Video: Hey, we’re happy to pay for abortions through ObamaCare!

posted at 8:48 am on August 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Here’s a town-hall moment to capture in amber. A constituent asks Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to explain why ObamaCare will cover abortions when at least 90% of them are not medically necessary — in other words, the kind of elective surgery that insurance plans usually don’t cover. CA-16 is a heavily Democratic district, so Lofgren must have thought that she could tell the truth in an entre-nous sort of way.  When she explains that a national health-care system should cover abortion, she gets a surprisingly hostile reception (via Issues and Justice):

Just how liberal is CA-16?  They voted for Obama, 69%-28% in November, and if that doesn’t convince you of their leftist bona fides, they went for John Kerry in 2004, 63%-35%.  These aren’t exactly fiscal conservatives in the San Jose area, but they apparently don’t much like the notion of paying for someone else’s abortions.

Thankfully, though, Lofgren felt secure enough to admit the truth about the reform plan getting pushed through the House.  It’s going to repeal the Hyde Amendment and start supplying federal funds for abortions.  She thinks that’s just great.  What do you think?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

So now doctors are going to perform abortions on pregnant women, amputate their feet, hack out their tonsils and then give them a pain pill.

Bishop on August 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

By that logic, do you support killing unwanted post-natal children as well? You know, to avoid the burden on society.

DarkCurrent on August 13, 2009 at 9:25 AM

No, once a child is born then they become a citizen and have a set of rights that come along with that, including protection from murder. Before the third trimester, according to the law, we don’t have those same rights. And there’s a reason people make these kinds of arguments, they know they have no real ability to assail the law (despite claims in other issues to care about the rule of law).

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Just wondering. Is the government going to pay for medical attention for those babies that survive abortion. Or are they going to follow Obama’s lead and let the doc have another crack at killing it?

donabernathy on August 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Yes, if by ‘medical attention’ you mean being left to die in a trash bin.

And remember, your President didn’t want legislation to stop this. And even NARAL didn’t oppose this legislation.

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Not all Democrats think killing the unborn is a good idea.

tarpon on August 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Unlike the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930′s, it’s a free choice to join the Democratic Party. After affirming that choice, it doesn’t matter what a member thinks — their hands are just as bloody as their party’s platform on this issue.

unclesmrgol on August 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM

At what point do we start shutting down Red Lobsters

Ever eaten at a Red Lobster? The Applebees of seafood should have been shut down years ago.

Bishop on August 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Not all Democrats think killing the unborn is a good idea.

tarpon on August 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Sorry but Democrats in Congress undermine your statement. Their voting record is nearly universal in support of the culture of death.

highhopes on August 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM

No, once a child is born then they become a citizen and have a set of rights that come along with that, including protection from murder.
CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Not in Chicago, evidently.

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM

CrankyIndependent, you are conflating several issues together. But to retain focus on the issue in this thread, let me keep it simple for you. The right of a young woman to obtain an abortion is NOT THE SAME THING as her hypothetical right to make someone else pay for it. She already has the first, and members of Congress such as Lofgren are trying to get her the second. Many voters object to the first. Many more voters object to the second, even in reliably liberal districts such as Lofgren’s.

jwolf on August 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Should all sin be illegal? At what point do we start shutting down Red Lobsters and gay bars?

We should be careful not to legislate morality. In fact legalizing murder and theft should be a high priority.

Actually, scratch that. Let’s legislate the morality of promoting the wellbeing of the “earth mother” over it’s inhabitants.

jhffmn on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

And if a woman wants an abortion, then I just don’t see the point in denying her one. It’s infinitely less costly to the society than an unwanted child.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM

The very fact that you consider arguing that cost should enter into this debate makes you a moral idiot. By your summation, why shouldnt we apply this to all the old folks over 70 years—they certainly become cost prohibitive human tissue too.

Rovin on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Are you comparing eating lobster to destroying a human life?

