Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Why pro-aborts praise and pro-lifers attack Senate bill
WORLD’s Washington Bureau chief Edward Lee Pitts is closely following healthcare reform activity on Capitol Hill, and this afternoon he reports the latest on Harry Reid’s Senate version of the bill, including how it treats abortion:
The Senate bill also does not include strict limitations on taxpayer-funded abortions. It rejects language in the House healthcare bill that pro-life Democrats secured after successfully pressuring House leaders.
Rather than containing tight exclusions against federally funded abortions, the Senate version adopts an approach that could lead to the inclusion of abortion coverage in the bill’s public option. It mandates the inclusion of at least one plan with elective abortion coverage in each state’s health insurance exchange.
While wrapped in legal language, the intent of the eight pages in the bill devoted to abortion can be discerned by the way pro-abortion advocates have praised it while pro-life groups have attacked it.
“Reid has sought to please the militant minority that demands funding of abortion through federal programs, even though substantial majorities of Americans believe that abortion should be excluded from government-funded and government-sponsored health programs,” said Douglas Johnson with the National Right to Life Committee.
At Thursday’s rally, Reid said the bill’s abortion provisions are “in keeping with what the traditions have been in our country for more than 30 years.”
But his bill also empowers the Health and Human Services secretary to perform periodic updates of a qualified plan’s essential benefits. Such a review could lead to a major change: the eventual inclusion of abortion as an essential benefit.
Read Lee’s report in its entirety here.
back to top87 Comments to “Why pro-aborts praise and pro-lifers attack Senate bill”
“in keeping with what the traditions have been in our country for more than 30 years.”
–LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Report comment to moderator
Edward is lying. The bill also requires that their be a plan in the each insurance exchange that doesn’t cover abortion. And in clear contradiction of Pitt’s dishonest reporting, anyone reading the bill can see that it requires strict brightlines verified by multiple agencies to prevent any federal money from funding abortion. It also goes on to state that State requirements for plans for cover abortion (as is the law in California) will not make the Federal government liable for abortion coverage. Ed is lying to you all.
Report comment to moderator
mynock – it is being reported that abortion will be cover under gov. control health care by having the person paying more for the the insurance.
Report comment to moderator
I would prefer that we stick to using the names each groups has for itself. I prefer “Pro-Life” to “anti-abortion” and I know that most people on the other side prefer “Pro-choice” to “pro-abortion.”
It’s a small thing, but I think it helps to keep the conversation more civil.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – 4
I disagree STRONGLY – those who are PRO-LIFE want the infant to live, those who are PRO-ABORTION want to kill the child if they don’t want it.
There is no civility in killing an infant – I believe in calling it just what it is.
Report comment to moderator
We knew from most of the reports after Congress voted, that ABORTION would snake its way back into the health bill, via the PRO-ABORTION advocates.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – it is the pro-baby killing advocates
Report comment to moderator
5,6,7: All true, but case in point for #4.
Report comment to moderator
TRS 11.19.09 AT 6:01 PM
I would prefer that we stick to using the names each groups has for itself. I prefer “Pro-Life” to “anti-abortion” and I know that most people on the other side prefer “Pro-choice” to “pro-abortion.”
It’s a small thing, but I think it helps to keep the conversation more civil
–
Sorry, forgive me I will try my best to us those terms for a more civil conversation
Report comment to moderator
Ed’s statement that the plan does include strict limitations on tax payer funded abortions or that it opens the door to such funding is a bald faced lie. From the bill
(C_) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.– (i) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.
–The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i)[[abortion]] as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary– (I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2); (II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and (III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option’s coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) [[abortion]].
Tell Mickey and Ed you demand a higher standard in reporting.
Report comment to moderator
mynock, Reed today said the bill will have in it under the gov. control health care that a person can paymore for the the insurance to cover abortion.
Report comment to moderator
When the PRO-ABORTION faction in this country, chooses to respect the life of an unborn infant, I will consider they have become civil literally, until then, I do not consider pro-abortion to be anything one can refer to in any other way but UN-CIVIL, and that’s putting it mildly.
Report comment to moderator
“Reid attempted to restrict federal money from covering abortion in his bill. The government-run insurance plan created by the bill would not cover abortion. The bill requires each state to have one private plan that does not cover abortion and one that does cover abortion in the newly created health care exchange. But the plans are supposed to fence off federal funding so it doesn’t go toward that coverage. ”
mynock – the key is “The bill requires each state to have one private plan that does not cover abortion and one that does cover abortion in the newly created health care exchange. “
Report comment to moderator
mynock Reed is saying the States must use State tax’s money to pay for abortion health care exchange. He is just using a smoke screen.
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK, correct me if this is wrong, but what I am reading ABOUT the Senate bill:
Beginning on line 7, p.118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p.120).
And there’s more…
A monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan: line 11, p.122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional SErvice Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S.Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to opay for abortion services.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, nothing you are saying makes Ed’s reporting truthful. He lies about what is in the bill.
