekhs? B'hai?

Why a team of Lavada-type child molesters exclusively? Which other organized religious institution continues to shield child rapists?

Get them the hell out of Congress. Period. Along with the right-wing Christian Fundamentalists.

Otherwise, develop a parliamentary system in which each religious group, atheists, agnostics has its own party running.

Nelson votes according to the dictates of the bishops as he stated. 'Nuf said. Fire his ass.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 8, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Its a good thing we have abortion. If not for abortion one or more of the unaborted could have grown up to be the next Hitler or bin-Laden. Or, worse, the next Bush.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 8, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

We need legislation that prohibits abortion restrictions until such time as there at least 50 female Senators and 218 Representatives to vote on abortion legislation.

As it stand now abortion restrictions are nothing but man crap.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 8, 2009 8:27 PM |
----------------------------------------
There are no restrictions on abortion. What are you ranting about?

Posted by: rpatoh | December 8, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

It was depressing and disgusting to see how right wing fanatics tried to use anti-immigrant hate in order to kill health care reform this summer. Now they are trying to do the same thing to women with the abortion amendment.

A large part of America is still in the dark ages of 80 or 100 years ago when we tried to close the gates of this country to people who looked different from the white majority and when women seeking abortions had to risk their lives in back alleys.

The Republicans and their clones calling themselves "moderate Democrats" want to take us back to those days. We must not let them.

Posted by: algasema | December 8, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

BABYKILLERS, DEMS, LIBS AND RINOS, THERE IS A FIRE THAT IS COMING AND IT IS NOT FROM GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Posted by: houston123 | December 8, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats stand on the “Abortion Platform” and always act as though a woman needs an abortion if they are raped.

Yet, there are more women having abortions that are middle class, educated, and have the means to support a child. Some women are married and yet will still have an abortion.

We need to stop letting the politicians lie to us and act as though Abortions are so important.

We are in a major crisis in this country and not everyone should have to pay for a "One-Night-Stand" of a woman who decides to have an abortion.

The Democrats are killing babies and so will we if we allow this health bill. Americans should not kill unborn babies.

We may be killing the next person who will find a cure to Cancer and Heart Disease. When we get to heaven, we will ask God why he did not send a cure for Cancer. He will say, I sent the person with a cure, but they were aborted.

Posted by: knowdalaw | December 8, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

The pro-lifers want their immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - ok. Just don't make me pay for them. And I also do not want to pay for the social costs related to not having an abortion.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 8, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

What women do with their body is THEIR CHOICE AND THEIR RIGHT! It is not the decision of the state, gov't or church what they do. They are the ones that will have to live with the decision they made, it's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!

Posted by: vixis | December 8, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Too bad, Maddogg, you get to pay for whatever gets passed and signed onto law.

Posted by: JakeD | December 8, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

The jerk pro-lifers are chanting no health coverage for illegals. Just the opposite of what Jesus would do.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 8, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

why are the pro-lifers allowed to get their way with respect to "no taxpayer funding of abortions"..

with respect to medicaid, abortions can save the taxpayers more than $3.00 for every $1.00 spent on supporting a birth and full-term pregnancy (even more if there are difficulties).

the longer term savings are even more staggering.

why do prolifer's religious views get preference over ripping off the remainder of the taxpayers in the country?

the law is absurd, it forces military women and the poor to have babies they otherwise do not want. it is blatant waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars in favor of particular religous views.

military provided health insurance is equivalent to the compensation provided by every other corporation in this country. contractually it is part of a servicewoman's compensation and really not subsidized by the taxpayers -- it is truly earned by our military personnel.

therefore the DoD's stance on not providing abortion services is essentially wrong-headed. if a woman wishes to remain in the service and not go through with a pregnancy, she would be forced to do it out of pocket -- something no military service person should be forced to do -- and forcing a womnan to go through with an unwanted pregancy is unconscionable.

Posted by: FranknErnest | December 8, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Federal tax dollars cannot be used for abortion. What are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but abortion. The wars should not be funded with tax dollars.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 8, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Abortion-care?

It is unfathomable for those of us who believe abortion to be murder of an innocent life to include it in a healthcare bill.

Instead of healthcare, we have Murder-care

Sound unreasonable? Try the dictionary.

Abortion: 1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

Look closely at the definition. DEATH of the fetus.

Most states still call the termination of an innocent life murder -- So now we have death-care.

How could we as a nation be so depraved as to include that in healthcare?

Posted by: EastCoastCommentator | December 8, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how all those old white men who wear long robes, expensive jewelry and costume hats (and like boys) feel about this vote?

Posted by: flamingliberal | December 8, 2009 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Libs ignore BASIC physiology: THE BABY IS SEPARATE FROM THE MOTHER
THEREFOR IT'S MURDER IN THE 1ST DEGREE!!!

Posted by: houston123 | December 8, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

dhenken1: You say that politics has become amazingly conservative. I ask....HOW?! Politics in America are FAAAAAAAAAAR from being conservative. Simply because the extremely far left fringe of the Democrat Party can't get the more moderate spectrum of their party to agree on their whacked out policy....that makes nothing at all necessarily conservative. It simply means that far left policy is failing. Politics has a LONG way to go before it is even centrist in nature again. I hope and pray that we get MUCH MUCH MUCH more conservative.

Posted by: richarcm13 | December 8, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what I'd like to abort. I'd like to abort the Republican Party.

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 8, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

this shows the depravity of the dem party

or more precisely how the radical pro- abortion wing will risk obamacare in its entirety

to force every american to support abortion

hopefully this will abort

obamacare

Posted by: ProCounsel | December 8, 2009 9:07 PM | Report abuse

We certainly need more women in the Senate and in the Supreme Court as well. As soon as possible.

Posted by: gpcarvalho | December 8, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

OK. Do people want to get stuff passed or not? Abortion is controversial, the right to have one is still protected. Also, privitization has worked in the case of abortions as there are a lot of doctors who think it is acceptable to do abortions and they are willing to work with people who tend to have less money, younger women and particularly low income people who have a lot more unintended pregnacies. This means its one of the cheapest surgeries we have available. Can you imagine ever getting any other surgery for $400-500 dollars?

Most women don't pay for abortions with insurance because there is stigma but also because they don't have to. They can afford it on their own and the sting of the cost (if not the morality) should keep them rare for all but the most dysfunctional of women. So it is a win win situation. Right? There are multiple ways to do legislation, don't get hung up on details like this. The right to choose is not threatened. There is a lot of money spent on this issue why not put some of that money towards a charity fund for people who can't afford it?

Why not put some money and muscle behind protecting pregnant women from abusive boyfriends? I just read another article on this topic recently where two guys tried to drown a 15 year old pregnant girl as her boyfriend thought that if she was able to have a baby it would ruin his music career. To be a true choice women need to be able to choose both options.

Posted by: persimonix1 | December 8, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Nelson has his price.

Posted by: rusty3 | December 8, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

BABYKILLERS, DEMS, LIBS AND RINOS, THERE IS A FIRE THAT IS COMING AND IT IS NOT FROM GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Posted by: houston123

=======================================

Oh man am I worried. You Christian extremists have about as much in common with our Lord as Karl Rove does with George Washington and you are as much a threat to our republic as any Islamic extremists, arguably more.

Do these words sound familiar? "I know you not"? It is the first thing you will hear on the other side. Then you will learn that your "lake of fire" is not much different than life on this plane of existence.

Having to live with depraved hypocrites who don't understand one word of what Jesus says in the New Testament but who continually quote obscure passages from the Old Testament as if they were some kind of modern day prophets, when what they really are is the product of Karl Rove's sick imagination, now that's hell.


Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 8, 2009 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey so-called "Christian" conservatives (a.k.a. Republican loyalist rabble), REPEAT AFTER ME:


IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.

Got it?

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 8, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Some of these comments are not worthy of a response. A strident, omniscient, intolerant, absolutism is the natural corollary of a religious belief that is absolutely certain that it is absolutely right. All the time. Must be nice.

These religious fanatics are destructive of the dialogue a democracy needs. They are shameless in their smear and degradation of other humans who disagree with them about abortion. They are are real true Pharisees from their own Bible who prance before other men and call attention to their virtue. In their smugness, they congratulate themselves on how wise and virtuous they are. All while they judge, look down upon and condemn those they deem not so wise and virtuous as they.

Just as Jesus despised the Pharisees, I bet he despises these bishops and their followers with their hands blackened with sin but pointing their fingers and condemning someone much less fortunate than they. The condemners forget that it's easy to condemn. It's harder and more divine to forgive. And not to judge. It tells them that in their own Iron Age book.

How wise they are. How good they are. How godlike are these small, narrow, ignorant, condemning, puritanical people?


Posted by: flamingliberal | December 8, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Both parties have used my money to kill innocent people on death row and illiterate poor people in Third World countries who have never read Mao or Muhammid or Marx, so really, why should the unborn not be killed with my money as well? It's not like Democrats or Republicans have ever indicated they really have a conscience when it comes to killing people, so c'mon, let the final bells of the death culture toll!

Posted by: indie195 | December 8, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

They can dither all they want. This piece o' carp if passed will be defunded and overturned by the 2010 Conservative takeover of Congress. It's hilarious to watch these partisan hacks fight over who gets to slit their own throat with the knife first!

Posted by: praxis22 | December 8, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

As one of the many women who reads and notes the current legislation taking place these days, I have to say, I'm very pleased with the vote that just took place. Frankly any Democrats that vote to try to take women back to the past have lost all credibility as far as I am concerned!

Speaking as one who started out as a Conservative, and is now a Democrat, I can say in all honesty that I am not only disappointed in what the Republican/Conservative, I am appalled at the petty, selfish state it has sunk into.

