PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Far left just Cant seem to get it..


HonestChieffan
09-30-2009, 12:59 PM
Senate Panel Votes Down Anti-Abortion Amendment in Health Care Bill, Dems Call it "Offensive to Women"....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/senate-committee-rejects-stronger-anti-abortion-language-health-care/

Way to go. Keep running the indies and conservative dems out of your party. Now make sure the illegals get the whole meal deal....freaking loons. Wouldnt want to pander to all the women who oppose free abortions now would we..

Jilly
09-30-2009, 02:01 PM
I'd have to know what the language was in order to know if it's "offensive to women".

HonestChieffan
09-30-2009, 02:03 PM
I'd have to know what the language was in order to know if it's "offensive to women".

Well since its in an amendment in congress you wont be able to see it. They cant even see it....crazy

Brock
09-30-2009, 02:03 PM
I'd have to know what the language was in order to know if it's "offensive to women".

But a host of Democratic senators were quick to blast Hatch's amendment, calling it "offensive" to women and claiming the proposal seeks to change current law.

It's already been decided for you.

HonestChieffan
09-30-2009, 02:05 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PxZyE6Jgabo/SsNvVLPt5MI/AAAAAAAAIWg/CF86ZB6G9MI/s400/theo4.gif

Jilly
09-30-2009, 02:07 PM
I'm only asking because there already is a lot about health care that is offensive to women that many don't even think about.....so I was curious as to what this could be as well.

HonestChieffan
09-30-2009, 02:10 PM
Nan doesnt look so good.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e588340120a5ae1f7b970b-pi

***SPRAYER
09-30-2009, 02:15 PM
I'd have to know what the language was in order to know if it's "offensive to women".

I'm sure it's offensive to some women; I'm also sure it's offensive to some men, as well.

Jilly
09-30-2009, 02:20 PM
I'm sure it's offensive to some women; I'm also sure it's offensive to some men, as well.

I'm sure it is. I was just curious as to the language of it....I hate not getting full stories and being expected to discuss or judge it.

JonesCrusher
09-30-2009, 02:20 PM
The senator argued that women should be required to purchase abortion coverage through unsubsidized, supplemental plans called "riders."

abortion riders, The new hells angels.

Jilly
09-30-2009, 02:21 PM
The senator argued that women should be required to purchase abortion coverage through unsubsidized, supplemental plans called "riders."

abortion riders, The new hells angels.

I didn't know abortion was covered under any health care plan and he's creating a new one?

Garcia Bronco
09-30-2009, 02:29 PM
Abortions usually amount to elective surgery. No government plan should cover them ever.

JonesCrusher
09-30-2009, 02:35 PM
Abortions usually amount to elective surgery. No government plan should cover them ever.

Democratic Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said his health care bill before the Senate committee already reflects federal law, which bars funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Garcia Bronco
09-30-2009, 04:52 PM
Democratic Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said his health care bill before the Senate committee already reflects federal law, which bars funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

That's why I said usually.

Velvet_Jones
09-30-2009, 05:19 PM
abortion riders
You would think you would slide right off of them - they would be kinda slimy, wouldn't you think?

orange
09-30-2009, 05:59 PM
The vote against the anti-abortion amendment was just more of the same. This amendment has been put up on other Health Care bills before and shot down.

There WAS something actually new and newsworthy in the article, though.


On Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa won approval for his legislation that requires members of Congress to access health insurance through the exchange that would be created by the health care reform legislation.

Committee members reached a unanimous consent to back Grassley's amendment, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Jim Bunning.

"The more that Congress experiences the laws we pass, the better the laws are likely to be," Grassley said in a statement on Wednesday.

I guess anti-reformers would just as soon this pass unnoticed.

Saul Good
09-30-2009, 07:17 PM
I'd have to know what the language was in order to know if it's "offensive to women".

To quote the bill: "Skanks, sluts, and harlets who want to have their innocent children ripped from their whorish wombs must pay for it they own damned selves."

I don't find it offensive, but I can see how someone could be if they took it out of context.

mlyonsd
09-30-2009, 07:34 PM
The vote against the anti-abortion amendment was just more of the same. This amendment has been put up on other Health Care bills before and shot down.

There WAS something actually new and newsworthy in the article, though.

On Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa won approval for his legislation that requires members of Congress to access health insurance through the exchange that would be created by the health care reform legislation.

Committee members reached a unanimous consent to back Grassley's amendment, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Jim Bunning.

"The more that Congress experiences the laws we pass, the better the laws are likely to be," Grassley said in a statement on Wednesday.
I guess anti-reformers would just as soon this pass unnoticed.

Does that mean members of congress will have the same coverage?

banyon
09-30-2009, 07:51 PM
Well since its in an amendment in congress you wont be able to see it. They cant even see it....crazy

:spock:

Uh, every amendment in Congress is posted publicly on the Library of Congress site.

It has been for almost 10 years.

banyon
09-30-2009, 08:21 PM
Well since its in an amendment in congress you wont be able to see it. They cant even see it....crazy

Wow it took me almost 3 full minutes to find the full text of the amendment.
It's a secret!!11!11!11

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1266-Finance-Committee-Rejects-Abortion-Amendment

Hatch Amendment #C14 to America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009

Short Title: Prohibits authorized or appropriated federal funds under this Mark from being used for elective abortions and plans that cover such abortions.

Description:

No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the policy.

Rationale:

All other major federal health programs preclude federal funds from being used to support abortion or any benefits package that includes abortion, beyond the limited circumstances of life endangerment and rape/incest. In some programs such as SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) this is written into permanent law; in others, such as Medicaid, Medicare and FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) longstanding appropriations riders, the Hyde amendment and parallel provisions, have long prevented federal funds from paying for abortions or from supporting any of the costs of a health plan that includes them. In FEHBP, because federal funds are used to supplement private premium dollars, all the health plans offered to federal employees must completely exclude abortion except for these very limited circumstances. This amendment would respect the same policy in the health care reform legislation, while allowing truly private insurance coverage for elective abortions to continue as long as this is done through a supplemental policy, chosen and funded by the purchaser and kept completely separate from the federally subsidized package of benefits. In this way longstanding federal policy on abortion funding will be preserved, anyone who wants abortion coverage may purchase it, and people will not be forced to pay for other people’s abortions.

Once again a poison pill for show that excludes serious health conditions of the mother so that it can't be seriously considered.