Even in your own language it is specific to a “private plan”! Where do you get from that paragraph that states would be forced to use tax dollars to pay for abortions? It isn’t there in the bill.
And your tax dollars don’t go to abortions if that coverage is paid for by private citizens. That doesn’t change because someone purchases it as supplemental insurance to a standard community plan.
Right now pro-lifers have the political capital to buy themselves special conscious considerations for their tax dollars, but the Supreme Court has ruled that you simply don’t have the right the outlaw access to abortions.
The Reid plan bans federal money from going to pay for abortions, but if what you are waiting for is healthcare reform that overturns Roe…you’re going to be disappointed!
Report comment to moderator
Mynock – try reading Nana’s post #15 -
Report comment to moderator
Here you go Mynock…..you are once again wrong….read the bill.
Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, you and all the other liberals complain when we don’t post the sections of the bill to support our argument so now I am giving you an opportunity to support your argument. Post the sections of the bill that specifically state that federal funds may NOT be used to fund abortions.
Report comment to moderator
15 cont’d – Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.
A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BELIEVE that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage.
Currently, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds to pay for elective abortions under Medicare and Medicaid, and the Smith Amendment, prohibits funding abortions under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.
Report comment to moderator
IAF-we’re on the same page
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK – you owe Edward and Mickey each an apology for calling them liars.
Report comment to moderator
Liberals don’t apologize Nana…they marginalize and say that the bill really doesn’t say that or change the topic or just don’t come back anymore……I think that is what happened to Musing. Musing would spend hours on these threads spewing his Organizing for America junk but never sharing an actual opinion other than that conservatives are wrong. That is what liberals will always do.
Report comment to moderator
Yes you are both cutting and pasting from the same WRONG right wing talking points instead of just reading the bill!
IAF demands, “Post the sections of the bill that specifically state that federal funds may NOT be used to fund abortions.”
Beginning line 8 page 121:
PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.–(A) IN GENERAL.–If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services: (i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
Report comment to moderator
You are in the wrong section Mynock. Read Section 1303. Nowhere in Section 1402 are there any words which prohibit federal funds for abortion…..read what you posted next time.
And just so you know I have an email that gets the Organizing for America talking points also. And your post is a direct cut and paste from their site.
Report comment to moderator
All the libs need to do is insert the Hyde amendment in to the bill and this debate is all over. Too scared?
Report comment to moderator
“And just so you know I have an email that gets the Organizing for America talking points also. And your post is a direct cut and paste from their site.”
Yeah, because we are both cutting and pasting from the bill! What is wrong with you! This is the bill’s wording!!!
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK 27 – that’s right. You’re just not reading it alll.
Report comment to moderator
And you are ignoring the word “optional” in section 1303! I don’t know what to tell you, except…maybe if your party hadn’t started two wars you failed to win you wouldn’t find yourselves down to only 40 Senate seats. Have fun stirring up “populist” (yes, scare quotes) fear. I seriously hope that whatever language is in this bill, women come away from it with comprehensive healthcare. I’m done with you for now.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone expects the Stupak language would result in the elimination of abortion from most or all health insurance plans, even employment-based plans that are not offered on the public exchange. This would be a market reaction to the restrictions that Stupak will place on some plans. It would stem from Insurance company efforts to avoid joint administration of plans that are subject to the restriction. The path from Stupac to the end of abortion coverage under health insurance is much more clear than the path from “public option” health insurance to “government takeover” a fifth of the economy.
Stupak points out that consumers could buy supplemental abortion coverage. He doesn’t admit that they won’t, because abortion isn’t a procedure they plan for, before they want it. Supplemental plans therefore will be small and very expensive, if they are available at all. Stupak advocates don’t consider this to be their problem; they welcome the circumstance. In unguarded comments, Stupak has said his object is to restrict abortion. His opposition to public payment for abortions is a means to that end, rather than an end to itself. It’s a snark that women won’t appreciate, when they find out what’s going on.
The conventions of funds accounting can certify that government funds don’t pay for abortions. After all, generally accepted accounting principles are all the reassurance the bishops have to give us to show that they don’t use government money for their spiritual work. Stupak treats abortion differently. Clearly, that’s because abortion isn’t about money. Stupak doesn’t care about the purity of his pennies, he wants to use the excuse of government subsidies to restrict the use that patients can make of their own funds. So instead of requiring sequestration of funds, Stupak forbids the joint administration of plans that offer abortion coverage and plans that offer coverage to people who may receive subsidies.
Government interference is not such a bad thing when you get to dictate, right?
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK, women and their babies don’t need comprehensive health care that includes abortions. If a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, she can do it out of her own budget.
Report comment to moderator
Hardly dictation, Scroop, but you actually just made my case. Since when does the gov’t strictly adhere to GAAP? Fungible is fungible is fungible.
bedtime…zzz
Report comment to moderator
#29: When did the discussion become about parties? Whatever. I’ll just repeat again that the Republican Party is generally a piece of you-know-what. This idea is only really contested by the potentates of the Republican Party. Seriously, most Republicans I talk to are disgusted by the party anymore.