No, you mentioned sin. My question is what does “sin” have to do with the law. Is there a biblical verse that says “abortion is a worse sin than adultery or homosexuality and therefore should be banned in your judicial system.” If not the issue of sin seems irrelevant as a point of law.

What do gays have to do with it?

Same issue.

That baby that you have no problem killing to save a little cash, deserves that same right.
TxMomOf3

Not according to the current law. I know you use the term “baby” to add an emotional tinge to your argument, but that is, of course, what’s so wrong with the abortion debate. And, it seems, there’s no emotional sympathy for women who get pregnant inadvertently and would like some options. Why should only the baby receive our sympathy?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Bishop on August 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Yep. Over-priced and half-baked. Just like the Administration and Congress.

kingsjester on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Weren’t you all concerned about the deficit? This is a cost saving move.

You’re welcome!

e-pirate on August 13, 2009 at 8:59 AM

If true, then why the talk about increased taxes? All true cost saving measures decrease taxes…

unclesmrgol on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

I think it’s holy crap on a cracker.

ladyingray on August 13, 2009 at 9:16 AM

ladyingray: Sounds like an Obama Cupcake!!hehe:)

canopfor on August 13, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Heh.

ladyingray on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Before the third trimester, according to the law, we don’t have those same rights.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Show me this ‘law’ of which you speak. All I’ve seen so far are emanations and penumbras.

Hiya Ciska on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

If you really care about sexual abuse there are a million more effective ways of combating it than parental consent for underage abortion. Especially considering that actual intercourse and pregnancy is very rare with child sexual abuse, most abusers don’t want to be caught so they can continue to abuse their victim. Moreover, because over 90% of abusers are friends/family, i.e. those trusted with the child, these kinds of measures seem like a bit of a waste of time. Or, as I suspect, a way of diverting from the real issues that go into child sexual abuse.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:25 AM

You are aware that an abortion is a medical procedure, right? My minor children cannot get ear piercings without parental permission. The fact that they would provide an abortion to an underage girl without notifying their parents should be a crime. There are huge risks with an ob/gyn procedure, including infection and hemorrage, sometimes resulting in death. They touch my child, I will go to prison.

TXMomof3 on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

For goodness sake, let women make these choices if they aren’t ready to be a parent….And if a woman wants an abortion, then I just don’t see the point in denying her one. It’s infinitely less costly to the society than an unwanted child.

If a woman isn’t ready to be a parent, then she shouldn’t make the CHOICE to have sex. Once she willingly engages in the behavior that could cause her to become pregnant, she’s made her choice.

You can’t put a price on human life. Babies aren’t commodities that have a monetary value so you can’t possibly claim that the cost to society is less.

Beaglemom on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

No, once a child is born then they become a citizen and have a set of rights that come along with that, including protection from murder.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

I see. So back in the days before blacks were legally citizens, you would have had no problem with murdering them, or illigal aliens today?

DarkCurrent on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Why should only the baby receive our sympathy?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Because no one is contemplating ending the life of the mother.

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Good point Dark Current! That’s justa disgusting way to look at things.

AsianGirlInTights on August 13, 2009 at 9:27 AM

I think you’re both right.

ladyingray on August 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM

The right of a young woman to obtain an abortion is NOT THE SAME THING as her hypothetical right to make someone else pay for it. She already has the first, and members of Congress such as Lofgren are trying to get her the second. Many voters object to the first. Many more voters object to the second, even in reliably liberal districts such as Lofgren’s.

jwolf on August 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM

I agree there’s a wide gulf in public support for the two and politically it’s stupid to put that in the bill. It’s just a shame that this issue, once again, appears to shout down any and all other pertinent issues. Enter Mrs. Lovejoy, stage right.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM

If one “elective” procedure is fully covered…then why not all?

Can we just kill Obamacare? Before it kills us, one body part at a time.

coldwarrior on August 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Because no one is contemplating ending the life of the mother.