Somewhere along the line, the separation of church and state has gotten lost in all the political scuffles. This country was formed to give freedom to all, not just the people with a idea that prohibits freedom to some of it's members. No one is telling those that don't believe in something to do it, we are just saying let everyone have a choice.

It's always amazed me that birth control is prohibited by the same group that wants to prevent a woman's right to choose. Also I don't hear anyone trying to control the use of the drugs that make a man more likely to cause a need for choice be it before or after the fact. Cover what a man wants to have, but deny a woman the right to have options.

Posted by: wendyo1 | December 8, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

YOU KNOW, WHEN JESUS OF NAZARETH SUGGESTED THAT YOU LEAD BY EXAMPLE, I THINK WHAT HE HAD IN MIND, IN THIS CASE, WAS SOME MORE AKIN TO CHASTITY THAN MURDERING DOCTORS.


WHO APPOINTED YOU OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AS MORAL POLICE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY? WHO? AND HOW ARE YOU ONE WHIT DIFFERENT THAN MUSLIM EXTREMISTS IN YOU "RIGHTEOUS ANGER" AND HATE FOR ANYONE AND EVERYONE UNLIKE YOURSELVES? HOW?


YOU DON'T LOVE THIS COUNTRY.
YOU DON'T LOVE JESUS.
YOU DON'T LOVE OUR CONSTITUTION.
YOU DON'T LOVE FREEDOM.
YOU HATE.
YOU DO WHAT YOU LOVE.
AND WHAT YOU DO IS HATE AND MURDER.
YOU ARE THE VERY THING YOU RAGE AGAINST.
YOU ARE AS UN-AMERICAN AS A HUMAN BEING CAN BE.
YOU HATE OUR LIBERAL TRADITIONS.
YOU HATE OUR EMBRACING OF DIVERSITY.
YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO FREE PEOPLE THE WORLD OVER.
AND YES, YOUR SOULS ARE AS UGLY AS ANY STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF ADOLF HITLER.
I WOULD SAY YOU ARE ACTUALLY WORSE, BECAUSE YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

BUT IN THE END, WHAT YOU ARE IS THE PRODUCT OF PROPAGANDA, NOTHING MORE.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY NOTHING.

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 8, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Hey flamingliberal..

I would expect someone so obviously detached from logic and reason to make such comments, but you DO realize that the whole "concept" of faith IS the realization that one's beliefs DO make them "absolutely certain that it is absolutely right. All the time."

It's hilarious to read comments from someone who hasn't spent a mere 30 seconds reading a Bible and the teachings of Jesus, and lacking the ability to even understand the teachings of Jesus lecture those who DO understand about faith!

How's that Hopenchange working out for ya! lol

Posted by: praxis22 | December 8, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

When "safe sex" and/or the pill fail, we've made it legal to kill the child. No wonder our country is going down the drain. We've lost our moral compass and now imagine that freedom means doing whatever the h*ll we want, no matter what it costs someone else. The Democratic Party makes the intrinsically evil practice of baby killing central to their party platform. On this basis alone, they've lost me and anyone who sees through the mask. They are 100% a party dedicated to gaining and keeping power by any means, including the murder of innocents.

Posted by: RchJJackson | December 8, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Liberals are truly sick, debased, twisted, godless wonders.

Posted by: finsher771 | December 8, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

The only thing I think about when the name Harry Reid comes up is, IDIOT.. The man is one brick short of a load. When I think that he is in office at the White House I get sick. The good thing is, he won't be there much longer. Along with a lot of others he will be voted out. I personally think the republicans should come on stronger about the goals of the Demos. because in my opinion, they are all a bunch of takers, fakers, lovers of illegals and criminals. They are perfect followers for Barry Soetoro Hussein. Oh, and like their leader most of them are LIARS. I'm not excluding some Republicans. I think that we would be better off to put all politicians in GITMO and start over again. I'm 64 years of age and I have seen this great country of ours become not so great. It is happening from within. How come Barry didn't jump on the band wagon when a black man shot four white police officers and say, it was done out of racist hate? Because he himself is a racist and wants to promote blacks mainly and then, illegals and takers. He is a total clown and has not a clue how to run a country. He was a good community organizer and that's it. He will be IMPEACHED. Some say there is no basis for impeachment. How about associating with the enemy for one? Of, course, this is just my opinion, which I still can express. At least for a while. Americans are starting to wise up and they see for the first time what and who Barry Soetoro Hussein is. Concerned AMERICAN,
LV

Posted by: landlvinternet49com | December 8, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Don't they get it? We don't want any of this crap they keep trying to force down our throats! Stop raising our taxes! No medical without and unless ALL of government has the SAME health insurance! Who do they think they are? This is OUR money they are tossing into their pockets!

Posted by: sudsa | December 8, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Hey Farnaz1Mansouri1, if you support abortion you are NOT Catholic. If there is anything the Church stands for, it's life. And forget the cheap shots about clerical child abuse. The abuse rate among non-clerics was and is MUCH higher, even before they threw out the NAMBLA crowd!

Posted by: RchJJackson | December 8, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Liberals fail to recognize what's so simple: This isn't about rejecting the 'right' to an abortion. This is rejecting the requirement of the government to mandate public or private funds be used to pay for abortions.

If you feel that abortions should be funded, just set up a fund and have the liberals donate $5 a year to it. That will pay for all the abortions you want to see for at least a year.

You act as if you have the right to have every issue you favor publicly funded or mandated. Get over it.

Posted by: horace1 | December 8, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

No, they don't get it. They don't care what the people want. They are going to shove this down our throats no matter what we say and there's nothing we can do about it. The commies are in the house and they are there to stay. People are so stupid, that next election they'll put them right back into office.

Posted by: VotersOfNY | December 8, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

praxis22 WROTE:

"...you DO realize that the whole "concept" of faith IS the realization that one's beliefs DO make them "absolutely certain that it is absolutely right. All the time."

It's hilarious to read comments from someone who hasn't spent a mere 30 seconds reading a Bible and the teachings of Jesus, and lacking the ability to even understand the teachings of Jesus lecture those who DO understand about faith!

How's that Hopenchange working out for ya! lol

=====================================

IT'S WORKING JUST FINE FOR ME, MISTER, AND I SPEND AN HOUR READING THE BIBLE EVERY MORNING.

SO YOU LOVE JESUS AND THIS LEADS YOU TO RIDICULE OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?

IS THAT YOUR CHRISTIANITY?

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, MUSLIM EXTREMISTS ARE SURE YOU ARE MORAL GARBAGE, BASED ON THEIR READING OF SCRIPTURE. I AGREE WITH THEM.

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY N-O-T-H-I-N-G IN COMMON WITH OUR LORD AND MASTER. NOTHING.

YOUR SO-CALLED FAITH IS LITTLE MORE THAN AN EXCUSE TO HATE OTHERS.

WHY DON'T YOU FIND A GOOD GLOBAL WARMING THREAD AND ATTACK COMMON SENSE BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING HEALTH CARE REFORM WEATHER YOU REPUBLICAN LUNATICS LIKE IT OR NOT.

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 8, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Libs ignore BASIC physiology: THE BABY IS SEPARATE FROM THE MOTHER
THEREFOR IT'S MURDER IN THE 1ST DEGREE!!!

Those who actually possess brains and have an education ignore you, because you have neither, dear.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

John 13:35
" By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Posted by: EastCoastCommentator | December 8, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Did I scare you away?

Hardly. You couldn't scare a kitten, dude.

Let us all know when you've contacted the SCOTUS and told them what's what, honey. Until then, you're irrelevant.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

As a Nebraskan who has watched the machinations of Senator Nelson for several years, I can assure the readers that he is simply engaging in his favorite activity of having both sides of the issue. He will find a way to say he opposes the bill but make sure that it passes.

The reason that abortion as an issue has not gone away is because the idea of abortion is incompatible with the fundamental ideals of our nation. The proposition that "we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights" cannot be reconciled with a woman's right to choose. Any expansion of abortion will only exacerbate the divisions over this issue.

Senator Nelson's amendment has failed. Let me be the first to call for Senator Nelson's immediate resignation. The Nebraska governor can then appoint a senator who can assure that this legislation never sees the light of day.


If Senator Nelson really opposes federal funding of abortion, let me be the first to call for his immediate retirement from the Senate

Posted by: Dkovar6501 | December 8, 2009 10:05 PM | Report abuse

“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought.”

Now, Jakey, go back and re-read this and see if you can figure out what the problem is.

Here's a hint: the key is the word "unlawful". Perhaps if you strain really hard, as you do when you're constipated, you'll get it.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse


VotersOfNY WROTE:

"...They are going to shove this down our throats no matter what we say and there's nothing we can do about it. The commies are in the house and they are there to stay. People are so stupid, that next election they'll put them right back into office."

==============================

NOW YOU'RE CATCHING ON. IT'S CALLED DEMOCRACY, AND YOU LOST. KARL ROVE (A.K.A. FOX NEWS) IS TAKING YOUR COMPLAINTS...TO THE BANK.

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 8, 2009 10:09 PM | Report abuse

he unborn fetus is a SEPERATE murder victim, unless the "murder" is by the mother.

WHich is why abortion is not, and never has been, murder. And you have yet to prove that a fetus has rights under the Constitution. Hmmm. I wonder why you can't seem to do that.

Perhaps it's because it doesn't.


Go ahead and enumerate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to a fetus, honey. Have at it.

Because otherwise, you're just baying at the moon.

Oh, wait. That's all you were doing anyway, wasn't it?

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Simple Truth, maybe you should change your moniker to Oxymoron. You dare invoke the name of Christ Jesus and then launch into what you said?

By the way, DON"T YOU KNOW YET THAT PUTTING TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING?

Oh, yeah: You read the Bible an hour every morning? Not a chance, bub, with what you've said and how you said it.

