 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
lightoftruth
Member/DJ
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 05:54 pm |
|
| http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
|
commonsensical
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Peanut Gallery |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:03 pm |
|
lightoftruth wrote: http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
Was Joe Wilson some type of prophet?
To Obama:
"YOU LIE"
|
lightoftruth
Member/DJ
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:15 pm |
|
No, he knew what was in the bill,,,,,,,yes bammers lied to the nation....this is the proof........
|
f0ca1
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 27924 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:39 pm |
|
lightoftruth wrote: No, he knew what was in the bill,,,,,,,yes bammers lied to the nation....this is the proof........
Actually, no.
Abortion is specifically singled out as not receiving funding. Check page 1354.
"USE OF FUNDS.—Funds awarded under a grant
10 under this section—
...
(2) may not be used to provide abortions."
You and John Boehner are liars.
|
f0ca1
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 27924 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:39 pm |
|
The Bill, without the lies:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3962ih.txt.pdf
|
commonsensical
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Peanut Gallery |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:57 pm |
|
f0ca1 wrote: lightoftruth wrote: No, he knew what was in the bill,,,,,,,yes bammers lied to the nation....this is the proof........
Actually, no.
Abortion is specifically singled out as not receiving funding. Check page 1354.
"USE OF FUNDS.—Funds awarded under a grant
10 under this section—
...
(2) may not be used to provide abortions."
You and John Boehner are liars.
You are no differet than BO, Pelosi, or Reed. The section you refer to is related to grants provided to create school based clinics and says that the grant funds can't be used the provide abortions. That's a VERY specific exclusion. The bill does fund abortions in the public option. Your reference is meaningless and once again BO is proved to be a liar.
See page 1352, the beginning of the section you referenced, for the true context around your citation.
|
Warjorse
Member/DJ
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:05 am |
|
Is f0cal lying again? .. meh, .. that's pretty on par.
Hey'a f0! Hope you've been well ![[allamerican]](/forums/themes/default/allamerican.gif)
|
BuckFan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 14098 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:39 am |
|
Boehner is lying. The law does not "legalize" abortion. What that section says, go read it for yourself, is when abortion is allowed. According to this law, abortion coverage is only allowed when Federal law allows it and funds have been allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Boehner claims the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides which abortions may be funded. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Congress decides by passing a law that allows Federal funding for abortion and then funding it. The Secretary cannot fund anything, only spend the funds allowed by Congress.
Currently, Federal law prohibits using federal funds for abortions. This will apply the these sections that Boehner is pointing to. The health care bill does not do anything contrary to current US law.
So this law basically does not allow abortion because current Federal law does not allow it. If in the future a Congress decides to change the law then this bill will support that law too, IF IT EVER HAPPENS but this law changes nothing.
|
Pigasus
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:48 am |
|
lightoftruth wrote: No, he knew what was in the bill,,,,,,,yes bammers lied to the nation....this is the proof........
What this proves is that right wingers will fall for every single transparent lie their paid off puppet masters will choose to perpetrate at any given time.
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:33 pm |
|
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:37 pm by wilmywood8455
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
Ok, let me try to clear this up.
From the OP link:
" On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan."
The referenced material (note that the numbers down the left side are line numbers, not part of the text):
"110
• HR 3962 IH
1 (3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSUR
2 ANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option
3 shall provide coverage for services described in para
4 graph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed
5 as preventing the public health insurance option
6 from providing for or prohibiting coverage of serv
7 ices described in paragraph (4)(A).
8 (4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND
10 ING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
13 the Department of Health and Human Services
14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be
16 ginning of the plan year involved.
17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND
18 ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin
24 ning of the plan year involved.
___________________________________________________________
The two red highlighted parts are the content in question, I think:
The first part: "The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B)." refers to the second part " 17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved."
I read this as saying that the 'public option' will provide coverage for abortions which are allowed to be federally funded, as of 6 months before a plan year.
My understanding is there are currently no federally funded abortions. Is this incorrect?