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

So the only time our society should have emotional sympathy for an individual’s situation is if their life is in mortal danger. Like, should food pantries only set up for those who are one meal away from death?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM

And, it seems, there’s no emotional sympathy for women who get pregnant inadvertently and would like some options. Why should only the baby receive our sympathy?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

She got pregnant by magic? Here’s a thought – the woman is a supposedly responsible adult, and the child is completely innocent. My sympathy lies with the child.

Hiya Ciska on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Ever eaten at a Red Lobster? The Applebees of seafood should have been shut down years ago.

Bishop on August 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM

You can have my cheesy biscuits when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

BadgerHawk on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Nice way of twisting what she said AP. Everyone knows the Hyde amendment prevents taxpayer funded abortion.
Why dont you stop stoking fear and move along to something interesting.
Like how the neocons are now spraying swastikas on buildings all across Georgia. Especially in the black neighborhoods

Afrolib on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

TxMomOf3

I know you use the term “baby” to add an emotional tinge to your argument, but that is, of course, what’s so wrong with the abortion debate.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

What’s the difference in a ‘fetus’ ten minutes before birth and a baby ten minutes after birth?

Both need oxygen to survive. Neither can survive on his own.

Does one’s physical location, inside a womb, negate his humanity?

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:36 AM

crankyindependent: its hard to be a right winger and pro-choice on this website. people tolerate me anyway & i appreciate it.

though i agree with you on many points, don’t push that issue here as the majority of the posters are strongly pro-life.

kelley in virginia on August 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Here’s the thing about abortions….I am very very very against it, but that is not why I am posting. As a soon-to-be new father going through birthing classes, I can’t help but wonder how a person can decide to destroy that child’s life? And I am leaving all the moral issues out of it. How, after seeing the heart beat or watching the child move his/her arms on an ultrasound or watch the mother’s belly as the child kicks and stretches, can an individual destroy this life??? It is dumbfounding to me how anyone can describe this process as anything other than murder, but maybe I am just a softy….my two cents.

search4truth on August 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM

No, once a child is born then they become a citizen and have a set of rights that come along with that, including protection from murder.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

I see. So back in the days before blacks were legally citizens, you would have had no problem with murdering them, or illigal aliens today?

DarkCurrent on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Pull up Cranky, pull up! You’re going down!

BadgerHawk on August 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM

good camera work

utbw42 on August 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM

And if a woman wants an abortion, then I just don’t see the point in denying her one. It’s infinitely less costly to the society than an unwanted child.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Sorry but this is the nub of the abortion question.

Many of us believe that life begins at conception. It is not an “unwanted child” it is a life and deserves to be protected. Pro-murder advocates, however, steadfastly refuse to treat that life anything more than a blob until it springs from the womb which is an inherently immoral position.

highhopes on August 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM

afrolib: look up the Hyde amendment. only prevents abortion funded thru HHS.

kelley in virginia on August 13, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Afrolib on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Wrong site, Skippy. DKos is down the street on the Left. The hosts allowed you in yesterday during open resigistration and you’re already attacking them and Conservatives on a Conservative website. Very Classy.

kingsjester on August 13, 2009 at 9:38 AM

So the only time our society should have emotional sympathy for an individual’s situation is if their life is in mortal danger. Like, should food pantries only set up for those who are one meal away from death?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Not at all. My point is that we cannot kill a baby in the name of showing compassion on his/her mother.

We give money to charities that help single women who are pregnant.

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM

I see. So back in the days before blacks were legally citizens, you would have had no problem with murdering them, or illigal aliens today?

DarkCurrent on August 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Illegal aliens are the citizens of *some* country and, as a society, we’ve selected to protect some of those basic rights here in the U.S. as well, sometimes it’s reciprocal, sometimes it’s not.