Oh, yeah: While everyone is not perhaps Barnabas, and thus may not have encouraging words to say about the current president, all Christians are really called to do is pray for him.

Many of us do: that he and his family do find the salvation of the Christ and that the Lord protects them all from harm--and that Obama's heart would change from abortionist-in-chief to someone whose concern for the most vulnerable of humans is more than lip service to some constituency.

Oh, yeah: That you call anyone apparently disagreeing with you on this thread "Republican lunatics" seems not just ignorant and malicious, but really seems to negate your castigation of another commenter about "ridiculing our commander-in-chief?

Maybe you've heard or read of the Pharisees?

Nah.

But maybe you will.

And maybe you'll find the revelation that abortion is not supported by the Word of God?

Here's praying you do.

Posted by: 1legacy | December 8, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Richie sez:When "safe sex" and/or the pill fail, we've made it legal to kill the child. No wonder our country is going down the drain. We've lost our moral compass and now imagine that freedom means doing whatever the h*ll we want, no matter what it costs someone else.

Lemme guess, you're a male, aren't you? Let us all know when YOU get pregnant and then your opinion will actually hold some weight.

You don't get a line-item veto, dear. That's how government works. I don't like everything my taxes pay for, either. Get over it. You're not so special.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Jakey the Snake sez:Too bad, Maddogg, you get to pay for whatever gets passed and signed onto law.


And guess what? So do you.

Until you can overturn R v W, you're out of luck. Read it and weep.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

All this vitriol from the left and the right battling each other is part of the problem. I used to be a conservative Republican, until I realized, thanks to Bush, that conservatism is no more than totalitarianism directed to achieve a conservative agenda. Liberalism is the same only it's directed to achieve a liberal agenda. The result is a forced division of the people into one of two camps constantly warring with one another.

Now is the time to recognize tyranny for what it is. I am "pro-life" and that includes war. But policy, even what does and does not constitute crime, is not something that should be decided by the national government. It is time to unleash the laboratories of democracy where the most brilliant minds in each stated can get to the work of solving problems, and we don't have to be forced to select one of two lousy options that isn't even designed to solve problems but to keep us divided.

Tyranny is tyranny. It doesn't matter if your guy is in power now advancing an agenda you find much more palatable than the last. The next guy could be another Bush, another Johnson, or another Nixon.

I hate this division, let's throw off the shackles of this false dichotomy and unite on the principles in which we believe: the government shouldn't spy on her citizens (is Obama fixing that, no), we shouldn't have troops all over the world making war on people, we shouldn't have a government that allows the banks to print our money into worthlessness imposing the worst form of taxation on the poor and middle class, and policy ought to be decided closer to home, not by some totalitarian from Washington.

I bet a lot of Democrats and Republicans can agree on those things, but their "leaders" will NEVER address them!

Time for a third party based on the principle of subsidiarity!

Posted by: herrobp | December 8, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Bet there is not a single person on here who can honestly say they have read and understand every page of both the House and Senate bills.

Why can't they be written in plain English, rather than by a cage of lawyers who have to tell us what it says and how we should think. This is the real danger in America. We are no longer allowed to think for ourselves. Think about it, and be honest!

Posted by: bill_r | December 8, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

RightWing, your posts are nothing more than spam, and you've been reported for attempting to use this site to advertise without paying to do so.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

An abortion is not healthcare and should not be paid for by tax payers.

-If you don't wrap it why do I have to pay to zap it?

-how is sticking a shop vac up a vagina and sucking out a little baby out one body part at a time healthcare?

Posted by: shazzamm | December 8, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Where is the separation of church and state here? Bible thumpers need to realize that religion has nothing to do with this issue of the government paying for abortions. We pay so much each year for medicaid, food stamps, daycare assistance and other tax funded assistance that is not our responsibility. If you chose to have a child and are not finically stable we the tax payer should not be on the hook for the next 18 years either, but we are. I am willing to pay for a one time procedure to avoid paying for 2 peoples poor lack of judgment for the next 18 years. Too be honest I think if you have more than 2 children while on tax payer assistance the woman should have her tubes tide and men should have a vasectomy on the tax payers tab. Looking at this issue from a financial standpoint abortion in the long run is a very cost effective way to cut government spending on programs that support people having babies they can’t afford to take care of, because we as a nation can’t afford it either. Abortion being covered under a public health care option is a win win IMO.

Posted by: missing_nyc | December 8, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

THe levitator brays: notation...you are clearly a person who choses not to think for yourself as a reasonable man would.

That's because I'm NOT a "reasonable man", you boob. I'm a woman. And you're barking is worthless.

You imbeciles who yap about abortion while sporting a little elephant trunk in your shorts are laughable. Go tell someone who thinks you matter.

The only opinion that matters is that of those who make the law. And that's not you, dear. Until you're sitting on the SCOTUS bench, can it. No one gives a rat's posterior about your opinions.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I never get an answer. Who can honestly say they can read and understand every page of both the House and Senate bills?

Does that not bother anyone?

Posted by: bill_r | December 8, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

funkyone farts: Why is prostitution illegal then? Isn't it a woman's right to choose? I don't see you fighting for it to be legal. Aren't we trampling not only her right to choose but also her right to work. Why are you not decrying the unfair anti-prostitution laws.

As a matter of fact, I don't think prostitution should be illegal.


Now stick that in yer pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:33 PM | Report abuse

joey screams: OK...HOW ABOUT THIS?

SINCE WOMEN GET TO DECIDE TO MURDER THE FETUS, BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT BABY GOT THERE...HOW ABOUT A COMPROMISE...

WOMEN GET FREE ABORTIONS IF THE FETUS IS FEMALE, BUT IF IT IS MALE, THEN IT HAS TO GO TO FULL BIRTH AND THE MOMMY GETS TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING THE MALE CHILD NEEDS UNTIL HE IS 18.

OK...PRETTY FAIR...THAT WAY, NO WOMEN GET TO TELL THE DAUGHTERS THAT ABORTION IS OK BECAUSE THEY HAD ONE...THEY WON'T BE HAVING DAUGHTERS.


How about you grow a brain cell to keep the one you have from getting so lonely?

Posted by: notation | December 8, 2009 10:35 PM | Report abuse

1legacy WROTE:

"...maybe you'll find the revelation that abortion is not supported by the Word of God?..."

======================================


Pray for yourself, my friend. You really don't get it, do you? Corporate America, which has bought the Republican Party, lock, stock and barrel, is controlling your vote with this single issue madness. I DO NOT CONDONE ABORTION. Let me say that again. I DO NOT CONDONE ABORTION. I don't like it. I think it's sick. I'll even do you one better; if I had a wife in labor who faced possible death, I would like to think she would take that risk to give birth to our child. BUT, AND HERE'S WHERE THE CAPS ARE APPARENTLY NECESSARY BECAUSE NOTHING GETS THROUGH TO YOU PEOPLE, BUT, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS INTRUDING INTO THE LIFE OF A WOMAN TO THIS DEGREE, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ABORTION. It is an INDIVIDUAL DECISION. It is a decision that should be made by a woman, and only by a woman. That is why we like to say:

IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE.

Got it? No, of course you don't. You are the product of one of the most vicious propaganda machines this world has ever known, and you would and have killed in response to this mental programming.

Jesus would and did lead by his own purity. He would not do what you people are doing. He would not try to dictate his views. He lived his life with such purity that we know of him even unto this day. TRY TO DO THE SAME, BUT IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO CONTROL THIS COUNTRY WITH YOU VINDICTIVE, BELLIGERENT, ONE-ISSUE INSANITY, YOU GOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE US LIBERALS (including this former lifetime Republican) OWN GUNS, TOO. This is a democracy whether you and your leaders like it or not, and "We the People" are sick of your madness.

Grow up. Your country needs you.

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 8, 2009 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Republicans lose again. Moving more towards a health care program like the RNC has for its own members. Pro-choice.

Sort of funny all those donations to Republicans were supporting abortions of conservatives.

Do conservatives wonder why the population of pro-choice states are so much larger than anti-choice states? I'm sure they have some bizarre explanation for that.

Posted by: James10 | December 8, 2009 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Never mind. I feel like I have dropped in on a teenage chatroom here.

Posted by: bill_r | December 8, 2009 10:47 PM | Report abuse

notation - I've been away for a while, but it's about time you told these butt-heads you're a woman.

I figured it out immediately some hours ago. Mind you, I'm Canadian and I guess I'm just dumb enough to have guessed right - no guess here, m'am, got to be braindead to not figure your posts out.

Keep 'em on their toes with your good stuff, lady. That's how the Pope keeps the cardinals on their toes - he raises the urinals so that the 'little elephant trunk' is just a bit shy to reach them. LOL

cheers - Iceman

Posted by: iceman12 | December 8, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

1legacy WROTE:

"...maybe you'll find the revelation that abortion is not supported by the Word of God?..."

================

Abortion is legal in the Jewish State of Israel ... cleared by the Rabbis themselves.

Perhaps you should explore other places to live besides the US since you don't like the laws here.

Just skim down column 1 looking for "No".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#National_laws

Plenty of great places to live.

Posted by: James10 | December 8, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Our government has no charter to legislate morality. If anything it is prohinited from such by the first amendment. Our government exist to ensure our natural rights ie: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last 60 years have been a cruel enough assault on Americans, but what has happened, and been proposed in the last 1 is outrageous. A country divided cannot stand. So long as we encourage a class of perpetual victimhood who effectively become wards of the State we will allow the State to grind prosperity into reverse. That our government takes from citizens to better the lives of those who submit to foreign regimes we neither know or understand is no less evil than for our government to take from citizens to better the lives of those among us who disregard the pursuit of happiness that liberty provides.