Note that the ideas the Republican Party is supposed to represent are why people still vote for them. It is the party’s failure to uphold those ideas that has caused the disgust.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
In a newspaper article, “pro-choice” might be appropriate (the most “neutral” choice), but honestly, we can’t always call people what they want to be called and still be honest. What if pedophiles want to change their “term” to “lovers of children.” Do we use that phrase? Must we use the term “gay” instead of “homosexual”?
The “pro-choice” movement pushes abortion. It does not push adoption, and rather discourages parents from raising their own children once they’ve contacted a Planned Parenthood office and expressed some uncertainty in their ability to parent. Calling them pro-choice suggests that they are the side that lists options and helps you choose the one that is best for you. They don’t, so it’s the wrong term. I think the importance of truth trumps the desire to use the term “they” would like . . . and yeah, that’s partly because I don’t have any respect for the ideology of abortion, but then, I don’t know why I should.
In fact, in this case, since the subject at hand is encouraging taxpayers to pay for other people’s abortions, “pro-choice” would be downright misleading. Pro-abortion is definitely the correct term here.
Report comment to moderator
Well then Cheryl you are forfeiting your right to request that you not be referred to as an “anti-choice misogynist”! This isn’t about slippery slopes or the accurate application, it’s about how we want to talk to each other, and you are clearly saying you want the conversation to be bare knuckles! Have fun with that, but please don’t go crying to Mickey when we start labeling you what you really are!
Report comment to moderator
You obviously have no concept as to the definition of words. Cheryl most certainly is not characterized by a hatred of women, and that Mynock is the definition.
To be precise, those who can kill an unborn infant, ARE HATEFUL. Cheryl loves children and wouldn’t think of obtaining an abortion.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
Report comment to moderator
Reading the whole bill instead of just the sections you are for is less than honest. Mynock is showing he is only interested in pushing through the largest takeover of private enterprise since the Soviets took over all industry in Russia.
And a man defending taking the life of a unborn child is just not right. I have said many times that if a woman chooses of her own will to kill the baby in her womb or to use abortion as a form of birth control, that is fine with me. I DON’T WANT TO PAY FOR IT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
If you choose to commit murder on an innocent life then you should be forced to pay for it with your own money. When I was in the Navy we had a young lady who was stationed at my shore duty command. In less than 2 years she had 3 abortions. None of her abortions were paid for by the Navy, not one and the Navy has not ever paid for an abortion. This young lady ended up committing suicide after her third abortion because she was incredibly depressed and refused to get help. She thought abortion was just a form of birth control.
So I will state again and I will continue to state and call my senators and voice my opinion. If you choose to kill an innocent child, great. YOU PAY FOR IT OUT OF YOUR POCKET, not mine.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
In the Senate Bill, everyone in America who pays for insurance will help fund abortion through a monthly abortion fee.
Report comment to moderator
IAW — If you choose to claim that the money that somebody pays for an abortion is your money, that could be fraud. Think about it.
It’s also ignorant. Listen to the advocates in Congress. They aren’t complaining that the government would actually “pay” for abortion, because they know it won’t. There isn’t a chain of custody for a dollar that’s released by the US Treasury to the same dollar in the wallet of an abortion doctor. In fact, the dollar bill in the abortionist’s wallet is just as likely to be the bill you dropped in the offering plate at church. Stupak et. al. therefore speak of “subsidy,” not payment.
“Subsidy” is vague, like “fungibility.” It’s the classic excuse that people give to try and control the money that other people contribute to a system. That’s what’s going on here. The answser is funds accounting.
The only way you could possibly complain of “money laundering” would be if abortion cost more than pregnancy and full-term delivery. But of course it’s considerably cheaper. That means that accounting methods of sequestration are valid. I’ve argued on another thread that insurance plans which offer abortion coverage could actually take less subsidy than plans which don’t. Plans could rebate to the government the price of each abortion, regardless of whether the patient received a subsidy or paid out of her own funds, and still make a bigger profit than plans that don’t cover abortion. In order to suspect “money laundering” abortions would have to be more expensive than full-term delivery.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Many years ago I was one of a number of believers who became very involved and committed to the cause of life for the unborn. We picketed the local abortion clinic, we formed a 501c3 and opened a “Pregnancy Resource Center”. We educated,trained,and worked tirelessly. I will never forget the day our Pastor called us into his office for a time of reflection. His words continue to resonate with me this very day. “The battle is fought on our knees”…we can wring our hands and fill our moments with “busy work”, but…if we haven’t begun the fight on our knees…if we don’t find ourselves continually falling upon our faces before the Creator of us all…asking forgiveness and mercy for our nation..seeking His direction and divine wisdom…we fail.