As for slavery, no I would of course not be in favor of killing slaves (or any non-citizen humans). I think there are arguments for why the legal definition of life should be broadened to include the second trimester. But there’s a reason why slavery eventually ended and abortion probably will never end, as a society people decided that the arguments for changing the laws in regards to black people’s citizenship (which didn’t change until the 1960s, not the 1860s) were compelling. And ultimately, I’m not convinced that a first trimester fetus is the same thing as a born human being.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Why should only the baby receive our sympathy?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Red herring alert!

So, CrankyIndependent, what the hell is an Inadvertent Preganancy?

I love that expression — its just so cute — so Billie Jean King-ish. Inadvertent. Hmm.

The baby receives our sympathy because it’s a third party who is doomed to suffer a horrible fate because of inadvertency. Sometimes that fate includes a doctor puncturing your skull and sucking out your brains. But I digress, because in your book it’s not a baby (hence the quotes in your comment), but only a tissue mass — albeit one with its own brain.

unclesmrgol on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM

You lay down and have sex, get pregnant? No, I have no sympathy for you. Why should I? From the moment the pregnancy test showed positive I was having a baby. What would you call it? Life begins at conception, that is a scientific fact. The meeting of egg and sperm sure as hell does not create death.

TXMomof3 on August 13, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Like how the neocons are now spraying swastikas on buildings all across Georgia. Especially in the black neighborhoods

Afrolib on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Actually, the last swastika I saw was on a sign held by a liberal…

unclesmrgol on August 13, 2009 at 9:40 AM

And ultimately, I’m not convinced that a first trimester fetus is the same thing as a born human being.
CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Then what is it? That sure isn’t a puppy growing in there.
Does the baby just pop out and magically become a human?

kingsjester on August 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM

We give money to charities that help single women who are pregnant.

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM

When you say “we” do you mean your family? Or we as a society as a whole, because we don’t tend to do that actually. We don’t push for increased subsidies for adoptions.

We instead pass state-wide referendum that bar willing couples from adopting. Apparently having a gay parent is *worse* than being aborted according to the conservative minded citizens of a number of states. Where’s the sympathy for the life of the child then? It all just seems so hypocritical.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Why should only the baby receive our sympathy?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Because the baby is an innocent party, and it is the only one facing death.

Vashta.Nerada on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Afrolib on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

You’re going to be fun. Welcome to HotAir.

BadgerHawk on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

And ultimately, I’m not convinced that a first trimester fetus is the same thing as a born human being.
CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM

But are you convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is *not* a human being?

If there’s any doubt, why wouldn’t you err on the safe side and not endorse the extermination of this ‘fetus’?

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Abortion isn’t healthcare. Pregnancy isn’t a disease or illness.

Mulligan on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

This could be the first time that congress has had a light shine brightly on their stupidity. I can’t remember them ever being exposed like this before.

sherry on August 13, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Just a couple of days ago Specter answered a question in the townhall about this and told them that there would be two plans, one that pays for abortion and another that does not, hence you could sign up for the plan that does not and your tax dollars would not pay for them. And no one called him on that.

yakwill83 on August 13, 2009 at 9:43 AM

I love how we can kill babies, but a Terrorist who kills Americas, let him go! too bad some of those people weren’t aborted…

righthanddrive on August 13, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Can we at least agree that if we don’t support public abortions at the least we can support shoving condoms in folks hands and teaching them how to use them, like, unwanted pregnancies have a serious cost on the rest of us. How many medicaid recipients are spending tons of tax money on pre-natal care, eventually on food stamps etc. etc. And if a woman wants an abortion, then I just don’t see the point in denying her one. It’s infinitely less costly to the society than an unwanted child.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM

I don’t have a problem with the government funding contraceptives and/or programs to teach people how to use contraceptives effectively (even though I freely acknowledge that this isn’t really government’s job), but I do object to taxpayer funds being used to pay for elective abortions for women who couldn’t be bothered to use contraceptives. It’s not as if denying taxpayer funding for abortions is somehow going to prevent all poor women from getting the abortions they want. There are plenty of rich abortion supporters who could fund charity clinics to provide abortions for free or at a steeply discounted cost. Let the liberals fund these causes they say they care about so deeply. Why should they be permitted to force the rest of us to pay for their ideological agenda?