Posted by: rpatoh | December 8, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

They all better find reasons to vote against this debacle or we are voting ALL of them out.

Posted by: DaMan2 | December 8, 2009 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Great comments! Some knowledge speaking, some passion, some ignorance. Remember one undenyable fact..."ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT RUNS....IS RUN POORLY". Don't be nieve enough to think that everyone will be able to afford the premium THE GOVERNMENT WILL CHARGE YOU FOR A PRE-EXISTING CONDTION...get informed. This bill charges (taxes) anyone living what they consider an unhealthy lifestyle, work at certain high risk or high stress jobs, has pre-existing health issues, are obese, use tobacco products, use alcohol, take any perscription drugs, are diabetic, etc. The health reform bill is NOT an across the board, low cost health insurance bill for all Americans, it is full of 2000+ pages of exemptions, exceptions, exclusions, and more new taxes than you can imagine. The abortion clause only exists to gain support for the bill. Don't even imagine that Congress cares about you, or your born, or unborn children. WHY do you suppose Congress has twice killed bills to require CONGRESS and their families, and all Federal employees to substitute this health care program for their elite system which costs them less than $600 PER YEAR ??? Politicians are counting on our ignorance, greed, and desire for another great entitlement to cloud our judgement and allow them to do what they wish, not what we want them to do. YES, we all want affordable, quality health care...the government cannot and will not provide it...especially in a bill which only took a matter of months to concieve...Congress has not honestly studied the problems, causes, and cures...if we support a health care reform bill which is strictly a political adjenda, we will pay a greater price than we can imagine for little or no health care. GET INFORMED AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE, DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE POLITICIANS WANT US TO BELIEVE...IF YOU HAVE LIVED AT ALL, YOU MUST REALIAZE THAT IF THEY ARE SPEAKING, THEY ARE LIEING!
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND EACH ONE OF US.

Posted by: wers | December 8, 2009 11:56 PM | Report abuse

is it just me or does Nelson look like a troll in a suit with a hair helmut.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 8, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

That is what is called " a politician" by us, and "the honorable...." by them. :}

Posted by: wers | December 9, 2009 12:01 AM | Report abuse

The killing of the unborn is not pleasing to GOD. GOD is the author of life and I suspect He does not take kindly to abortion. If you think about it abortion destroys a person, a person that will never be a brother or sister, a husband or wife, a doctor or ect. How can anyone take part in this awful thing? This is an evil act just as murder is. We have to protect the unprotected unborn.

Posted by: drcusmc | December 9, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

drcusmc:

Some libs above actually think that Jesus was in favor of abortions.

rpatoh:

Law and morality are already intertwined (unless you think that "real" murder shouldn't be illegal either?).

Posted by: JakeD | December 9, 2009 12:58 AM | Report abuse

The Simple Truth...Really! Where do you get such twisted thoughts? And you think they are mainstream... Wow! dillusional at best! Missing NYC... Are you for real? Where is seperation of church and state??? Do you know what this country was founded on? Do you know what makes the country different and more blessed than any other country EVER? That we were formed by CHRISTIANS!! PRAISING OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR FOR ALL OF OUR BLESSINGS... You are so twisted you cannot see beyond your own vanity... this country doesnt belong to you! You are just a VAPOR here for just a moment! Wake up.. think of others besides yourself... Merry Christmas! excuse me.. Happy Holidays!!!

Posted by: alwilson5 | December 9, 2009 1:00 AM | Report abuse

drcusmc:

Some libs above actually think that Jesus was in favor of abortions.

rpatoh:

Law and morality are already intertwined (unless you think that "real" murder shouldn't be illegal either?).
-------------------------------------------

Whose morality, and by what authority?

Posted by: rpatoh | December 9, 2009 1:09 AM | Report abuse

The collective morality within, and consent of, the governed. Care to answer my question about "real" murder now?

Posted by: JakeD | December 9, 2009 1:16 AM | Report abuse

drcusmc:

Some libs above actually think that Jesus was in favor of abortions.

rpatoh:

Law and morality are already intertwined (unless you think that "real" murder shouldn't be illegal either?).
-------------------------------------------

Whose morality, and by what authority?


Posted by: rpatoh | December 9, 2009 1:09 AM | Report abuse

The collective morality within, and consent of, the governed. Care to answer my question about "real" murder now?
-----------------------------------------
First I'll answer your question- No I don't think real murder should be legal. I think it ineterferes with the right to life I mentioned earlier.

Second, it sounds as if you are advocating mob rule. Mob rule has tended to deprive minorities of their natural rights. The US founding fathers attempted to negate mob rule by limiting the affect of popular will, and that of the mobs elected representatives by limits defined in the Constitution. They immediately followed enactment of that document by passing amendments that specifically guarantee certain rights regardless of the will of the mob.

Posted by: rpatoh | December 9, 2009 1:26 AM | Report abuse

The entire health care bill is unfair.
It forces people to pay for the poor choices and lifestyles of others.
Besides, it doesnt reform the system one bit, it simply puts more of your choices in the nosey hands of your goverment.

Just wait, this will open up a can of worms later when everyone is complaining about the poor health choices of others and driving up the cost - because government absolutely will step in to curb the costs by curbing your behavior.

Your freedoms are in serious jeopardy with this administration.

Posted by: IntelliQ | December 9, 2009 1:28 AM | Report abuse

rpatoh:

And we pro-lifers simply want to protect the right to life more completely.

Posted by: JakeD | December 9, 2009 1:37 AM | Report abuse

rpatoh,

Where in the Constitution does it speak of "suppressing the will of the mob"? I know "We the people" is in there, and that "those that govern do so with the consent of the goverened"... I know that one's in there... Congress should represent the will of the people... reflect what the people want... not do what they think is best for them. Nowadays though the mob is in charge and trying to impose their rules on us...

Posted by: The-Capitalist | December 9, 2009 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Posts like the one below make Eunice Kennedy Shriver roll in her grave. Anyone else remember when democrats had values?Nowadays it seems like they're only happy if something innocent is getting killed.

Iceman suggested:
Also, if an embryo is determined to be malformed and definitely NOT to develope into a feasable human being, it is the need, no the DUTY of the system to aid the pregnant female by informing her of such and recommending termination.

Posted by: saintpeterclan | December 9, 2009 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Funny thing about all these abortionists...if they had not allowed abortions in this country, they would have another 30 million taxpayers alive today, thus cutting the expences of the country and continuing to keep Social Security afloat. Some decisions are so ignorant and actually Dumb.

Posted by: patsat | December 9, 2009 4:45 AM | Report abuse

The few people living in the United States, (legal and illegal), that want free government run health care are not contributors to this society that rely on government handouts. The questions is: Why should I have to pay for your lazy behind?

Posted by: markburns1 | December 9, 2009 5:36 AM | Report abuse

I know it is hard for liberals to fathom, but there are actually valid reasons why a person would find public funding of abortion reprehensible. But without going into it, it is perfectly reasonable, too, to oppose public funding of personal choices that raise such deep and abiding moral concerns among the populace. If we grant for a moment that a fetus has personhood--as many medical ethicists fairly argue, and those with valid religious convictions believe--it follows that there is reasonable justification for assigning constitutional rights to the fetus. If this argument has any valitidy, then it means that the fetus has all the rights of any other person...the first right being life. Now this does not mean that a woman, in necessity and sorrow, does not have the right to an abortion under reasonable circumstances (other than personal convenience). It does mean that we must weigh with all of our compassion, the conflict of rights between the mother and the person who resides inside of her. So a callow approach to this issue is unwarranted on the part of the pious and sanctimonious on the left, who boldly and proudly declare a woman's right to commit feticide. I will grant a woman this right..under grave conditions...but it must be exercised with the deepest of pathos and compassion for a human life she chooses to destroy.

Posted by: burningtree1 | December 9, 2009 6:02 AM | Report abuse

These are the simple facts!! Who is it that lays around unemployed and makes babies? Who is it that expects the taxpayers to either abort or pay for this baby? I sure a hell don't want my tax's to pay for this! How about you. At least the illegals work and abortion is not an option for them. This lazy class of people who I am refering to are mostly black and just want the government to take care of them....How this hope and change working out for US!!!!

Posted by: janranch | December 9, 2009 6:27 AM | Report abuse

The world is changing and I don't like it. It used to be that taking a life (aka abortion) was illegal almost everywhere in the United States. Now it's come to the point where you have to favor (public funding of?) abortion on demand to be elected as a Democrat -- nay, to even be considered "worthy" of joining the Democrat Party. You can tell me I'm wrong 'til you turn blue in the face, but I'm not. That's a shame, comrade.

Posted by: apoundofflesh | December 9, 2009 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Several folks denounce how a "few" moderate/blue dog democrats are holding up progress on passage of the health care bill. How Democrats have a majority and should use it and not "cave in" to these dozen or so. Ok let's look at reality. The true "majority" of the AMERICAN PEOPLE don't want this health care bill to pass!! I find it amazing that in almost every pole and survey conducted, support across the political spectrum keeps falling for this version of health care reform. But these morons keep pressing on forcing down the throats of an American populace that's telling them we don't want it. Well don't worry folks because in 2010 there will only be a dozen or so democrats left that would support crap like this bill.

Posted by: MP5N | December 9, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

One lawmaker I know talks about reducing the cost of health insurance. That should be the focus of any bill for now..period. The pharms and medical mfg industry is making a killing. I wonder if they even charge for the ice chips.

The average life expectancy for an American Indian was in the 70's and about the same as what the average life expectancy is now for Americans. Many Indians in fact lived to 100. There was no Pharms back then nor health insurance costs. Sure they may traded a few beeds for a tree bark remedy or a somthing like that. The point is health costs didn't bankrupt you for life and they lived just as long if not longer.

What's happening now is unnatural and financial rape of the populace even to the point of killing those who can't defend themselves, our unborn. This is not America.

