 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:23 am |
|
dcbl wrote: 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...
Quite possibly.
But the fact remains that it makes the legalizing of federal funding of abortions no more or less likely than they were before any health care reform bill was drafted. It simply says that if that ban is lifted, the public option could cover it to some extent.
|
dcbl
Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:30 am |
|
wilmywood8455 wrote: It simply says that if that ban is lifted, the public option could cover it to some extent.
Yes it does. It explicitly allows for funding of abortions. it just does.
It is obviously a part of this bill because of a HOPE that the restrictions on federal funds for abortions will be dropped.
A preview for the next big fight on Capital Hill???
And we HAVE been told that this bill does not allow for funding of abortions. A lie of ommission is still a lie.
Unless we want to start talking about what the definition of "is' is...
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:40 am |
|
wilmywood8455 wrote: It simply says that if that ban is lifted, the public option could cover it to some extent.
dcbl wrote: Yes it does. It explicitly allows for funding of abortions. it just does. It may just be semantics, but that statement is untrue. You cannot allow that which is not allowed, until and if that restriction is lifted. dcbl wrote: It is obviously a part of this bill because of a HOPE that the restrictions on federal funds for abortions will be dropped. We both know that that is an opinion, not a fact. dcbl wrote: A preview for the next big fight on Capital Hill??? Maybe, but one where I would not support the attempt, and NO Blue-Dog nor moderate Republican would, IMO, ever support either. IMO, one cannot be in favor of Roe v. Wade and in favor of federal money subsidizing abortion. That said, if the ban is lifted, the public option should be able to fund any medical procedure any other form of health insurance would. dcbl wrote: And we HAVE been told that this bill does not allow for funding of abortions. A lie of ommission is still a lie. Again semantics. dcbl wrote: Unless we want to start talking about what the definition of "is' is... I don't agree, but I understand whatcha mean.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:44 am by wilmywood8455
|
dcbl
Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:54 am |
|
wilmywood8455 wrote: dcbl wrote: It is obviously a part of this bill because of a HOPE that the restrictions on federal funds for abortions will be dropped. We both know that that is an opinion, not a fact
Sure it's an opinion.
And opinions are all we really ever piss and moan about in these threads on p.com
And while it IS an opinion, it's pretty dadgum obvious that it ain't far off the mark...
Semantics? Again - sure. Elections are won & lost on semantics.
Right now it looks like it is 50 - 50 on whether or not a substantial health care reform bill is passed before the elections of 2010.
I mean, they are struggling to get 218 votes in the House? 60 in the Senate seems pretty steep.
THIS bill is dead; whether it passes the House or not.
It's at least 80 - 20 that the offending abortion language is dropped.
More opinion: if a bill is not passed before the end of the year, none will be passed until after the elections in 2010.
Which means.... next year's elections will be a referendum on this plan.
I do think we'll see something passed in Obama's 1st (and hopefully. last) term. But at this point there is a fighting chance that it will have more to do with opening up competition & reducing costs (closer to what republicans and moderate dems are pushing for) that it will to do with giving away more "FREE MONEY" (ie - my tax $$$$)
|
lightoftruth
Member/DJ
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:01 am |
|
Fastest lame duck in history,,,,all hail the one........![[grin]](/forums/themes/default/grinning-smiley-007.gif)
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:59 am |
|
lightoftruth wrote: Fastest lame duck in history,,,,all hail the one........
Uh huh. One line mantras are always more effective than facts.
Mornin', Mr LoT
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:17 am |
|
dcbl wrote: wilmywood8455 wrote: It simply says that if that ban is lifted, the public option could cover it to some extent.
Yes it does. It explicitly allows for funding of abortions. it just does.
It is obviously a part of this bill because of a HOPE that the restrictions on federal funds for abortions will be dropped.
A preview for the next big fight on Capital Hill???
And we HAVE been told that this bill does not allow for funding of abortions. A lie of ommission is still a lie.
Unless we want to start talking about what the definition of "is' is...
See red above ^^^
Maybe, but I think it could well be there in order to bargain. Drop the abortion language, allow the public option.
Politics.
|
Current time is 01:39 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