If so, this bill simply allows for federally funded abortions IF and WHEN, and only IF and WHEN, they are provided for, by law, 6 months prior to a plan year, NOT NOW.
Anyone read it differently? Please elaborate, and be specific.
In the meantime, take a breath and read.
Mornin', Mr LoT
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:57 pm by wilmywood8455
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 01:24 pm |
|
As for the 'monthly abortion premium":
Again, from the OP:
"What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services."
The referenced (and subsequent) section:
*page 96*
16 SEC. 213. INSURANCE RATING RULES.
17 (a) IN GENERAL.—The premium rate charged for a
18 qualified health benefits plan that is health insurance cov
19 erage may not vary except as follows:
20 (1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED.—By
21 age (within such age categories as the Commissioner
22 shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such
23 premium to the lowest such premium does not ex
24 ceed the ratio of 2 to 1.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
97
• HR 3962 IH
1 (2) BY AREA.—By premium rating area (as
2 permitted by State insurance regulators or, in the
3 case of Exchange-participating health benefits plans,
4 as specified by the Commissioner in consultation
5 with such regulators).
6 (3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT.—By family en
7 rollment (such as variations within categories and
8 compositions of families) so long as the ratio of the
9 premium for family enrollment (or enrollments) to
10 the premium for individual enrollment is uniform, as
11 specified under State law and consistent with rules
12 of the Commissioner.
13 (b) ACTUARIAL VALUE OF OPTIONAL SERVICE COV14
ERAGE .—
15 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall esti
16 mate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, deter
17 mined on an average actuarial basis, for including
18 coverage under a basic plan of the services described
19 in section 222(d)(4)(A).
20 (2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making such esti
21 mate the Commissioner—
22 (A) may take into account the impact on
23 overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage,
24 but may not take into account any cost reduc
25 tion estimated to result from such services, in-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
98
• HR 3962 IH
1 cluding prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal
2 care;
3 (B) shall estimate such costs as if such
4 coverage were included for the entire population
5 covered; and
6 (C) may not estimate such a cost at less
7 than $1 per enrollee, per month.
____________________________________________________________
A very confusing section, for sure. The red highlighted section, which is the objected to part in the OP, says The Commissioner shall estimate the cost of including "services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)."
Unfortunately, there is no section 22(d)(4)(A). There is, however, a section 222(e)(4)(A) -and it's in my post above:
(4) ABORTION SERVICES.—(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
So, apparently the OP's referenced section, if my assumption on the correct passage is correct, says the Commissioner will estimate the cost for including a currently NOT included service.
Again, something that cannot be included in coverage unless law changes.
See it differently? Great.
Elaborate and be specific.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 01:29 pm by wilmywood8455
|
commonsensical
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Peanut Gallery |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:29 pm |
|
BuckFan wrote: Boehner is lying. The law does not "legalize" abortion. What that section says, go read it for yourself, is when abortion is allowed. According to this law, abortion coverage is only allowed when Federal law allows it and funds have been allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Boehner claims the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides which abortions may be funded. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Congress decides by passing a law that allows Federal funding for abortion and then funding it. The Secretary cannot fund anything, only spend the funds allowed by Congress.
Currently, Federal law prohibits using federal funds for abortions. This will apply the these sections that Boehner is pointing to. The health care bill does not do anything contrary to current US law.
So this law basically does not allow abortion because current Federal law does not allow it. If in the future a Congress decides to change the law then this bill will support that law too, IF IT EVER HAPPENS but this law changes nothing.
So, if what you're saying is true, and that's a big IF. Why is it that Nancy Pelosi and company are having such a hard time getting pro-life dems on board with this bill? The lawmakers must know something you don't know. If all this were just a lie by Republicans why do pro-life DEMOCRATS object to the bill as it stands today and insist that unequivocal "no funded abortion" language be included? Why doesn't Pelosi just tell them, "Hey guys, it's a lie. The federal government can't fund abortions and this bill does nothing to change that so stop objecting to it on those grounds." Perhaps she can't say that because it's not true.