I would have to disagree with the assertion that all who are “pro-choice” are hateful people. Some yes…but not all. I have counseled with many women, young and old. Some appear cold hearted…some confused…some blinded to the truth. If the Lord so chooses to place us in a position to speak truth to another, may we be faithful to be His servant and may His Holy Spirit speak to the hearts of the lost.
Report comment to moderator
Jillanne -42
We PRAY on our KNEES for guidance, we pray for for those who might choose abortion – but we do all we can on our FEET to end ABORTION.
My husband and I attended the funeral in the late 80’s of over 16,000 unborn infants who had been aborted in Los Angeles – there were about 300 present – we waited for the hearse, which arrived, there were six, with six beautifully made coffins for these unborn infants. No one said a thing, the only sound were sobs. That day will be with me forever –
I worked in PRO-LIFE, and I know from experience that both praying, which is most important, and working in this endeavor is important. You can’t just stay on your knees, you need to get out and help…… many women today have no idea what their doing, all they want is their freedom, they don’t want to even take the time to carry that child to give away to someone who cannot have a little one.
Your pastor might have kept some of you from continuing your positions of giving out information to anyone who would receive it, but I’m not buying his approach. I pray constantly, but I am confident that the LORD wants us to stay ACTIVE, in stopping this holocaust.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
It was not my intent to imply one should not put action behind their belief. Simply put it is my belief we must maintain focus upon Who is in control and not lose sight of our trust in Him.
The core group of people who were with me that day in our Pastor’s office continue to work for the cause of life…they were not dissuaded, but encouraged. 26 years later, we all continue the fight.
Over the years, the Lord has led me into other areas of ministry with his little ones. I worked in the adoption side of ministry and cared for the newborn babies whose mothers chose to give life to their child. We adopted our two youngest daughters…how blessed am I that their birth mothers chose life for my baby girls. I witnessed their courage and love for my girls and for that I am eternally grateful.
My prayer would be that we as co laborers would not be divided by our differences in approach, but united in what He has called us individually to do for His glory and honor. Blessings….
Report comment to moderator
Do you think for one moment that Believers within the PRO-LIFE movement have lost their focus as to who is in control? – or lose sight in trusting the LORD? – that’s sounds very condescending to those who have not lost their focus, but you feel a need to help them RE-FOCUS, just as your pastor did to you and your group.
Jillanne I don’t know anyone who is working within the PRO-LIFE movement who is not focused upon the LORD, because my connections are with Believers. If your pastor needed to remind all of you of this, then that’s between you and your pastor. I don’t know how any of you could have put a group together, etc., and not trusted in Christ.
We adopted, many people have.
Are you by any chance connected with Rick Warren or any of the “Emergent Church” leadership?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I suppose that you really have no idea how you sound.
At any rate, I am adamantly pro-life. However, many, many people who are pro-choice are actually not pro-abortion. I used to be one of those who felt it was distasteful, and something I’d never do personally, but I didn’t want to make that decision for someone else. So, I was literally “pro-choice.” And, I knew many people who felt similarly at the time.
The important point, though, is that if we choose to call them “pro-abortion” then they are going to call us “anti-abortion” (which is true, but defines us in a negative light rather than a positive one.)
And, then we’re just going to spend all our time calling each other names rather than trying to get anywhere.
I do believe abortion is murder, but I don’t think all the people who do it commit knowing murder, and I wouldn’t call them murderers. (There are a few on the other side that I would call such a thing, but many really don’t understand what they are doing.)
Still, I think it is a small thing to try to lessen the hostility by using less pejorative terms. And, it is Biblical.
“Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” Colossians 4:6
“A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” Proverbs 15:1
Report comment to moderator
No…I do not subscribe to the teachings of Rick Warren.
I am not trying to be condescending in any fashion, rather to be an encourager…if I have come across otherwise I apologise.
Report comment to moderator
WRONG, I know just how I sound, – what I write I believe – Abortion is a horrific crime. How do the unheard cries of the unborn infant sound? - that might be something to ponder
I do call them PRO-ABORTION – and I am ANTI-ABORTION, there is nothing negative about being AGAINST the killing of innocent unborn children. You’ve mixed up negative with postive.
Murder is murder – those who kill their unborn child know what their doing – you can’t kill something that ISN’T ALIVE – they are well aware of their child being alive, they don’t want it so they have it killed while in the womb.
That’s an excellent passage of Scripture, however TRS, it is not applicable to having ones child killed while in the womb. There is no grace in killing the unborn, it’s an act which comes from a selfish cold heart. You can soft soap ABORTION and those who are PRO-ABORTION but it all boils down to the slaughter of the tiniest helpless infants that GOD has made in HIS image -
Report comment to moderator
Jillanne
We are standing in the gap for the unborn, the tiniest, most helpless infants in the womb. Your pastor may have felt a need to tell you gals to pray, and get on your knees, however there is work to be done. We must tell them about the LORD Jesus Christ, HIS plan for their lives EVEN THOUGH they are carrying a child they hadn’t planned on, or more than likely don’t want.