AZCoyote on August 13, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Cranky Independent:

What I get from your train of thought is that you are for the pure application of the law. In other words, all sin is equally bad in God’s eyes, so abortion is no more or less a sin than stealing a candybar from the cornor store. Going from that premise, you then are saying moral “sin” issues, aside, what does our current law say about abortion.

So you are trying to separate the moral emotion side from the current legal status side of this issue.

Which is why this issue is so explosive. We are a culturally diverse nation, and under the shield of “freedom” we as a nation have said that it is ok to have opposing views about moral issues, as long as the rule of law (whatever that law is, ie in this case abortion is legal) prevails. If the majority of people see the law as unjust, then they can by electing their officials get that law changed, or the judiciary systemt can overturn any bad legislation (roughly speaking).

catlady on August 13, 2009 at 9:44 AM

by Americas, I meant Americans… no edit button!

righthanddrive on August 13, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Father forgive her, for she knows not what she does.

Hening on August 13, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Then what is it? That sure isn’t a puppy growing in there.
Does the baby just pop out and magically become a human?

kingsjester on August 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM

No there is a 9 month gestation period, at the end of which (hopefully) a baby comes to term and is born. The option isn’t between “there’s a puppy in there” and “a first trimester fetus isn’t the same as a baby born after 9 months.” Also I don’t use the term “fetus” to dehumanize, it’s what scientists called us at this stage in our development.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Like how the neocons are now spraying swastikas on buildings all across Georgia. Especially in the black neighborhoods
Afrolib on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

All across Georgia, and by NeoCons no less?

How many swastikas in total and can you please provide a link to the painters of said swastikas being caught, just to be sure they are actually NeoCons as you say.

You’re new here, but that is no excuse for being stupid.

Bishop on August 13, 2009 at 9:45 AM

My blood pressure just soared.

I suspect we’ll find sex changes will also be covered.

SalHansen on August 13, 2009 at 9:45 AM

repulsive

CarpalTunnel on August 13, 2009 at 9:45 AM

But there’s a reason why slavery eventually ended and abortion probably will never end

Because people back then weren’t infected by the virus of moral relativism, utilitarianism and post-modernism.

The left’s form of slavery is forcing people like me to work more than half of the year to support idiotic programs I don’t need or want.

What do you need to drag people in chains across the world, when you can force your own “free” citizens to toil for you?

there’s no emotional sympathy for women who get pregnant inadvertently and would like some options

Yes, that’s a tragedy.

Just as there’s no emotional sympathy for men who get married inadvertantly and would like some options.

I’ll give ‘em an option. Don’t get drunk and jump in bed with the first guy you meet, you silly idiot. That’s an option.

NoDonkey on August 13, 2009 at 9:45 AM

And ultimately, I’m not convinced that a first trimester fetus is the same thing as a born human being.
CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Isn’t it kind of silly to put a fixed date on when every fetus becomes a baby? Like they all magically are a baby after exactly 6 months in the womb.

BadgerHawk on August 13, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Pregnancy isn’t a disease or illness.

Mulligan on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

I don’t know ’bout that.

The way I have seen way too many young women care for themselves during pregnancy one would think they viewed pregnancy nothing less than dealing with an temporary internal parasite. /s

coldwarrior on August 13, 2009 at 9:46 AM

If there’s any doubt, why wouldn’t you err on the safe side and not endorse the extermination of this ‘fetus’?

jazz_piano on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

I don’t “endorse” anything. I don’t really have the right to endorse or not endorse what another woman does with her life. That’s my point. Unless I’m gonna be paying some child support bills, food bills, light bills, clothes bills for the child that will be born, I don’t really have a say over whether that child will be born.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Just give the Dems enough time, and eventually the truth comes out.

westcoastconservative on August 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM

The liberals would love their state funded slaughter houses. Any society that subscribes to the wholesale slaughter of unborn human life will not long endure.

rplat on August 13, 2009 at 9:48 AM

They’ll use beneficiary money to pay for abortions up to the third trimester, thereby circumnavigating the Hyde Amendment.