Doesn't the bill also have language saying that if state laws are in conflict that the state laws take precedence. With that language, and I will try to find direct references, I can see how abortions services could be covered by thie bill.
If it were just Boehner saying it I'd maybe think he was making political hay out of nothing but the Democrats themselves are strumbling all over the abortion issue with this legislation.
Must be something to it.
|
lightoftruth
Member/DJ
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:29 pm |
|
Warjorse wrote: Is f0cal lying again? .. meh, .. that's pretty on par.
Hey'a f0! Hope you've been well
Libs lie????Who could have guessed.......![[fallingdown]](/forums/themes/default/laughing.gif) ![[peace-victory]](/forums/themes/default/doublepeace.gif)
|
commonsensical
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Peanut Gallery |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:48 pm |
|
BuckFan wrote: Boehner is lying. The law does not "legalize" abortion. What that section says, go read it for yourself, is when abortion is allowed. According to this law, abortion coverage is only allowed when Federal law allows it and funds have been allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Boehner claims the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides which abortions may be funded. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Congress decides by passing a law that allows Federal funding for abortion and then funding it. The Secretary cannot fund anything, only spend the funds allowed by Congress.
Currently, Federal law prohibits using federal funds for abortions. This will apply the these sections that Boehner is pointing to. The health care bill does not do anything contrary to current US law.
So this law basically does not allow abortion because current Federal law does not allow it. If in the future a Congress decides to change the law then this bill will support that law too, IF IT EVER HAPPENS but this law changes nothing.
A quick sampling of news has revealed one thing. When you say that the health care bill does not provide funding for abortion, either directly or indirectly, you are not singing the same song as everyone else. Here is a sampling of news articles about the abortion debate for the health care bill. I read several more that aren't linked here but all agreed that the current health care bill will provide funding for abortions one way or another.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120161271
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/11/05/house-democrats-abortion-battle-on-healthcare-down-to-the-wire.html
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-abortion4-2009nov04,0,3878307.story?track=rss
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000011390.cfm
|
BuckFan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 14098 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 04:15 pm |
|
commonsensical wrote: BuckFan wrote: Boehner is lying. The law does not "legalize" abortion. What that section says, go read it for yourself, is when abortion is allowed. According to this law, abortion coverage is only allowed when Federal law allows it and funds have been allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Boehner claims the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides which abortions may be funded. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Congress decides by passing a law that allows Federal funding for abortion and then funding it. The Secretary cannot fund anything, only spend the funds allowed by Congress.
Currently, Federal law prohibits using federal funds for abortions. This will apply the these sections that Boehner is pointing to. The health care bill does not do anything contrary to current US law.
So this law basically does not allow abortion because current Federal law does not allow it. If in the future a Congress decides to change the law then this bill will support that law too, IF IT EVER HAPPENS but this law changes nothing.
So, if what you're saying is true, and that's a big IF. Why is it that Nancy Pelosi and company are having such a hard time getting pro-life dems on board with this bill? The lawmakers must know something you don't know. If all this were just a lie by Republicans why do pro-life DEMOCRATS object to the bill as it stands today and insist that unequivocal "no funded abortion" language be included? Why doesn't Pelosi just tell them, "Hey guys, it's a lie. The federal government can't fund abortions and this bill does nothing to change that so stop objecting to it on those grounds." Perhaps she can't say that because it's not true.
Doesn't the bill also have language saying that if state laws are in conflict that the state laws take precedence. With that language, and I will try to find direct references, I can see how abortions services could be covered by thie bill.
If it were just Boehner saying it I'd maybe think he was making political hay out of nothing but the Democrats themselves are strumbling all over the abortion issue with this legislation.
Must be something to it.
Wilmy did a good job of posting the sections that Boehner pointed out as funding abortion. Clearly they do not, they defer to the existing Federal law which currently says that Federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions. So, this health care bill will not provide Federally funded abortions.