Kill the bill. Abort congress. Pink slips already sent.


Posted by: tas0714 | December 9, 2009 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Tas0714 has it right! And, seems one point is being missed - those on the Hill are debating an issue - paying for abortions with taxpayer money - that we had been assured wasn't even IN the bill ! So, we were lied to - once again! And, yes, we can vote them all out next election - that seems to be the going consensus - but they are like termites, doing their damage now. At the first sign of termites, you tent your house, you don't wait it out! Time to tent The House! The damage they've already done is going to take a long time to reverse!

Posted by: shelly7 | December 9, 2009 7:28 AM | Report abuse


Thank you Senator Nelson, Representative Stupak and all pro life Democrats!

Posted by: furtdw | December 9, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

It is my opinion that those that wish to have "extra" procedures,like abortion, must pay for it themselves, not be funded by taxpayers money. I hope that Nelson follows through with his threat but I have no confidence that any of these people in congress do what they say anymore. Vote them out next election.

Posted by: ladyluck1 | December 9, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

I don't think abortion should be in the bill because why should we have to pay for someone who willing had sex, you had the sex and you got pregnant we didn't get you pregnant you did, so why should we have to pay for something that you chose to do. And I know people bring up the argument about rape and incest a terrible and inexcusable crime from someone to have to endure and also the argument about the having to abort because of the mother health. Well, I currently work with individuals and families that have and are going through this and it breaks my heart and pains me deeply but I have found arguments for and against putting this amendment in from the very people that are suffering currently though this and from what I have (and again this is my opinion) found by listening and talking with the victims of these horrific crimes is that still the overwhelming majority still feel as if abortion is a private matter and should be taken care of privately by ones self. I do believe that as for these victims there should be a bill in support for this specific case and this case only not for someone who has sex willing and expects someone else to pick up the tab.

Posted by: tlathum | December 9, 2009 8:48 AM | Report abuse

For the folks who find that the Senate is not "democratic" enough because of the 60 vote requirement, it was MEANT to be that way for a reason. The house is intended as a more "direct democracy" forum. The Senate is meant as the gate keeper of rationality. In other words, folks in congress may get all crazy, but the cool heads in the Senate are supposed to even out the proposal du jour. The architects of this nation wanted laws passed in the Senate only if they had broad support (60 votes). It makes sense to avoid laws created on pure emotion. Two bad laws avoided is better than 1 good law denied.

Posted by: artb1 | December 9, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

There is absolutely no doubt that the fetus is alive. There is no doubt that the fetus is genetically human. There is absolutely no doubt that abortion kills the fetus. We can all agree on that. The only question is whether the human fetus is considered a human being or whether one only becomes a human being by exiting the birth canal. Clearly most people realize that injecting hypertonic saline into the skull of a baby while it is being born (the Chinese punishment for having a child beyond your allotment) or crushing the skull of a baby while it is being born (partial birth abortion) is pretty obviously a murder. So the only question then is at what age does the fetus gain the rights of a human being - conception, formation of an intact nervous system, quickening (independent beating of the heart), reaching the point where it is viable if delivered. Wherever one draws the line, it is inherently unreasonable to insist that someone who has drawn the line at some reasonable point (the Supreme Court long used quickening as a rule) should be compelled to subsidize what they clearly see as murder. In a larger sense this highlights the issue. Why should anyone be forced to subsidize other people under penalty of the government gun? Why should I be compelled to pay for the consequences of other people's behavior that I did not engage in, condone, encourage or believe in? The answer is that I should not. People should manage their own lives and pay for the consequences of their own acts without expecting the government to use their arbitrary police and tax powers to force a third party to pay for those consequences.

Posted by: student1776 | December 9, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Currently our healthcare system is 60% run by the government which is WHY it is in the mess it's in. There is already rationing as Medicare doesn't cover a variety of things. Still waiting for my H1N1 shot. This entire year has been a travesty and Obama won't be happy until we are all broke.

Posted by: mikedanmom | December 9, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

WHY is it that Liberal, Progressive, Communist Democrats insist on KILLING innocent children? IT IS NOT your choice when you can murder a human being. Have you people lost your soul?

Aborting a baby is murder and this country will pay dearly if it continues down this immoral path of destruction.

You liberals or progressives, whatever you now call yourselves, will wake up one day and realize your utopia dream was really your worst nightmare!

Posted by: rodgar | December 9, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

We are being played.
Every time there is a vote or talks of a next step the headlines read:
“It will be near impossible for Democrats to get enough votes” or “The bill is as good as dead”. And then the vote happens and the bill gets to the next stage, but wait for next step it will be “impossible to get enough votes” and “bill is practically dead” your headlines read again.
Who are we counting on now Liberman, modern democrats in the senate? Just like we counted on modern democrats in the House.
False hope was being sold to us so we sit on your hands.
I promise you this if we will be passive our last hope will be the headline “Bill is sent to White House all hopes are Obama won’t sign it”.

Posted by: FeldmanWill | December 9, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

why don't you democrats practice birth control instead of killing babies? Also, why should others pay for your killing of the babies thru government insurance? Stupid is as stupid does and the democrat socialist party is the party of stupid.
=======================================
Amen!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Here is a reminder from a great former President: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan"

Posted by: rpsboyz | December 9, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Hopeful9: Really? You are complaining about the 60 vote requrement, something that has worked for 200 years? Get a clue.

Over 90% of ALL abortions have nothing to do with the mothers life or a rape or incest or a child. They are simply women in their 20's & 30's who do not want to take responsibility for their actions and use abortion as birth control. That is the issue MSOT people have with abortions, it is used as birth control after the fact.

People for abortion do not understand that. They think everyone is a bible thumper and they think every abortion is saving a mothers life or stopping a teen pregnancy when all the facts show otherwise.

All of it is beside the point anyway because WE CAN NOT AFFORD THIS BILL. What about that most of you do not understand is mind numbing.

Posted by: DCrum35 | December 9, 2009 9:22 AM | Report abuse

The good news is, this bill is going to all but kill the Democrat control over the government. You guys could have done some real good if you didnt get drunk with power. you think because you won an election that gives you the right to trample all over our individual rights as taxpayers. Whatever go nuts have a blast cause the party will end soon enough.

Posted by: ra44_mr2 | December 9, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Perform an abortion, terminate a life. I am not paying for it.

Posted by: Mikeyh01 | December 9, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Sadly for the nation, the two hold outs are Democrats and Democrats can be bought...Mary Landrieu sold herself for $300 million. Are the hold outs standing on priciple? If so, the bill cannot pass. Or, are they holding out for more money or projects...if so the bill will pass. Then, in time for Christmas, there would be a Ho, Ho, and Ho.

Look, we're only talking about everybody paying to kill everybody's babies, it's not like it's a big deal...and who's afraid of healthcare run like the post office? Get a life.

We need Delay as head of the RNC...NOW.

Posted by: Phocus | December 9, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

bstrauss0913,

You correctly include the preamble of the Constitution, but let me ask you this: If the preamble of the Constitution allows the Congress to do anything and everything that fits within your definition of "general welfare" then why did the Founders go on to list the items in Article 1, Section 8 that specifically limit what the Congress may do? If, by your logic, "general welfare" means anything and everything you want it to mean, why list what the Congress may do? You are confusing the meaning of the word "GENERAL" with the meaning of the word "UNIVERSAL." The Congress has LIMITED powers, not UNIVERSAL powers.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1791

As for abortion, it is one thing for a procedure to be legal or not (a debatable point, to be sure), but it is a far different matter to ask the taxpayers to pay for it. You have a right to own a gun, too, but you certainly don't have a right to make others pay for it. If The People get to decide anything, it is what they are willing to pay for, on another's behalf. Regardless of your feelings on the legality of a abortion, certainly it is reasonable for people to disagree on whether they want the taxpayers to subsidize it.

Posted by: Mrs_du_Toit | December 9, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

sillygirl2 posted "If men got pregnant we wouldn't be discussing this on any level"

Sillygirl is right. Let me offer an equally ignorant statement in response. If men got pregnant there would be no abortion as pregnancy would not take nine months and would be painless. Furthermore, men would not blame the opposite sex, and they would accept the consequences and responsibility of their actions.

It is past time for women to accept responsibility for the human slaughter they have caused and continue to advocate behind flimsy excuses. It is time for women to put human rights of their own children ahead of their own temporary inconvenience.

Posted by: mpk0101 | December 9, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Most reasonable people do not expect others to fund their rights and privilidges. The rhetoric that health care is a right, and the supreme court ruling that lealized abortion is constitutional does not equate to either being subsidized by the citizenry. Asserting their is a personal obligation to fund the rights of others would require the government to confiscate personal wealth so all can enjoy their constitutional right to bear arms.

Posted by: mpk0101 | December 9, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Regarding our nation as a "democracy." We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Thanks to public education for insinuating we are the former and not the latter.

We elect our representatives through a Democratic process, but that is the beginning and the end of it with respect to "a democracy."

As to using the Constitution as evidence that a simple majority is all that should be necessary for everything, it takes 75% of the states to pass a Constitutional Amendment, so the idea that super majorities are required in other arenas is not at all unusual (to override a Filibuster and 60 votes to give the Congress a Presidential veto-proof Bill).

The Congress can decide to eliminate or change the Filibuster rules. Congress itself decided that a 60 vote majority was necessary to end a Filibuster. They could suspend that rule at any time, but the Democrats know it would come around to bite them, because they've been using that tactic to prevent the Republicans from passing legislation for decades. (Especially with regards to the supposed "Republican Majority" that Bush had during his first term. In fact, they had only 50 seats, and Specter, now a Democrat, was one of those 50).