Please don’t project what your pastor has proclaimed to you as a group upon others who you don’t know, and whom you may have no idea about their prayer life.
At this point in time, with the Senate and the health bill, with all the abortion clauses, and paragraphs neatly slipped in place we are AGAIN back where others were when Roe vs. Wade became a reality. It might not seem that momentous but in fact IT IS. ABORTION ….. if that bill passes will allow women to abort their infants at tax payers expense – that includes ME and every other Christian in the United States. That isn’t FREEDOM of RELIGION Jillianne that is taking our FREEDOM of RELIGION away from us, disguised in part as a ‘health plan’ - it’s a health plan and a plan to give women a chance to abort their children at TAX PAYERS EXPENSE.
Think about the ramifications of this bill – the millions of tiny little bundles made in the image of GOD destroyed. Abortion has become one of the ugliest sins in America – GOD watches!
Report comment to moderator
The only accurate descriptor of a pro-abort is pro-DEATH. Any other language is purely the useless appeasement of blood-soaked murderers.
It is time that those of us who care about life drop our failed attempts to continually appease the cowards who support and enable the bloody butchering of children.
Anyone who supports the heinous crime of abortion has no morality, no ethics, no humanity – the name ‘pro-abort’ is far too weak and non-specific for the cold reality of what they support – and do.
And I have no doubt that given their lack of even a shred of humanity in terms of their willingness to kill children, that they would like to see the same done to those who dare to disagree with the State and with their own perverted dreams of an all-powerful and despotic State.
Enter Death Panels, stage right.
Guess who goes first.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, DRILL, the inevitable creep of creepy thinking. The ultra-left Democrat leadership imposes government health care rationing on seniors under Medicare, which will deny them essential health care, AND begins “justifiable” rationing for EVERYONE ELSE.
Report comment to moderator
Another thing: Often the pro-Deaths try to cast pro-life position as being ‘against women’ or some lie like that.
Most of the victims of murders by abortion are female.
There are three active participants in an abortion moving from less (to no) culpability (guilt) to the most culpable (guilty).
1. The women who have abortions – a woman who has an abortion is either mentally sick or horribly confused and scared. There is little guilt to be laid there, only pity and help – they must live with this for the rest of their lives. I say that even though most abortions (>50%) are second, third abortions. I cannot help but believe that a mother who kills her child is mentally sick or confused.
2. The actual butchers in the clinics. These, too, though murderers, are not as guilty as the third group. Anyone who actively kills children is mentally sick and twisted. In every society, there will always be someone sick enough for this sort of thing.
3. The real murderers – the facilitators and enablers – the politicians and their stooges in the public and in the media who have never darkened the door of an actual abortion clinic and yet who support and enable the butchery. So it was the clean-handed Nazi officials who planned and implemented the Holocaust who were the MOST guilty – not the sick and demented and twisted individuals who carried out their wishes and desires. And the sleek well-dressed elites who made up cover phrases and words to provide cover for their brutality and murder.
So we have ‘pro-choice’ now, instead of the reality – child murder.
I, for one, refuse to play their word game. I am glad to see that Mickey McLean refuses as well.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL – we execute people who are mentally sick and intellectually deficient. We determine our competence for criminal responsibility by our ability to know right from wrong. Under our system, defendants have to be virtually oblivious to what they’re doing in order to be held not guilty.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, isn’t that a littlle different when a jury reaches those conclusions? And, you’re not suggesting that abortions are really executions of the innocent, are you?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: I am not a fan of capital punishment – for anyone. Used to be, not now.
However, as Nana correctly points out, there is absolutely NO valid comparison between abortions and state executions of legally convicted criminals.
I note that your post apparently support my argument that pro-death enablers who coldly and willingly and knowingly facilitate and excuse the abortion machine (such as yourself and pro-Death politicians and media hacks, etc.) are the truly culpable parties in abortion – more so even then the sick, twisted and pitiable ‘doctors’ and ‘nurses’ who actually wield the knives and acid.
It is, of course, always convenient to let others do your dirty work for you.
Cowardly, too, but that is another issue.
Report comment to moderator
NANA, It sounds to me like you’re suggesting the mother should be prosecuted, and it’s OK with you if the jury acquits. Is that right? The important thing is the jeopardy, not the verdict. Maybe that’s where DRILL is too, but he doesn’t talk that way. DRILL speaks as if he has pre-judged the case. He asserts that the mother who contracts and pays for the murder of her “child” isn’t guilty of murder, substantially, because she’s mentally ill, and he pities her. But that isn’t how we determine criminal responsibility. What will he do when the court instructs him on the standard for competence (knowledge of right and wrong)? DRILL’s reluctance to prosecute her for murder is either a prejudgment that, whatever abortion may be, he doesn’t really think it’s murder, or it’s a rejection of the definition of competence. Drill is manifestly tough-minded enough to call murder murder, right? Yet, we can’t expect him to hang “participant no. 1.” Furthermore, no prosecutor would impanel him for any murder trial, because he evidently would let murderers off for mental sickness. Maybe he doesn’t take murder so serious, after all!
