Congress Bill to Defund Taxpayer Money for Abortion

And the slow transformation to a Christian run nation begins. This goes directly against Roe vs Wade because abortion is legal. This is just another attempt by the GOP to control a woman's body and what she does with it.

Got raped ?
You're on your own kid.

Want a 4-hour woody or a larger penis ?
No problem !

American taxpayers are “grossly” overpaying for penis pumps for Medicare beneficiaries to the tune of millions of dollars each year, a government watchdog says.

Medicare spent $38.6 million on VES in 2011 – up from $20.6 million in 2006, the report found. All told, the government spent $172 million over the five-year period.

Click

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: muse7

That doesn't in any way answer my question.

Instead of political grand standing, just answer the question.


Why should the tax payer fund the killing of an innocent life?


And how on earth does removing tax dollars from funding this, interfere with a "woman's right to chose"?

Because paying for the alternative is more expensive. If the mother cannot afford the abortion and comes to term, she and her child will end up being a much bigger drain on taxpayer resources through welfare, SNAP, and social services.

Let's be real here, defunding taxpayer abortions is a direct attack against not only women, but poor women (probably minorities). Obviously a rich girl isn't going to need a government subsidy to get an abortion, she can just pay for it herself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really???

Tax payers shouldn't be funding any of the crap listed.

Don't want to have a kid....don't have sex. And please, withhold the BS rape comment. We are not talking about that.

The highest percentage of this is people having sex, creating a life and then not wanting to own up to their actions and killing an innocent child.

If people are okay with funding the killing of a child, why do you all bitch so much about killing people in other countries.

And.....before anyone opens there Progressive mouth, go and check on my stance on the current wars.

a reply to: buster2010

So in what world does not having tax dollars funding the killing of an innocent life turn it illegal??

a reply to: macman

It takes two baby, it takes two....

Men and shunning their responsibilities to the whole process. Glad I explained the birds and bees to my son.

a reply to: MOMof3

Oh, so the woman and the tax payer then....Interesting.


Again, why should the tax payer be funding this.

I do like the early morning attempt of half-assed condescension.

originally posted by: muse7
I wonder what's next on the list for this congress.

Wouldn't be surprised if a war on christmas bill get's passed next.

for the republican party, it's all about eliminating services for the poor and middle class. the are slowly undoing what was done by presidents Roosevelt and Johnson. they only want the wealthy and corporate subsidized, if there is going to be any type of subsidizing done...just look at the Koch bros. political meeting down in Arizona for the republican presidential candidates. they alone are pledging 889 million for the 2016 election, and they expect something big in return, and shocker!...none of it's going to help the poor or middle class, no matter what party they belong to.

a reply to: macman

On the basis of your objection, why should I pay for a man's impotency? It still takes two to make a baby. Most of the time. Are women getting pregnant by Immaculate Conception?

a reply to: MOMof3

And where have I stated I am for tax payers funding a man's impotency???? Where...

And again, what does "it still takes two" have to do with tax payers funding abortion??

a reply to: MOMof3

Oh, I found that page where I am for tax payers funding such things macman's tax payer funded approval list

a reply to: macman

Why do you object to killing a baby before it is born, but you don't care after that same baby takes its first breath? I have never even considered an abortion or my daughters. But I can't make that decision for another human. Women deserve 100 percent decisions over their body just like you.

I pay for a lot of things I don't agree with through my taxes. Why can't I pick and choose?

a reply to: macman

you do realize that abortions did not start up with the passage of Roe v Wade, right?....Roe v Wade allowed women to get an abortion with a degree of assurance that they wouldn't cause bodily injury to themselves, or lose their life in the process.....if you want to go back to that, just say so, but, I think you already have.

Funny, as you will never directly answer questions posted to you. You deflect and go off on emotional rants.
I ask again. Why should the tax payer be funding abortions?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really???

Tax payers shouldn't be funding any of the crap listed.

Don't want to have a kid....don't have sex. And please, withhold the BS rape comment. We are not talking about that.

Well the bill in the OP DOES address that. So why aren't we allowed to talk about it?

The highest percentage of this is people having sex, creating a life and then not wanting to own up to their actions and killing an innocent child.

If people are okay with funding the killing of a child, why do you all bitch so much about killing people in other countries.

Being pro-choice != being pro-abortion.

And.....before anyone opens there Progressive mouth, go and check on my stance on the current wars.

I'm not a progressive, so can I open my mouth?

a reply to: jimmyx

Another Progressive hyper emotional response, that is about as off topic as a football bat.

Removing tax payer funding does not make anything illegal. It removes tax payer funding.

Got anything else you care to discuss??? Maybe a hockey ball? Or a tennis mit?

a reply to: macman

I answered with a question. The same question you asked. Why do I have to pay for a man's impotency? It still takes two.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Abortion for rape is a mixed bag.

But, tax payer funding of such things should not be happening.

And yeah, pro-choice does equal pro-abortion.

As for opening your mouth, you know my stance on the current wars. Guess you can chime away.

originally posted by: MOMof3

Are women getting pregnant by Immaculate Conception?

Swinggg.......and a miss!


Nice try though.

a reply to: MOMof3

And I, unlike you, addressed that directly.

Care to actually answer the questions directed to you???

I think you will, as usual, deflect and avoid.