I love it!

Health provisions for women shouldn’t have to be “snuck” into federal legislation.

Sorry, all you anti-choice nuts!

welcome_ghosts on August 13, 2009 at 9:48 AM

What I get from your train of thought is that you are for the pure application of the law. In other words, all sin is equally bad in God’s eyes, so abortion is no more or less a sin than stealing a candybar from the cornor store. Going from that premise, you then are saying moral “sin” issues, aside, what does our current law say about abortion.

You got it. It creeps me out when people start using the Bible as a standard of law. Some of our founders were Christian, but others weren’t and they warned about the dangers of a legal system controlled by christian dogma (though admittedly they were more concerned about the papacy).

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Afrolib on August 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Are they also spreading the AIDS virus and selling crack there?

Like any “neo-con” is going to run around vandalizing property in a black neighborhood. Did you just get finished watching “Mississipi Burning” and thought that was today’s news?

NoDonkey on August 13, 2009 at 9:49 AM

coldwarrior on August 13, 2009 at 9:46 AM

I agree and it distresses me no end. Do not think that I am for abortion, I just had to get the logic CI was applying straight in my head.

That being said, my sympathies ALWAYS lie with the unborn child. They are innocent of all wrongdoing and have the right from moment of conception of being protected.

catlady on August 13, 2009 at 9:50 AM

what another woman does with her life. That’s my point.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM

You’re a woman? Is your name Ann? Do you live in California?

DarkCurrent on August 13, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Apparently having a gay parent is *worse* than being aborted according to the conservative minded citizens of a number of states.

I know of no Conservative who is categorically against the idea of gay adoption. The entire idea of the homophobic Conservative is a lie.

We just know what works (heterosexual couples raising children usually with a masculine genetic male as the father and a feminine genetic female as a mother) and have reservations.

I am against a bad idea not because I am a racist, homophobe or what ever insult the democrats are using this week, but because it is a bad idea.

If the liberals could prove it wasn’t a bad idea then Conservatievs would support it.

You know, it is amazing how much restraint we Conservative show in every waking moment, in politics especially and how little restraint Liberals show.

Holger on August 13, 2009 at 9:51 AM

So let me get this straight. We can and assume sertainly will use health care funds to end the lives of fetuses but will look hard at providing care for the yougest of americans to keep the cost curve low on that age group.

Brilliant /s

HoustonRight on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Compared to her fetus, a mother’s life is already mostly used-up. We can get more quality-of-life hours from caring for a fetus than caring for its mother. Therefore a mother who wants to abort her child should be terminated after delivering the child.

Isn’t that the basic job of the “quality of life” bureaucrat – to dispose of people whose lives are already partly-spent?

justincase on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

The ‘pro-death’ people must be so proud.

Snookering the public won’t go over well.

SalHansen on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

You got it. It creeps me out when people start using the Bible as a standard of law.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Where do you think our standards of law came from? Ever hear of ‘thou shalt not commit murder’, or ‘thou shalt not steal’?

Hiya Ciska on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

certainly=sertainly

HoustonRight on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

So being a pro-life Democrat is kind of like being a member of the NAZI party, living next to Auschwitz, remaining a NAZI and saying you had no idea of what that smell was and you certainly wouldn’t have supported it. Even though you knew perfectly well what they were doing.

Jeff from WI on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

I’ll give ‘em an option. Don’t get drunk and jump in bed with the first guy you meet, you silly idiot. That’s an option.

NoDonkey on August 13, 2009 at 9:45 AM

++++++++++++I am with you there.

