Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

www.breitbart.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm not sure what kind of reaction or posts this thread will yield but I thought it would at least be worth a shot to put this out there.

While I don't agree with the expansion of government/BHO insurance since the gov has never managed anything that has been profitable or on budget, I really don't agree that I should be paying for abortions. This isn't about the RIGHT to have one, I am strictly keeping this issue to the American public having to PAY for them.

Thoughts?

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Pay for the abortion, or pay for the benefits of the unwanted, disenfranchised kid, and then your taxes can pay to keep him in jail for most of his adult life.

reply to post by CRB86



I take it you are saying that those that are "unwanted" will become law-breakers? No chance they will become someone that is a productive member of society?

Insurable murder?
wow!

See i'm very pro-choice, but abortion has nothing to do with pro-choice

That whole argument that it's a woman's body and she could do what she wants with it is BS. She CAN do whatever she wants to her body, sure, but that baby inside of her is NOT her body, it's another life.

Abortion should be illegal, as with gay couples adopting.
You have the freedom to do as you wish, but do not impose anything on a baby.

For govt. to insure it.... I don't know what to say

You know what this is?

This will be HUGE, and will prove as a very efficient distraction over the cash for clunkers fiasco, the town hall mayhems and many other issues with the current administration.

Obama team are great marketers.

I was dumb-founded when I read the article. I still can't believe they would permit that (pay for abortions) but guess this is the same group that believes in kids getting advice on sex from school instead of the parent. The same group that wants std/pregnancy testing to be done by the school without any information being provided to the parents. The same people then that punish the parents for not knowing what's going on.

Yeah...... Good times ahead.

The healthcare plan on the whole is a big pile of steaming donkey bunk.
They are going to have the last word on EVERYTHING to do with your medical care, and i'll betcha that we will be sitting in the waiting room FOREVER just like the Canadians do.

Paying for abortions will be the least of our worries though.

reply to post by mpriebe81




I couldn't agree with you more. When the gov decides on the best medicines for you, don't think they are going with the most expensive. If that experimental medicine costs $$$, the gov could very easily say, nah, use generic version which costs $ but has a 10% success rate. Enjoy that!

reply to post by Roadblockx


Lol, you are absolutely right though!
There is not a doubt in my mind that they will feed us the generics any and every time that they can get away with it....and we will have absolutely no say in such matters.
I can understand people getting upset over the "covered abortions" part of the plan....but shouldn't we be focusing more on the plan as a WHOLE, and how utterly crappy it is? Personally I find the idea of the government having access to even MORE of my information a teeeeeny bit more frightening than the possibility of "covered abortions".

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Insurable murder?
wow!

See i'm very pro-choice, but abortion has nothing to do with pro-choice

That whole argument that it's a woman's body and she could do what she wants with it is BS. She CAN do whatever she wants to her body, sure, but that baby inside of her is NOT her body, it's another life.

Abortion should be illegal, as with gay couples adopting.
You have the freedom to do as you wish, but do not impose anything on a baby.

For govt. to insure it.... I don't know what to say

You know what this is?

This will be HUGE, and will prove as a very efficient distraction over the cash for clunkers fiasco, the town hall mayhems and many other issues with the current administration.

Obama team are great marketers.

Your opinion is quite hateful.

Should white people be able to adopt? How about people with green eyes? How about people who write with their left hand? How about people with an IQ of over 100? How about people who have a bigger 2nd toe, than big toe?

Since you seem to think of yourself as a "higher authority" with knowledge of who should be able to, and who should not be able to adopt, I'd love some answers. As a lefty, myself, with a bigger 2nd toe, I am very concerned about my rights as an individual.

(My point is that you are not god, so stop judging people based on creed).

Either cover abortion and birth control or cover the medical problems stemming from cheap blackmarket abortions, plus childcare for single parents, plus put more money into education, plus throw a couple trillion bucks into welfare.

Then we'll be in good shape.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


WOW great post. I gave you a star.

You are right that Obama and the dems are great marketers. You have to be a great marketer to create a postive name like Pro-Choice for something that in reality is Pro-Baby Murder.

Originally posted by ninecrimes
Should white people be able to adopt? How about people with green eyes? How about people who write with their left hand? How about people with an IQ of over 100? How about people who have a bigger 2nd toe, than big toe?

Ummmm.... yes they all should be able to adopt because they all are capable to procreate with a woman.

I don't see the relevance of any of your analogies.

If gay people decide a lifestyle that doesn't allow reproduction, then that's the choice they chose.
It's as simple as that!

Originally posted by CRB86
Pay for the abortion, or pay for the benefits of the unwanted, disenfranchised kid, and then your taxes can pay to keep him in jail for most of his adult life.

I'm the product of a one night stand.
thanks.

12+ replies and not a single flag?? Wow... Tough room!

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Either cover abortion and birth control or cover the medical problems stemming from cheap blackmarket abortions, plus childcare for single parents, plus put more money into education, plus throw a couple trillion bucks into welfare.

Then we'll be in good shape.

First, perhaps birth control could be funded. Not abortion. Second, if any money should be spent it should be on education. Cut welfare out. Welfare is a joke. Education would/should teach those that having babies at 15 is not the way to go. Welfare shouldn't be a "goal" to reach. I've seen these welfare slugs driving nicer cars then bankers.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I agreee once again and another star for you. Also all the things except being left handed that he listed are things you cannot control, they are not choice based, and I didnt know homosexuality was a creed.

Originally posted by heyo

Originally posted by CRB86
Pay for the abortion, or pay for the benefits of the unwanted, disenfranchised kid, and then your taxes can pay to keep him in jail for most of his adult life.

I'm the product of a one night stand.
thanks.

Thank you! I knew there was some productive member of society that came from a situation that may have been unplanned. This goes back to my point that you can't just give everyone woman a "tab" to put their accidents on. I believe it begins to hold one less accountable for their actions if they know someone else will bail them out.... Bail them out, where have I heard that term before....

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I can see where you are coming from, but I must respectfully disagree.
We're all entitled to our opinions, however it is another thing to play the Judge and decide who gets to do what based on personal beliefs.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ninecrimes
Should white people be able to adopt? How about people with green eyes? How about people who write with their left hand? How about people with an IQ of over 100? How about people who have a bigger 2nd toe, than big toe?

Ummmm.... yes they all should be able to adopt because they all are capable to procreate with a woman.

I don't see the relevance of any of your analogies.

If gay people decide a lifestyle that doesn't allow reproduction, then that's the choice they chose.
It's as simple as that!

What if I got "my tubes tied", then decided I'd like another baby?

Should I be able to adopt, then?

(PS- my questions are entirely sarcastic, proving that you actually believe certain people should be able to do certain things. Maybe you should read your own signature about equality before making such HATEFUL statements)

reply to post by ninecrimes


Yeah you should still be able to adopt a child, because theoretically you could get your tubes untied.