Report comment to moderator
No, Scroop, I’m not suggesting a woman be prosecuted for abortion. You were the one who equated abortion with capital charges. Did I get sucked into a question I can’t answer regarding the legal definition of “murderer?”
Report comment to moderator
DRILL – congratulations on not being a “fan” of capital punishment. The DP totally disgusts me and makes me ashamed for my society. I can’t forgive the “fans” of capital punishment for disregarding the sentiments of admirable citizens who are offended by state homicide in the name of “The People.” This mania for punishment is barbaric, and I could go on . . .
I think you have a very difficult case to make against “participant no. 3.” If the perpetrator of contracts for murder and the professional killer who carries it out for money are not guilty of murder, then how can I be guilty of murder for not consenting to the prosecution of people who — according to you — aren’t so guilty anyway? If the purchaser of murder-for-hire and the hitmen aren’t murderers, I don’t see how you can call someone a murderer for looking the other way.
Report comment to moderator
NANA — I don’t think abortion is murder. Hardly anyone really does, despite what they say, because of their aversion to prosecuting the mother and doctor for murder. When humans detect murder, they cry for vengeance. BTW, if I thought abortion were murder I’d be just as opposed to it as you are. Probably more so, because I’d prosecute mama.
Report comment to moderator
NANA – If you don’t think participants in abortion should be prosecuted for murder, then you’ve lost the most important justification for government intervention. In order for the police to get involved, abortion has to be worse than “wrong.” It’s got to be a crime against a person. If that, then murder, and only murder. So according to my POV, abortion has got to be either murder or a private choice.
Report comment to moderator
Jillanne 11.20.09 AT 2:27 AM
No…I do not subscribe to the teachings of Rick Warren.
I am not trying to be condescending in any fashion, rather to be an encourager…if I have come across otherwise I apologise
—–
hello friend, I agree it starts with prayer and then we need to listen to God on how we are to go about acting on our prayers.
Report comment to moderator
mynock 11.19.09 AT 7:01 PM
Roy, nothing you are saying makes Ed’s reporting truthful. He lies about what is in the bill.
Even in your own language it is specific to a “private plan”! Where do you get from that paragraph that states would be forced to use tax dollars to pay for abortions? It isn’t there in the bill.
—–
I do not know the cost of a abortion, but in Health Insurance Plains, we pay co – pay and the Insurance will cover the rest. Where do you thing that part of the Insurance will come from? Tax’s
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: Of course you do not agree with my assessment of the greater guilt of ‘Participant #3′ in the murder of children.
Because you are in the dock, yourself.
Your argument regards mental incompetence or sickness is meaningless to me. If Great-granny, in a fit of dementia-induced confusion, runs over Pop with the John Deere tractor, we do not hang Great-Granny from the nearest tree. We get her medicine, help, and take the keys of the tractor away from her, and account it great tragedy.
A mother (participant #1) who allows an abortionist to kill her child is mentally imbalanced (to say nothing of her spiritual state). Needs medical, spiritual help and will for the rest of her life.
An abortionist (participant #2) who actually kills the child is criminally insane. Needs incarceration in a criminal-psychiatric facility.
A brazen facilitator or enabler of abortion (participant #3), be it Barack Obama, Scroop Moth, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or whomever, is neither confused nor criminally insane – just plain criminal. In full possession of their faculties, intellectually knowing fully what they support, having made a cold and calculating personal decision to construct, support, enable a general theory of genocide against their fellow human beings, they have no excuse. Far worse, though, than the COMMON criminal – who makes no policy, argues no justifications, and just orbits in a small local self-focused system of evil.
And your ridiculous rant about capital punishment means NOTHING to me except insomuch as it exposes for the hundredth time on this blog your rank hypocrisy on issues of life and regarding sanctity of life.
Oh, you support Capital Punishment, Scroop Moth. You enable it. You wallow in it. You just support it against the absolutely innocent and the weak.
You just don’t have the integrity to admit what you support and what you are. You want to keep arguing, arguing, arguing about it.
Maybe it makes you feel better. Too bad if it does.
Report comment to moderator
What do you propose to do, DRILL, to prevent people from not preventing abortion?
Common law made accomplices and abettors subject to the same punishment as the perpetrators of a guilty act. You make the guilt (and presumably the punishment) unequal.
You evidently consider the image on the ultrasound, the thump in the belly, and the blood on the latex as evidence that the mother and the doctor know not what they do. Perhaps you reason that a sane person would be deterred by the physical and emotional horrors of killing. Ipso facto, the mother and abortion doctor have lost their minds.
But that’s not our law. We take the ick factor as evidence of aggravation, not mitigation.
Sick behavior makes a case worse for the defendant, unless she can show that she was unaware of right and wrong.
