still_one
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:29 AM
Original message |
| Geez, a lot of blue dogs on CSPAN, so happy the abortion amendment was tagged on |
 |
I guess they had to play the silly ass game just to get the ball rolling
The country has forgotten about back alley abortions
I guess its lucky they allowed incest, rape, or the life of the Mother
The big part of the solution of course would be the morning after pill, and contraception, or challenge these people in elections
The other issue would be to take away the tax exemptions from churches
|
valerief
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:30 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. These assclowns bug the shit out of me. Self-righteous moron assholes! nt |
Barack_America
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:31 AM
Response to Original message |
| 2. The Blue Dogs who didn't vote for the bill? |
still_one
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 5. Really? I know there was one republican jerk there who didn't vote for it, yet was |
 |
for the amendment.
The question is, would the healthcare bill have passed without it?
Personally, I think it can be removed by the Senate, or at the very least on legal grounds, since abortion is legal
|
Gman
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:32 AM
Response to Original message |
| 3. Excuse me if I don't care if there is an abortion amendment or not |
 |
Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 12:33 AM by Gman
because I don't. The Hyde Amendment makes the point moot, unless you're a purist wanting something to bitch about. The point is still moot, but the bitching will continue.
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 6. I wanted the healthcare bill passed regardless of the amendment, just to get the process going |
 |
I also believe that it can be changed later
What bothers me is that the amendment involves itself with private insurance companies covering abortion
I also question the amendments legality, because abortion is legal
|
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 7. I agree about the legality issue --That makes me think it could be easy to get rid of in conference. |
still_one
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 10. I hope so, but I also think it could be changed later too /nt |
Gman
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 8. Nothing in the amendment is in conflict with Roe v. Wade |
 |
RvW guaranteed the right to an abortion. Not to an abortion paid for by insurance.
In any event, I agree that this gets things going. It can be fine tuned later.
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
| 11. You have a point, however doesn't it provide privacy rights between a person and her Doctor? |
FLDCVADem
(533 posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
| 13. what in the amendment changes |
 |
anything between the woman and the doctor?
|
FLDCVADem
(533 posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 9. Yes it is, and the amendment doesn't make it illegal |
 |
But just because it's legal doesn't mean that insurance policies have to cover it. And for all of they complaining I've seen about the amendment tonight, everything I've found on-line about it says the basically the same thing: no federal subsidies can be used to purchase a policy that contains elective abortion coverage. I'm not seeing how that is really any different than the Hyde amendment - no federal $$ for elective abortion.
|
OffWithTheirHeads
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 12:36 AM
Response to Original message |
| 4. Time to get to work. Throw them out! |
pansypoo53219
(1000+ posts)
|
Sun Nov-08-09 01:30 AM
Response to Original message |
| 12. we might have to lose it to refresh people's memories. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Nov 21st 2009, 08:58 AM
Response to Original message |