It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Supporters of the line-item veto argue that the provision would make the President more accountable for federal spending. Also, the line-item veto can be used to prevent the enactment of controversial rider amendments that powerful legislators have sometimes inserted into important bills, or at least it can be used to ensure that someone elected at the national level is accountable for the enactment of such amendments. Without the line-item veto, Presidents have often felt compelled to sign controversial riders into law even if they did not support them. Bob Barr's former 2008 Libertarian Party running mate Wayne Root has also endorsed the line-item veto to go with his libertarian political views on spending while also suggesting the lifting of the Congressional ban on presidents impounding bills.
originally posted by: Metallicus
You are being disingenuous with your title. First, it is not "anti-abortion" it's pro-life.
Secondly it DOES NOT RESTRICT ABORTION RIGHTS.
It simply says that no Federal funds will be used to pay for your abortion.
How about the Feds pay for my next gun purchase? Having a right doesn't mean that Government should pay for you to exercise that right.
originally posted by: Metallicus
I am just saying you called it 'anti-abortion' and it isn't. I was correcting your error.
No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.
I also am pro-choice and pro-life. I believe people have a right to choose abortion for themselves, but I think it is wrong. I realize its hard for many to understand how someone can be against something, but still support the rights of someone else, however, if I expect this tolerance from others I must also give it to others.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TDawgRex
Broader picture: whether you read a bill or not, the real rub is in the administrative processes created to enact that bill.
While not all laws create crazy hurdles to run through, some (like ACA and Sarbanes-Oxley) created administrative nightmares for companies, pushing smaller companies to the brink of operating (or out of business entirely) just to be able to afford compliance.
The Senate’s flood insurance program looked like it was headed toward smooth passage – but now, there appears to be an abortion-related wrinkle.
Yes, abortion.
That’s at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who said Tuesday that a Republican senator is insisting on a vote on an amendment defining “when life begins.” Reid didn’t name the senator, but it was Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who had offered the amendment.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
McConnell is a moron in a sea of mendicants.
Problem 1 - they vote on these bills without reading them? It was all but admitted in the article that they didn't read it because they were told it was a reintroduction of a prior bill. ACA wasn't read either....just as an example. No wonder everything sucks so bad....how long have our representatives been passing legislation that they didn't read? Can they even comprehend it? Are they failing to read it because of choice, or necessity? Why don't they make their jobs easier by passing less convoluted legislation?
Problem 2 - "riders". It is how all the underhanded BS happens.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Aazadan
EXCELLENT points!
I provided a link above to the actual texts of all bills before Congress.
They're ... incomprehensible.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Federal Government does not pay for abortions by any stretch of the imagination EXCEPT in the case of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother. Last time I checked, even the most stringent anti-choice advocate was not claiming that a woman should be forced to bring a fetus to term under those conditions.
If the anti-trafficking legislation passed with the abortion measure intact, the victims fund it establishes would be subject to the Hyde Amendment.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he hopes senators will be move forward on the anti-trafficking bill after the potential vote.
“The Democrats will get their chance to have that vote, and hopefully we can get on with the business at hand,” he said. “The politics in the United States Senate has to stop and Democrats have to let this bill move forward.”