I believe you are confusing a "simple" majority being necessary to pass a Bill, with a "super" majority (60 votes) to override a Filibuster. It doesn't require 60 votes to pass a Bill.

And why is it that the 60 vote requirement to override a Filibuster is a "bad thing" when the Democrats try to pass their ridiculous legislation, but it is a "good thing" when it defeats Republican sponsored legislation?

Posted by: Mrs_du_Toit | December 9, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Anti-abortion people choose life. "Pro-Choice" people choose death. The killers on the left like to dress things up with nice words. But, having an abortion stops a beating heart and that simple truth must be lived with for the rest of their lives. I refuse to pay for it.

Posted by: Phocus | December 9, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

RE: student1776 | December 9, 2009 9:03 AM

Well done! READ THAT POST.

Posted by: Phocus | December 9, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Let's presume for a moment that after we die we do in fact come face to face with our Creator. Would I prefer to tell Him how I stood firm in every way I could to protect His most vulnerable, His newly created human beings in the womb? Or would I prefer to tell Him that I stood firm to protect a woman's right to determine when and if one of His creations was inconvenient to her at that time?
Just pick a side. I have.

Posted by: oneofHis | December 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Language does not defer the fact that those who are against abortion I’m afraid will not participate in this car crash HR3950 hence those who are pro-life will look upon this as being forced to commit murder, no?

This is not going well at all and America is not going well at all and I’m afraid, literally. To those who say buck up? I say there is no stronger emotion or conviction than a scared American and this will morph into hundred’s of millions of them, no? Roll those dice!!

Posted by: spiderbyte88 | December 9, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Pro-CHOICE right?

Abortion is a CHOICE, not a medical necessity (except in cases to save the mother's life). Therefore it is an ELECTIVE procedure and needs to be paid for out of pocket - certainly not with tax payer money!!!

Posted by: independican | December 9, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Why are there so many lies about what congress is planning to do? It is pretty much a guarantee this whole debate is a side show as the white house overhauls the whole health care industry to go under executive power through the amendments written in both congress and senate bills that will enable health care to be considered a federal social security program, thus directly controlled by the President. The power of 1/3 of our economy, our healthcare (which is by the way a personal life issue), will now be mandated under the whims of the Presidential office and can be dictated as prolife or proabortion, oh, and lets not forget pro euthanisia especially for the old folks who will cost too much. Sounds more and more totalitarian and not democratic if you ask me. But, if that happens, I will make sure my family leaves this god forsaken hell hole, as I will never allow my loved ones to be under a totalitarian government. United States is about to make their bed, and it is going to be hell to pay, when all of its democratic freedoms will be dictated by not the people, or congress, but by the white house, and the white house only. Maybe, it will be called the red house.

Posted by: ellamontgomery | December 9, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The real news story is if I believe an unborn child is human and DO NOT defend that life.

A woman's right to privacy - that's the legal right we're talking about. We've used the term "choice" so often that people believe Roe v. Wade provided a right to choose.

So we're really talking about funding a woman's right to privacy.

Posted by: thebrandts2 | December 9, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

PART 1 OF 3

alwilson5 wrote:
The Simple Truth...Really! Where do you get such twisted thoughts? And you think they are mainstream... Wow! dillusional at best! Missing NYC... Are you for real? Where is seperation of church and state??? Do you know what this country was founded on? Do you know what makes the country different and more blessed than any other country EVER? That we were formed by CHRISTIANS!! PRAISING OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR FOR ALL OF OUR BLESSINGS... You are so twisted you cannot see beyond your own vanity... this country doesnt belong to you! You are just a VAPOR here for just a moment! Wake up.. think of others besides yourself... Merry Christmas! excuse me.. Happy Holidays!!!
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
YOU GUYS GOT AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING; UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS ALWAYS THE SAME ANSWER; HENCE, WE HAVE TAKEN TO CALLING YOU DITTOHEADS. A MORE PRECISE DESCRIPTION, THOUGH, WOULD BE TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY ONE OF THE MOST SOPHISTICATED PROPAGANDA MACHINES IN THE HISOTRY OF MANKIND.

AS IS ALWAYS THE CASE, YOU ANSWERS FOR EVERYTHING TEND TO RUN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE TRUTH. LET’S ANAYLYISE THE ABOVE POST, BECAUSE I’VE HEARD IT BEFORE WHILE ATTENDING A SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH IN RUSSELLVILLE, ARKANSAS.

AS THE ARGUMENT GOES, THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FALICY, ONE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OUR CONSTITUTION OR THE BILL OF RIGHTS. FURTHERMORE, THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS ESSENTIALLY FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY.
I’LL START BY RAISING THE QUESTION OF WHOSE CHRISTIANITY? THIS IS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT QUESTION BECAUSE A CHRISTIAN DOCTOR WAS RECENTLY KILLED BY ONE OF YOU WHILE SITTING IN A PEW AT HIS CHRISTIAN CHURCH. AND I KNOW FROM MY TIME WITH SOUTHERN BAPTISTS HOW SIGNIFICANT LITTLE DIFFERENCES IN DOCTRINE ARE. THE BAPTISTS ARE DIVIDED ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT BAPTISM IS FOR ALL TIME AND IS A GUARANTEED TICKET TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD OR WHETHER, IF YOU SIN AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO BE BAPTISED ALL OVER.

THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT ONE CHRISTIAN SECT THINKS OF ANOTHER. FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS IN RUSSELLVILLE, ARKANSAS THINK THE PENTACOSTALS, A RELIGION FOUNDED BY AN ARKANSAS MAN (WHO WAS LATER DISGRACED) AND THAT SPEAKS IN TONGUES, SOMETHING THEY HAVE IN COMMON WITH THE VOODOO RELIGION, ARE SIMPLY NUTS, THAT THEY HAVE A SCREW LOOSE. BUT THE PENTACOSTALS HATE CATHOLICS AS MUCH AS THE BAPTIST DO, AND HAVE SOUGHT TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THEIR STATE AS MUCH AS THEY HAVE AFRICAN-AMERICANS (REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAITH).

THERE CLEARLY IS NO ONE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 9, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

RE: Abortion

I absolutely support Democrats and Republicans who want to eliminate abortion funding in the bill. Bravo. Flex those spines.

The sad fact is the majority of abortions aren't from under age victims, or incest, or rape, they are from consenting adults, often having the procedure numerous times making it a de facto form of contraception.

RE: If men had babies...

Women would still retain the right to vote against abortion, or would men utilize some nebulous Constitutional interpretation to prevent them being able to?

Waiter? A large side irony please and hold the misandry.

Posted by: halfandhalf76 | December 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

jmdziuban1 said:

"Excuse me, but isn't abortion, whether you like it or not, currently recognized as a Constitutional Right? How can you not provide funding for a recognized constitutional right. Why is this so difficult to understand."

The Constitution also says I can keep and bear arms, whether you like it or not. By your logic, there should be public funding for everyone who wants a firearm. I'll take the Armalite AR10-a4 with an EOTech EOLAD-2 holographic sight.

Posted by: Bobarian | December 9, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

PART 2 OF 3

THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT IS FROM http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_pilgrims:

“The Pilgrims were a specific group of Calvinist Christians. After King Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the rest of the Catholic Church, many English subjects were dissatisfied with the king acting as the highest church authority. Encouraged by the Protestant Reformation in Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, these dissatisfied subjects separated from the Church of England in favor of a type of Christianity without a church hierarchy with the Bible as the only authority. Without a hierarchy, many different interpretations of the Christian faith were practiced by various separatist groups. As a whole, these groups can also be called puritans. One group, originally called the Leiden Congregation (because they left England and lived in Leiden, Holland for several years), believed that they could not successfully live with their beliefs among the English (and the English authorities also pressured the government of Holland to remove them). This group set out to live as a congregation in America. They became known as the Pilgrims because they saw themselves as settlers in a promised land with a promised future.

“The Pilgrim Church no longer exists as a single entity. They were a type of Calvinists and puritans. Their religion is similar to today's Baptists, Congregationalists, and Methodists, but none of these religions is identical to the Pilgrims' religion. There are some smaller congregational religions that are closer in many ways to the religion of the Pilgrims, like a current church called The Christian Church and another called the Church of God, but these are not major denominations and have memberships of only a couple thousand.”

SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS “formed by CHRISTIANS,” TO WHICH RELIGIOUS FAITH ARE YOU REFERRING?

THE CALVANISTS?
THE BAPTISTS?
THE MORMONS?
THE CATHOLICS?
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS?
WHO?

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 9, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

In response to: Dave 51473 and his insanity about Gene Taylor's town hall meeting. I would like to invite you to Mississippi to have an intelligent, cognizant discussion concerning this issue, but with you that would be such an oxymoron that I'm am simply not certain you could handle the strain. I was at the meeting that you lied about. The questions you attributed to the greasy white trailer trash simply did not occur. You sir are a liar and apparently not intelligent enough to have a conversation that requires a significant amount of brain cells. It was just so easy to dismiss the terrible southern people from Mississippi as racist idiots, was it not?
If you would like to come to our fair state and have an IQ contest, please feel free to contact me and it can certainly be arranged, since you are obviously so concerned about our literacy.
Otherwise, please keep your bigoted, wrongheaded, vapid, lies to yourself.
If you would like to disagree with my views, that is perfectly acceptable and I am willing to have a civilized conversation concerning the issue. However, telling flat out lies about people you don't even know is a bit cowardly.