The supporters of abortion rights, not being present in the operatory, don’t perceive the killing, so they don’t suppress the rise of natural feelings of revulsion. Although culpable as accessories, their crime is not aggravated. Perhaps they would have intervened to stop, if they saw with their own eyes.
What’s fatal to your criminal case against supporters of abortion rights is the blessed fact that opposing proposed legislation is protected speech. You are confusing “support” with “facilitation.” It’s a matter of degree. Supporting the right to engage in a behavior is not participation in the commission of that behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials, Scroop Moth?
I am pretty sure that none of the defendants there had actually sullied their pretty well-manicured white hands. Most had not, I am certain.
Report comment to moderator
Drill –
Pro-DEATH is accurate –
DEATH to the infant is the ultimate choice for those who choose abortion.
Report comment to moderator
hello friend, I agree it starts with prayer and then we need to listen to God on how we are to go about acting on our prayers.
Good morning Roy and Amen to your point. Last evening as I reflected upon a moment in time in my life I decided to share and it was not welcomed by some. I in no way presume to dictate how others shall act upon the Lord’s leading in their lives, I can only conduct myself in a manner which would desirably bring honor and no shame upon my Saviour. My desire is summed up in Micah 6:8
“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
I pray you have a most blessed day!
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, The death penalty makes you ashamed of our society? Not our rampant violence (inclduing murder of the unborn), materialism, perverse sexuality, but the death penalty?
Wow.
Report comment to moderator
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
–
Jillanne -I wish we would all put this into practices. Have you been to the Gaz. lately. I have not.
Report comment to moderator
In #10 and #24, Mynock quoted passages from the legislation that make it clear the legislation does not allow the spending of federal funds for abortion.
Here it is again, emphasis added:
–The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i)[[abortion]] as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary– (I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2); (II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and (III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option’s coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) [[abortion]].
In plain English, the plan can cover abortion only if no federal funds are used to pay for it.
And then the rest of you proceed to ignore it, deny it means what it means or insist there is other language that does fund abortion with taxpayer money (which you don’t quote or even cite.)
Wow.
Pastor Roy apparently does not understand how insurance works. In #62, Roy, where do you think private insurance plans get the money they use to cover services that exceed what the patients has paid in? It comes from the premiums that all the other people covered byt he plan pay in. It’s called a “risk pool,” and it mean ts that if a lot of people pay in more than they cost, the plan can cover the smaller number whose care costs more than they pay.
The public plan under this legislation, and also under the House bill, would work the same way. Those covered by it pay premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc., and the plan accumulates enough money to cover services.
Report comment to moderator
Jillanne -I wish we would all put this into practices. Have you been to the Gaz. lately. I have not.
Hi Roy… I have visited the G but once to ask a question on the Adoption Day being held at Focus. I felt false assertions had been made against the purpose of such a day, therefore I asked the poster for proof of her said assertions. She offered none
(
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – the tax’s payer will be the one’s coving the cost for the kiling of babies.
Since the poor will not be able to pay the high premiums, co-pays, deductibles, it will fall on the tax’s payer to pay for the their desire to kill the baby.
Report comment to moderator
Jillanne 11.20.09 AT 4:07 PM
Jillanne -I wish we would all put this into practices. Have you been to the Gaz. lately. I have not.
Hi Roy… I have visited the G but once to ask a question on the Adoption Day being held at Focus. I felt false assertions had been made against the purpose of such a day, therefore I asked the poster for proof of her said assertions. She offered none
–
I can guess who the poster was. I check in once in a while but at this moment have no desire to debate the people. I do miss our firends on that site.
Report comment to moderator
Again, given all the cruelty and suffering and injustice in the world, I find the obsession with abortion strange and out of proportion.
Though I suspect my theory is in part correct.
In any case, I am not sure it is a sufficient reason for not passing a health care bill. I am looking for some good comments about what is wrong with the health care bill. If you convince me, then…
Well, it won’t make a bit of difference, any more than your posting your comment will.
Report comment to moderator
“Again, given all the cruelty and suffering and injustice in the world, I find the obsession with abortion strange and out of proportion.” . . . because what’s one more type of suffering and killing the innocent? Might as well ignore them all, since we’re all going to die anyway and there is no God to hold us accountable for murdering the innocent, and murdering the innocent isn’t actually wrong because there’s no such thing as sin. . . .
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH – Since you seem to be stuck in the criminal/police mode, I should have known better than to assume you knew that my use of “murder” was not. Intentionally killing a human being at any stage of life to override God is murder of the most heinous motives. Our legal system has graded the definiton of murder to exclude the civil rights of those who can’t speak for themselves in favor of those who play God.