As to the links in your other post, they are flat out wrong. They are repeating the GOP talking points of Boehner and as show with the actual wording of the bill, they are wrong.
As to why the anti-abortion folks, both Dems and Repubs, are upset. They want to use this legislation to further reduce abortions. They want language that will not only prevent public funding of abortions but also private funding of abortion. They want language that controls what private insurance companies can provide and what private individuals can buy. In summary, the social Right is trying to turn this bill into exactly what the Righties are criticizing it for, limiting and controlling private access to health care.
|
Pigasus
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:03 pm |
|
| Yet again we see right wing leaders and pundits deliberately pushing false propaganda - and their naive, brainwashed followers mindlessly whipped into an ideological frenzy - unable to see the truth spelled out right in front of their noses.
|
commonsensical
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Peanut Gallery |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:57 pm |
|
BuckFan wrote: commonsensical wrote: BuckFan wrote: Boehner is lying. The law does not "legalize" abortion. What that section says, go read it for yourself, is when abortion is allowed. According to this law, abortion coverage is only allowed when Federal law allows it and funds have been allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Boehner claims the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides which abortions may be funded. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Congress decides by passing a law that allows Federal funding for abortion and then funding it. The Secretary cannot fund anything, only spend the funds allowed by Congress.
Currently, Federal law prohibits using federal funds for abortions. This will apply the these sections that Boehner is pointing to. The health care bill does not do anything contrary to current US law.
So this law basically does not allow abortion because current Federal law does not allow it. If in the future a Congress decides to change the law then this bill will support that law too, IF IT EVER HAPPENS but this law changes nothing.
So, if what you're saying is true, and that's a big IF. Why is it that Nancy Pelosi and company are having such a hard time getting pro-life dems on board with this bill? The lawmakers must know something you don't know. If all this were just a lie by Republicans why do pro-life DEMOCRATS object to the bill as it stands today and insist that unequivocal "no funded abortion" language be included? Why doesn't Pelosi just tell them, "Hey guys, it's a lie. The federal government can't fund abortions and this bill does nothing to change that so stop objecting to it on those grounds." Perhaps she can't say that because it's not true.
Doesn't the bill also have language saying that if state laws are in conflict that the state laws take precedence. With that language, and I will try to find direct references, I can see how abortions services could be covered by thie bill.
If it were just Boehner saying it I'd maybe think he was making political hay out of nothing but the Democrats themselves are strumbling all over the abortion issue with this legislation.
Must be something to it.
Wilmy did a good job of posting the sections that Boehner pointed out as funding abortion. Clearly they do not, they defer to the existing Federal law which currently says that Federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions. So, this health care bill will not provide Federally funded abortions.
As to the links in your other post, they are flat out wrong. They are repeating the GOP talking points of Boehner and as show with the actual wording of the bill, they are wrong.
As to why the anti-abortion folks, both Dems and Repubs, are upset. They want to use this legislation to further reduce abortions. They want language that will not only prevent public funding of abortions but also private funding of abortion. They want language that controls what private insurance companies can provide and what private individuals can buy. In summary, the social Right is trying to turn this bill into exactly what the Righties are criticizing it for, limiting and controlling private access to health care.
So, let me get this straight. The Democrats in congress, even though the legislation doesn't allow for funding of abortions (per you), are insisting that the legislation not fund abortions and they are holding the bill up as a result. So, you say the bill will not fund abortion but the Dems in congress, in your own words now, "want language that will not only prevent public funding of abortions but also private funding of abortion."
If public abortions are not funded then why would they want language in this bill so that abortions are not publicly funded?
I might be missing something but you just proved my point, that DEMOCRATS, are insisting on lauguage that prohibits public abortion funding even though that is supposedly already prohibited.