TXMomof3 on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Let the liberals fund these causes they say they care about so deeply. Why should they be permitted to force the rest of us to pay for their ideological agenda?

AZCoyote on August 13, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Can I not pay the portion of my taxes that goes to:
1. Corporate welfare
2. The DEA
3. TARP bailouts
4. Unused military projects

Here’s the problem. If you stop paying for the things you don’t like that the government does and I stop paying for the things I don’t like the government does you’re kind of screwed because those things make up such a larger portion of the federal budget than any funding for abortions would cause.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Where do you think our standards of law came from? Ever hear of ‘thou shalt not commit murder’, or ‘thou shalt not steal’?

Hiya Ciska on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

The moral and ethical teachings in the Bible were extracted from various other sources [Egyptian mythology, Indian mythology, etc.].

But don’t tell your pastor that. ;]

welcome_ghosts on August 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Where do you think our standards of law came from? Ever hear of ‘thou shalt not commit murder’, or ‘thou shalt not steal’?

Hiya Ciska on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Murder and theft are illegal in societies where no one has seen a bible. It doesn’t take a rocket science. Also, I’ll point out, that despite the efforts of the Texas education board the founders were NOT all Christians, or even monotheists. Why must we make things up about our history to justify present day biases towards a Christian state.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Also, CI, though I can see your line of logic, there is such a thing as personal responsibility. That is what is lacking with our current nanny state. People should be held accountable for their actions, including unplanned pregnancies. I do not want to clean up the banking, housing, and car industries, why would I want to clean up the abortion industry?

catlady on August 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM

I know of no Conservative who is categorically against the idea of gay adoption. The entire idea of the homophobic Conservative is a lie.

So social conservatives didn’t just vote overwhelmingly to outlaw gay adoption in Florida and Arkansas this past election? I wonder what percentage of those voters would call themselves pro-life.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Can I not pay the portion of my taxes that goes to:
1. Corporate welfare
2. The DEA
3. TARP bailouts
4. Unused military projects

Here’s the problem. If you stop paying for the things you don’t like that the government does and I stop paying for the things I don’t like the government does you’re kind of screwed because those things make up such a larger portion of the federal budget than any funding for abortions would cause.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

If the Feds were following the Constitution, none of us would be paying for things we don’t want, except a few who don’t want a military or the interstate.

Vashta.Nerada on August 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM

So the only time our society should have emotional sympathy for an individual’s situation is if their life is in mortal danger. Like, should food pantries only set up for those who are one meal away from death?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM

You are making false strawman arguments. There are plenty of free services for unprepared mothers, from medical coverage to food/diapers.

Conservatives care about BOTH the mother AND the baby.

Why do you only care about the mother and NOT the baby?

dominigan on August 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Ever time we have an Open Registration, this place turns in to Daily Kos for a few days until the Trolls get themselves banned.

kingsjester on August 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Nonsense – if we agreed to pay only for pure public goods, which is what the founders wanted, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

What the liberals have done by instituting programs that forcibly extract money from one group of people, only to give it to another, is to tear this country apart.

The federal government has no business doing anythign that doesn’t cover every American equally, such as National Defense.

The rest of us should be left to the states.

NoDonkey on August 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Oh, and here is what I forgot – equal opportunity means equal chance of success, not equal outcome…

catlady on August 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM

I know of no Conservative who is categorically against the idea of gay adoption

Really? None? I bet if a poll was taken there’d be some disagreement there.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:57 AM

there’s more trolls in here than in a Lord of the Rings film.

search4truth on August 13, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Abortions been legal over 30 years now and there are still countless unwanted children and people on welfare with kids they can’t afford.

I find it hard to believe that abortion is some magic fiscal and social cure all given that things seemed to be better in the era before it was legal.

Not that legalizing it is what caused the issues. It’s more of a symptom of the problem…absication of personal responsibility.

JadeNYU on August 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM

The federal government has no business doing anythign that doesn’t cover every American equally, such as National Defense.

