The American Spectator

Liberal Reader| 3.21.10 @ 5:08PM

I'm not sure I understand the problem.

It is true that if the government offers subsidies for purchasing health insurance it may end up subsidizing abortion, EVEN IF abortion coverage must be purchased separately.

However, it would seem this could be said of ANY government subsidy or financial outlay.

Food stamps could be said to fund abortion, since they might conceivably free up money to be spent on abortion (or cocaine, or gambling, or prostitutes) that might otherwise be spent on food.

For that matter, we might ask: How many abortions did the Bush tax cuts finance among the well to-do?

It seems to me that general adherence to the Hyde amendment is about the best the Democrats could do. As long as policies do not directly finance abortions, what else can be done?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the arguments being made here. If so, I'd be grateful if someone explained them to me.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.21.10 @ 5:26PM

Yeah dumbass, I'll 'splain it to you.

Stupak now has an umbrella to vote for tearing up the constitution and keeping dry.
The government now will have the juice to murder your unborn child or your mommie whose basement you inhabit.
Clear enough?

W. James Antle III| 3.21.10 @ 5:31PM

Abortion coverage does not have to be purchased separately. That is what would have been required under Stupak-Pitts. You can receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance that will cover abortions under this health care bill.

What the bill's supporters do argue is that the abortion services themselves must be paid for through premium dollars rather than tax dollars. They set up a "segregation of funds" model to try to enforce this. But few opponents of public funding of abortion believe this segregation of funds will work in practice, any more than the ban on using food stamps for booze would remain practical if they could be used at liquor stores.

The argument isn't that the health care bill will free up extra disposable income with which to have abortions. It is that entities covering abortion will receive the subsidies, even if their accounting must show it was not earmarked for the abortions themselves.

Liberal Reader| 3.21.10 @ 5:53PM

Thanks Mr Antle.

I do wish the strong measure were adopted, but I still wonder to what extent this -- as well as the Hyde amendment -- are symbolic. Are abortions so expensive? I wonder if any of these measures decrease the number of abortions. To be sure, I'm opposed to federal subsidy of abortions, but I can't imagine it does much good.

Troll Watch| 3.21.10 @ 8:09PM

He knows all about the Hyde amendment but is confused about Obamacare which he supports. He can't do honest even for a second.

SoCon| 3.21.10 @ 8:19PM

How can you tell when a liberal is lying?
His lips are moving.

W. James Antle III| 3.21.10 @ 8:27PM

Before the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid was funding upwards of 300,000 abortions a year. Advocates on both sides of the issue believe this ban on taxpayer funding has reduced the number of abortions.

Cal Mark| 3.21.10 @ 5:22PM

You libs always post long, drawn-out discourses, "full of words and noise and signifying nothing."

Why are you hanging around here?

JP| 3.21.10 @ 5:45PM

And the Prez is under not statutaory obligation to issue the EO. He could simply not do it. Afterall, he only gave a promise.

In any even, the EO cannot over-rule established law. I still cannot see how an EO can do this. The Senate version is for public funded abortions. It will be the law of the land. How can a President issue an EO that goes against standing law?

Mara| 3.21.10 @ 5:49PM

Stupak was lying all along. Listen to what he said in his town hall meeting last year.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthin.....obamacare/

pivey| 3.21.10 @ 6:36PM

Abortions, I believe are in the neighborhood of $500-$700 dollars, surgical, that is. Abortion providers contribute to democrats in order to increase the number of abortions and profit for them. Read up on it and you'll find they often coerce women into abortion just to get the money.

A federal subsidy would only increase the coercion, because the boyfriend (and often pedophile) wouldn't have to pay for it - the government will.

Gene| 3.21.10 @ 6:39PM

He will break this one for sure , look at all the others he has broken in 15 months, your right he may not even sigh it.

SoCon| 3.21.10 @ 8:20PM

Obama is pro-infanticide--he doesn't give a damn about unborn babies. He's a monster.

Gene| 3.21.10 @ 9:11PM

Welcome to Shop reebok wholesale shoes' online shop. Here, you can see our main sales are reebok easytone wholesale and reebok easy tone. If you buy reebok shoes in our store, you can get more discounts and privileges. And this is our wholesale reebok shoes Shop. This website sells reebok easytone. Reebok easy tone is the best pair of your all shoes,you can make a purchase for reebok easytone shoes online.I guarantee you will be fond of reebok easy tone shoes.