Posted by: Natasha2 | December 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Killing Jews in Nazi Germany was a safe and LEGAL practice too. All one had to do is dehumanize the SPECIMEN and all is well in the extermination industry. In order for abortion to be SAFE and LEGAL all we have to do is Dehumanize the SPECIMEN and viola, all is well in America!!!! Someone, please show us some pictures of a completed SAFE and LEGAL procedure right next to a picture of Bergen Belsen or Auschwitz. THEY ARE HUMAN!! ALL OF THEM!!! In the parlance of Planned Parenthood we could call the killing of adult SPECIMENS Post Natal Abortions. Yeah, that's the ticket

Posted by: throttleup39 | December 9, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is murder. You are entitled to your own opinion, but don't ask me for money to fund things that are against my core beliefs. I would do the same for you... not take your money to sponsor something you find morally reprehensible. This is why government should stay out of the fray - it takes from one against their will and gives to another in the name of "god".

Posted by: SandalMaker | December 9, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

PART 3 OF 3

NOW GO BACK ARE READ THAT DESCRIPTION OF THE PURITANS. READ IT SLOW AND CAREFUL. THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY WERE SEEKING REFUGE FROM RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, THE VERY THING YOU REPRESENT. YOU WANT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT SHE CAN OR CANNOT DO AT A MOMENT WHEN HER VERY LIFE MAY BE AT STAKE. WHY? BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DICTATE YOUR RELIGION TO OTHERS.

SIMPLY PUT, THE PURITANS WERE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
THIS COUNTRY WAS INDEED FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU PEOPLE THINK.

YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN A MUSLIM EXTREMISTS AND YOU ARE AS MUCH A THREAT TO THE REPUBLIC.

TRY YOUR NONSENSE ON SOMEONE ELSE. I AIN’T BUY’N IT.

"WE THE PEOPLE" OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE SICK OF YOUR NONSENSE. PRESIDENT OBAMA REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE, NOT YOUR CHURCH AND NOT CORPORATE AMERICA. GET USED TO IT BECAUSE HE WILL BE IN OFFICE UNTIL 2012 AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO ELECT A VERY LIBERAL WOMAN TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT.

GROW UP. YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU.

Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 9, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

If a man impregnates a woman and she gives birth to their child, he has no choice but to pay child support, as it is his child too. If she decides to abort the child he has no say, as it is her child. Can't have it both ways, ladies. Which way is it to be?

Posted by: Dutra1 | December 9, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Finally, let me add this little tidbit. We don't care about your sick and perverted arguments as to when an embryo becomes a human being. I am SO SICK of hearing about chromosomes and this or that reason why you think an embryo represents an individual. WE DON'T CARE. We just want you to practice what you preach, which in this case is a small government, not one that tries to dictate morality to its citizens. My God are you people self-righteous. You're insane. There is no other word for it. You hate anyone who is not exactly like you, religiously inbred dittoheads.


Posted by: TheSimpleTruth | December 9, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The abortion issue is a great example of why government has no business involved in our healthcare. I don't want to pay for someone else's abortion any more than they want to pay for my lung cancer treatments. This is why we should all pay as we go. No more employer funded/government funded care. That goes for public officials too. Let's pay our own health care bills and actually write out our income tax bills and watch how both figures are driven down by competition.

Posted by: commonsense62 | December 9, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

To: The simple truth, thanks so much for your calm, reasoned approach to those who disagree with you. Why you are truly the epitome of tolerance and liberal acceptance! Not a bit of hatred or self righteousness to be found!

Bravo! It's SO refreshing to see a liberal who can express themselves without becoming abusive to others! You are truly an inspiration for other liberals to follow! I'm amazed at your genious!


Sarcasm anyone?

Posted by: Natasha2 | December 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how the unborn feel about this? It is so easy for those that are born to determine the destiny of the unborn. Life or death...just like Ceasar. Self Centeredness is the obvious factor. Had sex because you could't control yourself. Got pregnant...how inconvienient to you. Abortion is the way to rid yourself of the problem. (lets not hear the arguments of rape and incest.. the % is very very low)Lets face the fact that the ones that are alive are the problem and not the unborn. It's also amazing that those that make themselves out to be soooo compassionate (Liberals)are the first to want a little baby torn to shreds in an abortion. Hypocricy mastered!

Posted by: icdumbpeople | December 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The United States and its government is an abomination and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Posted by: fcunning | December 9, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

i was adopted as a baby in 1963,all you "pro-murder"(cause thats what it is)folks need to shut your ignorant mouths for 2 seconds and listen,the abortions perfomed in this country due to rape,incest,or the mothers health is in jeapoardy all combined total about 1% of all abortions.(read that again in case you didnt get it the first time),the other 99% are being used for birth control!!!!(i'll give you a second to let that sink in),now let me ask you morally bankrupt Godless pro baby killers a question,WHAT ABOUT THE BABY'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE????,that fetus in the womb is a helpless human being...period!,is that beyond your comprehension?,dont you get that???!!.
Now,heres the real issue at hand.... it is a lack of ethics and moral compass that started this problem in the first place,thank you sexual revolution of the 60's for helping us to kill our own unborn children by the millions,given us deviant destructive lifestyles and now try to call them normal,liberals, please stop calling yourselves "progressives",cause you arent,and why dont you stop calling it "pro-choice" cause the baby apparently has no choice due to the mothers inability to keep her legs closed,you should call it "pro-irresonsible-selfish-stupidity",i dont want one cent of my money going towards killing an unborn human being,you did the act to make a child ,now take the responsibility for it and pay for it yourself...it seems that since we have been teaching our children in schools that they are just animals that they now behave like animals....shocker huh?,when we as a country turn our back on God,this is what we get..."a house divided amongst itself cannot stand",so now i ask you this last question,"do you think killing a helpless human being in the womb because the mother made a bad choice is the right thing to do??",if you even hesitated for a second on that question,you need to do some serious soul searching and re-examine your world view

Posted by: metalzboy | December 9, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Why not pay for all abortions for those that voted Democrat, once thay have killed all of their babys, the problem will be over in few years.

Posted by: hcocdr | December 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

to "TheSimpleTruth"...your premise is flawed,what you are describing is "doctrinal forms of worship"" concerning the founders and pilgrims,yet all those you mentioned were "Christians",cause they all believed in the same Jesus Christ.the Mormons,Jehova's witness's,and muslims Jesus is different than the one found in the Bible,a simple examination of who Jesus is to them clears that up real fast,nice try to discredit Christianity dude...but your ignorance is showing

Posted by: metalzboy | December 9, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

If Nazicare includes me paying for someone to murder an innocent child (and mind you, my wife and I have been trying to adopt for over 3 years), I will NO LONGER PAY MY TAXES come hell or high water. I'd rather sit in jail than to be a party to murder. Pretty it up all you want with flowering words like "pro choice", "population reduction" or "birth control", it is still out and out murder of the innocent. Plain and simple.

You cannot call yourself civilized or even human if you think killing innocent, viable children as a form of birth control is acceptable.

Posted by: ByteRider | December 9, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Full time working mom with a toddler with another "gift of life" on the way... I can't believe that all the Socialists (ahem... I mean "Democraps") expect me to fund their abortions. Why should money come out the pockets of my family to fund your negligence? If you don't want babies, DON'T HAVE SEX! I'm sick of the sense of entitlement that our society seems to have. Maybe if you would all learn some self-control, the GREATEST COUNTRY on the face of the earth, wouldn't be on the verge of collapsing. I for one, can't wait to boot all the Socialists out of office in 2010 and 2012. Some people need to keep their legs closed and go get a job... My husband and I work hard to support our family, but I guess that's asking too much for Democrats. I think every single person seeking an abortion should have to watch the procedure via ultrasound just so they know what a horrible piece of garbage they are for killing their unborn baby.

Posted by: sma1231 | December 9, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The moral relativist lefties are out in force tonight, justifying infanticide and longingly wishing to re-write both the Constitution and American ideals. Folks, it's your intellectually dishonest, emotionally based interpretation of reality that is at the heart of the disintegration of this nation's economy, government, morality, and embarassingly foolish, ignorant, and misguided public policy. Here's a clue: objective truth and reality exist, whether you like it or not. All ideas and opinions are NOT equally valid. Typically, stupid is, as stupid does. Bottom-line, although your teacher and your mother told you that you were special, the world doesn't buy it sight unseen. You will be judged by your actions, not your intentions.

Posted by: NCMike | December 9, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is not health care. It is human sacrifice. I do not want to make any contributions to the religion that practices human sacrifice.

Posted by: logical1453 | December 9, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Abortion has nothing to do with a woman's rights, you can't cut your arm off if you want, you can't sell your organs, you can't kill yourself, if you try the law is going to put you in a hospital for treatment, so why is it the law allows a woman the right to kill her babie? If a pregant woman is shot and killed the person that did it is charged with a double murder. I look a my 3 year daughter and wonder how anybody could think of killing that, those babies are human beings, The gov is suppose to protect all people and that should include unborn babies....

Posted by: ZMustang | December 9, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

"Excuse me, but isn't abortion, whether you like it or not, currently recognized as a Constitutional Right? How can you not provide funding for a recognized constitutional right. Why is this so difficult to understand."

Posted by: jmdziuban1

Good point, jmdziuban1! Now where do I sign up for my federally funded firearm?

Posted by: swampfox76 | December 9, 2009 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey jmdziuban1, are you going to fund all my consitiutional rights? Your right abortion is a consititutional right and the only reason it is, was because the court was left at the time. It may be legal but it's murder...

Posted by: ZMustang | December 9, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Public funds are not allowed to fund abortion, despite the fact that it is a safe and legal procedure.

Posted by: pmax | December 8, 2009 6:25 PM |
HEY pmax......THE PROCEDURE IS NOT SAFE FOR THE BABY! IDIOT!

Posted by: mrsharfer | December 10, 2009 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, since abortion seems to be a right that the left feels "morally obligated" to fund with taxpayer dollars, let's expand that into rights that are actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I have the right (Amendment 2) to "keep and bear arms." Therefore, I feel that it's a "moral" imperative for the common taxpayer to fund my weapon purchases. And, believe me, there are many weapons I feel are within my right to own.