The IRS definition of “person” is a bit too culturally whimsical in assigning SS#s only seconds out of the womb. It’s “murder” a few seconds before they cry in gasping for air.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I was thinking more earlier about the “pro-choice” terminology, and thinking that one more reason not to use it (unless you work for a newspaper and your stylebook requires it): It really suggests that only one side is in favor of choice. In reality, there are only three main options when one has an unplanned pregnancy:
(1) carry the pregnancy to term and keep the child
(2) carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption
(3) kill the child (during or after pregnancy)
The pro-life crowd actually offers choices, #1 or #2. The pro-”choice” crowd offers a third alternative, but it is a ghastly one, not a legitimate choice. One might as well say that only a nursing home that gives you the alternative to kill your elderly mother offers true choices in her care. Since the “choice” that is added here is no choice at all (morally), the term “pr-choice” is simply erroneous. Again, both sides offer the same two choices, but one side adds a third (which it actually emphasizes) that is an immoral choice. The term “pro-choice” is thus illegitimate, because it suggests one side offers several legitimate options and the other side is against offering options.
Report comment to moderator
And yes, I do understand the desire to communicate with others who hold a different viewpoint. But you know what? In spite of our postmodern “tolerance,” I simply don’t think Christians should lose sight of truth to do so. In this case, for instance, we can’t pretend that those who push abortion are more in favor of “choice” than are those who say abortion is evil. Perhaps there is another term other than “pro-abortion,” such as “abortion-tolerant” that would work, but “pro-choice” simply is a false designation, covering up the harsh truth of what this “choice” is, and as such it shouldn’t be used in Christian journalism. I’d say we likewise shouldn’t cover up the truth of other evils, say pedophilia or adultery, by adjusting our language to make it sound OK. And I know that’s not what Christians want to do, but that is what we inadvertently do when we let people get away with use of a term that is actually a lie, like “pro-choice.”
Report comment to moderator
One of the things that used to drive me crazy (still does, though I don’t think I hear it quite as much these days) is that statement that women should “have the right to choose.”
“Choose what?” I always say out loud when I hear it.
I think abortion causes the humanity in us to recoil — to the point where the word itself is even avoided at all costs. The right to choose. Doesn’t that sound nice?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Well, the language of the bill specifically forbids using taxpayer money to pay for abortion. If you believe that taxpayer money will be used to pay for abortion under this bill, show me where in the bill it says so.
Your saying it repeatedly does not make it true.
Report comment to moderator
So, Conan, what exactly will be used to pay for abortions? We’re saying that if a person feels it essential to kill her unborn child, she can at least pay for it themselves, and the Left is saying no, society should pay for it. So, you’re saying the murderous mother (oh, sorry, that was judgmental) shouldn’t have to pay the executioners (whoops) herself, but that tax payers won’t be paying either. So, pray tell, who will be?! Will the abortion doctors, who are currently motivated largely by greed, suddenly start offering their bloody knives for free?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl -77
Very well stated – the most important point “not a legitimate choice.”
The entire last paragraph of your post is excellent:
Report comment to moderator
NANA — Perhaps recognizing the newborn as a person at birth is “erring on the side of life.” Personally, I’ve no objections to this convention, even though it occasionally leads to unreasonable (though legal) interventions by the police into the delivery room. There are good as well as practical reasons for conferring social rights to the newborn and not to the fetus one second earlier.
I don’t understand your willingness to cry murder yet not expect the police to come running. Isn’t that as irresponsible as yelling fire in a crowded theater because you don’t approve of the show? Me, when I call murder, it will be the full monty. When dealing with murder, NANA, why shouldn’t I be “stuck in a criminal/police mode.” You’re playing games. You need to go back to the drawing board. Of course, when you do that you will be compelled to the conclusion that abortion isn’t murder. It has a different walk and quack.
In previous engagements with me on this topic, abortion criminalizers have all retreated to the argument that, since the personhood of the fetus is a theoretical possibility, or ambiguous, or unknowable, then abortion is analogous to negligent homicide, because it’s conduct that might kill a person, and doing it anyway would be ethically the same as killing a person, because the recklessness itself is murderous. Unfortunately, that charge isn’t prosecutable, either.
Report comment to moderator
Moth,
Because this country has put into law the killing of the unborn, does not mean that they have the right before GOD to eleminate it being MURDER – it is still murder, it always will be –
Because those who participate in murder of unborn infants, either the individual who is carring the infant, choosing to eliminate it from their womb, OR the ones who perform the horrific procedure, it still amounts to killing and murdering an unborn child. No one can be arrested or tried for such a murder because this country has decided their laws trump GOD’s, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is murder.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, it were illegal to have an abortion, I’d be in favor of prosecuting all involved, yes including the mother. As Victoria said, since it currently isn’t against man’s law, then no one can (currently) be charged with a crime. But it is still murder in God’s eyes, and I’m willing to call it such.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 11.21.09 AT 11:44 AM
Pastor Roy: Well, the language of the bill specifically forbids using taxpayer money to pay for abortion. If you believe that taxpayer money will be used to pay for abortion under this bill, show me where in the bill it says so.
Your saying it repeatedly does not make it true.
—-
where do you think the money is coming from to pay for the killing of the babies? The poor can not pay for it who is going to cover the cost?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!