Technically, VA healthcares only cover some Americans, should they be defunded as well?

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM

We instead pass state-wide referendum that bar willing couples from adopting. Apparently having a gay parent is *worse* than being aborted according to the conservative minded citizens of a number of states. Where’s the sympathy for the life of the child then? It all just seems so hypocritical.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM

I’m willing to bet that many of those same states would have anti-abortion laws if Roe v. Wade hadn’t been incorrectly decided. Abortion is a states-rights issue not a federal one.

As to gay adoption, that’s really a red herring here. It is unrelated to healthcare and presented in a very skewed context. Further, it is absurd and offensive to suggest that pro-life advocates would abort a life before allowing gay adoption.

highhopes on August 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM

So being a pro-life Democrat is kind of like being a member of the NAZI party, living next to Auschwitz

Psst… Auschwitz was in Poland, so not too many Germans actually “lived next” to it. Not to worry, though – Obama didn’t know that either.

Logic on August 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM

NoDonkey on August 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Thank you that is what I was trying to say but was not getting out!

catlady on August 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM

The moral and ethical teachings in the Bible were extracted from various other sources [Egyptian mythology, Indian mythology, etc.].

But don’t tell your pastor that. ;]

welcome_ghosts on August 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Public schools are failing, except at disinformation.

Hiya Ciska on August 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Also, awesome equivalency between elective surgery [ex:collagen lip injection] and abortions… you know all those silly women out there checking out the latest issue of People to see if aborting their fetus is in this season.

Maybe if you pray hard enough Roe. V. Wade will disappear? LOL

welcome_ghosts on August 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Murder and theft are illegal in societies where no one has seen a bible. It doesn’t take a rocket science. Also, I’ll point out, that despite the efforts of the Texas education board the founders were NOT all Christians, or even monotheists. Why must we make things up about our history to justify present day biases towards a Christian state.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM

If you read the Bible, you would know that God’s laws are written on our hearts. Whether we choose to follow them is another issue…

And the vast majority of our Founding Fathers were Christians… read their writings. Bible scriptures were quoted thousands of times in their writings to back up their political assertions. Even the “deists” that you point out believed in the Christian God… based on their references to the Bible.

dominigan on August 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM

For goodness sake, let women make these choices if they aren’t ready to be a parent. And, quiet as it’s kept, it takes a hell of a lot less maturity to have sex than it does to be prepared to parent. No amount of complaining from social conservatives that sex should hold off until people are married and financially ready is going to stop the natural truth of hormones.

Well you’ve hit the nail on the head with this. It is true that no amount of complaint will prevent people from having sex. The greatest deterrent is allowing the consequences of one’s actions to come into fruition.

For decades liberals have worked hard to separate sex from its biological, emotional, social, psychological, and health consequences. Abortion is part of that. Well sex does have consequences, a baby chief among them. If folks don’t want a baby (or a venereal disease) they should either not have sex (100% effective) or use condoms (much less than 100% effective but better than nothing).

theblackcommenter on August 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Public schools are failing, except at disinformation.

Hiya Ciska on August 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Amen! God Bless you.

::prays::

welcome_ghosts on August 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Not all Democrats think killing the unborn is a good idea.

tarpon on August 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM

“From their fruits you will know them; do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?”

TMK on August 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM

I find it hard to believe that abortion is some magic fiscal and social cure all given that things seemed to be better in the era before it was legal.

It’s not. Just because abortion has not ended poverty doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be an option for women who are not prepared to be parents.

And maybe this is just a philosophical difference, I think women should be able to enjoy sexual gratification without being prepared to parent. I would prefer if people chose to invest in vibrators, bone up on their oral and manual sex skills, get on the pill or wrap it up though.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM

You got it. It creeps me out when people start using the Bible as a standard of law.

CrankyIndependent on August 13, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Then you’ll really hate America which was founded as a Christian nation and many, if not most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we theologians of one type or another.

Jeff from WI on August 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5