Actual reality and you're idea of reality don't match up. I'll state it again...perhaps the lawmakers know something about the law that you don't know, or refuse to acknowledge.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:59 pm by commonsensical
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
commonsensical wrote: BuckFan wrote: commonsensical wrote: BuckFan wrote: Boehner is lying. The law does not "legalize" abortion. What that section says, go read it for yourself, is when abortion is allowed. According to this law, abortion coverage is only allowed when Federal law allows it and funds have been allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Boehner claims the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides which abortions may be funded. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Congress decides by passing a law that allows Federal funding for abortion and then funding it. The Secretary cannot fund anything, only spend the funds allowed by Congress.
Currently, Federal law prohibits using federal funds for abortions. This will apply the these sections that Boehner is pointing to. The health care bill does not do anything contrary to current US law.
So this law basically does not allow abortion because current Federal law does not allow it. If in the future a Congress decides to change the law then this bill will support that law too, IF IT EVER HAPPENS but this law changes nothing.
So, if what you're saying is true, and that's a big IF. Why is it that Nancy Pelosi and company are having such a hard time getting pro-life dems on board with this bill? The lawmakers must know something you don't know. If all this were just a lie by Republicans why do pro-life DEMOCRATS object to the bill as it stands today and insist that unequivocal "no funded abortion" language be included? Why doesn't Pelosi just tell them, "Hey guys, it's a lie. The federal government can't fund abortions and this bill does nothing to change that so stop objecting to it on those grounds." Perhaps she can't say that because it's not true.
Doesn't the bill also have language saying that if state laws are in conflict that the state laws take precedence. With that language, and I will try to find direct references, I can see how abortions services could be covered by thie bill.
If it were just Boehner saying it I'd maybe think he was making political hay out of nothing but the Democrats themselves are strumbling all over the abortion issue with this legislation.
Must be something to it.
Wilmy did a good job of posting the sections that Boehner pointed out as funding abortion. Clearly they do not, they defer to the existing Federal law which currently says that Federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions. So, this health care bill will not provide Federally funded abortions.
As to the links in your other post, they are flat out wrong. They are repeating the GOP talking points of Boehner and as show with the actual wording of the bill, they are wrong.
As to why the anti-abortion folks, both Dems and Repubs, are upset. They want to use this legislation to further reduce abortions. They want language that will not only prevent public funding of abortions but also private funding of abortion. They want language that controls what private insurance companies can provide and what private individuals can buy. In summary, the social Right is trying to turn this bill into exactly what the Righties are criticizing it for, limiting and controlling private access to health care.
So, let me get this straight. The Democrats in congress, even though the legislation doesn't allow for funding of abortions (per you), are insisting that the legislation not fund abortions and they are holding the bill up as a result. So, you say the bill will not fund abortion but the Dems in congress, in your own words now, "want language that will not only prevent public funding of abortions but also private funding of abortion."
If public abortions are not funded then why would they want language in this bill so that abortions are not publicly funded?
I might be missing something but you just proved my point, that DEMOCRATS, are insisting on lauguage that prohibits public abortion funding even though that is supposedly already prohibited.
Actual reality and you're idea of reality don't match up. I'll state it again...perhaps the lawmakers know something about the law that you don't know, or refuse to acknowledge.
I think what is at issue with some is that the bill, as written, will allow for federal funding of abortion under the public option IF and WHEN federal funding is legalized or allowed (it currently is not); and they would prefer that it not allow for that under the public option even IF and WHEN federally funded abprtion is permitted.
Of course, I could be wrong.
|
dcbl
Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:03 am |
|
wilmywood8455 wrote:
I think what is at issue with some is that the bill, as written, will allow for federal funding of abortion under the public option IF and WHEN federal funding is legalized or allowed (it currently is not); and they would prefer that it not allow for that under the public option even IF and WHEN federally funded abprtion is permitted.
Of course, I could be wrong.
This bill does set the stage to take federal funds & use them for abortion services. It just does.
BUT, that language is very likely to be dropped from any bill that actually has a chance of being passed...
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:04 am by dcbl
|
Current time is 01:54 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
|