I have the right to (Amendment 1) "Freedom of Speech," "Freedom of the Press," and "Freedom of Religion." Therefore, I feel it's the "moral" imperative of the general public to fund my attorney fees whenever I lie publicly, print lies in the media, and whenever my Religious practices offend others, especially Christmas, which seems to piss most of you liberals off the most.

Further, I think that the Federal Government should pay a fine to the States (based on enumeration) every time it tries to overstep its boundaries. Man, would that be nice.

Posted by: gav8 | December 10, 2009 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Dkenken1, it's because some of us, unlike you, are capable of seeing more than two moves beyond the current chess board.

Understand, simpleton?
-------------------------------------------
dkenken1 wrote:

"It's amazing how conservative our politics have become. Democrats propose a watered-down, pro-insurance, pro-pharma health reform bill, and it's treated like a single-payer, communist health-care takeover. And here's the latest example--a Democrat, of all people, threatening to filibuster his own party's light-weight, tilting-to-the-right-at-every-opportunity bill. Truly mind-blowing."

Posted by: gav8 | December 10, 2009 2:39 AM | Report abuse

The Federal government already runs Medicare and Medicaid. They are both absurdly over budget and can only exist because private insurance takes up the shortfall. If the Federals have proven themselves consistently incompetent at running medical “insurance” programs over a long period of time, what in the he}} makes you think it will be so much better when it controls the entire industry? The government option guarantees the failure of the private industry because the government plan can go on indefinitely losing money and covering the deficit with borrowing and increased taxation. Furthermore, it has the ability to make and selectively enforce the rules giving it yet another advantage. Remember that in most countries with socialized medicine it is illegal to go outside of the government system for care. Besides, do you really trust someone whose primary concern is being able to provide tax payer funded abortion running the healthcare system for you, your children, and your elderly parents?

Posted by: lastmanstanding | December 10, 2009 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Every human whom has ever lived had to be conceived. Therefore life unquestionably begins at conception. No conception, no human. So there goes the ridiculous debate over when life begins.

Next, the insipid argument that a women can murder her child because it’s still in “her body”. Legally speaking there is a number of things women can’t do to their bodies. They can’t introduce illegal substances into them, offer them for sex in exchange for money, offer them for sex to minors, or kill them via suicide. If this socialized “healthcare” bill is passed women won’t have the right to choose their doctors or what healthcare they can receive either. Besides, If we were really so concerned about pro choice we would be discussing the father’s right to choose life or death. And don’t give me the straw man argument about rape ect. We’re talking about the other 99.9% of abortion murders. And while we’re on the subject, what kind of sick self absorbed,sub-human devotes his or her life to protecting a women’s right to murder her own child?

Posted by: lastmanstanding | December 10, 2009 3:35 AM | Report abuse

Lefties,

no one is trying to change the abortion law here, I just don't want to pay for this very expensive post conception birth control. It is the womans choice, but we the taxpayer should not have to pay for it, PERIOD!!! End of discussion.

Posted by: LARRYB2 | December 10, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

As a woman who is desperately trying to get pregnant with my husband...this makes me sick. Birthcontrol is covered by insurance and that should be enough. Take some personal responsibility and protect yourself from pregnancy if that's not what you want to do. We should NEVER be forced to pay our tax dollars toward something that many of us consider murder. If you want an abortion, pay for it yourself! God will return to America when America returns to God.

Posted by: CeW3 | December 10, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed how Liberals and other Socialists seem more threatened by an unborn human fetus that could possibly not be aborted than they are by Islamic terrorists among us that wish to kill ALL of us, fetuses included. Their priorities are all telling about about where their heads and agenda are. They are not gong to be happy next November and that is SO good for America. The silent Majority will abort them from their seats of power and send them back under the rocks from where they came.

Posted by: maryh4us | December 10, 2009 8:48 AM | Report abuse

this issue isnt about the merits of abortion, its about wether or not tax payers should fund them? which they should not! a woman does have choice they can choose to have unprotected sex and face the reality of getting a disease or pregnant. this is her choice. by choosing to have sex unprotected or not she is making a decision knowing the potential risks involved. since she alone has the power to not do this activity then she alone should have the responsibility to deal with the consicquences(sp) of her actions. i dont think abortion is right but on the other hand a person has the right & freedom over their own body. i think their should be exceptions because of rape, incest mothers health. other than that you allowed yourself to get pregnant you should be responsible to pay for the outcome. or dont have sex!

Posted by: sim_672 | December 10, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"Excuse me, but isn't abortion, whether you like it or not, currently recognized as a Constitutional Right? How can you not provide funding for a recognized constitutional right. Why is this so difficult to understand."

Posted by: jmdziuban1

Good point, jmdziuban1! Now where do I sign up for my federally funded firearm?

Posted by: swampfox76 | December 10, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Fact #1 - There IS NO IMMEDIATE HEALTHCARE CRISIS... So whats the rush?

Fact #2 - Not a single Republican was involved in this Deal making which makes it FAR FROM BIPARTISAN

Fact #3 - We still have THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD... Why would you want to destroy that by rushing special interest legislation down Americans throats? 1/6th of the economy towards what they perceive as Reparations? I don't think so and WILL NOT STAND FOR IT.

Fact #4 - Incumbents in Congress (house AND senate) will be voted OUT OF OFFICE. Those that are not, will be neutered by the new team we will be voting into place.

Fact #5 - If pushed too far and this country continues to be run like a Fiefdom, Americans WILL rebel with force...

Posted by: ProveMeWrong | December 10, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

For the comment:

"… Pro-Life" - I'll bet every comment here against abortion was made by someone who supports sending young men and women off to be killed in our wars."

Military is voluntary, no one is making anyone go fight for our country, when you sign up you know that you are obligated to fight when called to duty. Those who do not want to fight should not sign up. There are other options to gain the skills needed for a career, other options to pay for school. So please do not use the military to justify your choice of killing innocent children (who are denied the right to live), our future population of this country.

Posted by: 123443211 | December 10, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Baby killing is a sin against God and I refuse to be involved in it by paying for it. You CAN NOT be so stupid as to not understand that. Get your baby-killing friends to help you pay for the baby killing!

Posted by: logical1453 | December 10, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

lastmanstanding says that there a number of things women can't do with their bodies. While that may be true, nearly every one of those 'things' affects someone else's rights and that is why they are illegal. Abortion affects NO ONE else's rights. The right to bodily autonomy is paramount in this case. No one can be forced to give blood. No one can be forced to donate organs. No one can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Too bad if you don't like it. And too bad if you don't understand the ramifications of the proposal, which would have abrogated the rights of women to use their OWN insurance benefits to pay for a legal medical procedure.

Posted by: notation | December 10, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

pmw:Fact #4 - Incumbents in Congress (house AND senate) will be voted OUT OF OFFICE. Those that are not, will be neutered by the new team we will be voting into place.

You should get a refund on yer crystal ball, there, sparky.

Posted by: notation | December 10, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

notation wrote:
You should get a refund on yer crystal ball, there, sparky.
================================

You either are very out of touch with most of America or you have no idea how politics work.

How anyone could possibly not realize that we have a Lame-Duck-In-Waiting when the congress changes over is beyond most educated Americans comprehension.

Since you seem to know how to use Crystal Balls... I can only assume you have been practicing alone in your parents basement.

Posted by: ProveMeWrong | December 10, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is not health care ... it is murder. Not only does it kill an innocent child, brutally- and proven that they feel the pain of being ripped apart. Most women who undergo this wind up having many physical and mental problems leading to all sorts of ailments which just cost the health care system more in the long run anyway.
Abortion doesn't help anyone except those profitting from it! Abortion is not healthcare nor is it a privacy issue. It is the killing of an innocent victim- period. I do not know how these senators who voted this down can sleep at night...
Very scary for us all-

The child in the womb is a citizen as well- facing a terminal threat- where is their protection. Abortion needs to be exposed for what really happens...

I expect our leaders to do better... what a shame.

Posted by: savethehumans1 | December 10, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

savethehumans wails:The child in the womb is a citizen as well- facing a terminal threat- where is their protection.

No, the fetus is not a "citizen". The fetus does not have rights equal to that of born citizens.

Posted by: notation | December 10, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

The Amazing Kreskin bellows: You either are very out of touch with most of America or you have no idea how politics work.


Wrong on both counts, honey. You have no idea what will happen in the next election and your silly retort just makes you look even more ridiculous than your original post.

Posted by: notation | December 10, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

"The right to bodily autonomy is paramount in this case. No one can be forced to give blood. No one can be forced to donate organs. No one can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term."

"Force?" Is that like "duress?" Legally describe that please. While you are it extrapolate on the biological designation of the legal fiction of "personhood." I need a laugh.

P.S. I'm too poor to be a lawyer and too underpaid to be a judge.

Posted by: halfandhalf76 | December 11, 2009 1:18 AM | Report abuse

You're not to poor, except in brain power. If you don't understand the concept, perhaps you need more help than I can provide here. Seek it.

Posted by: notation | December 11, 2009 7:07 AM | Report abuse

This health care bill is going to add nothing but fuel to the fire of the national debt. Something must go...either endless war in the middle east must go or health care bill. Here's a novel idea, how about dumping the health care bill AND bring the troops home and save our collapsing economy!!

Posted by: sarasota1 | December 11, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The economy isn't collapsing. It's recovering and growing. Housing sales are up, foreclosures are down. Businesses are not shedding jobs at the rate they were, and surveys indicate they're planning to hire more people. The stock market isn't tanking or fluctuating wildly.

Posted by: notation | December 12, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

lastmanstanding, you might want to read the law before you start your spew. Suicide is NOT illegal in any state. Look it up.

Posted by: notation | December 13, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company