Where in the constitution is congress given the authority to rule on such things? This should be refered to the states or the people. Damn both sides who keep the subject alive merely for their financial gain.
cocobear33, I agree. Whatever your opinion of abortion (I think it should be decided at the state level and lower...like the death penalty, which is the constitutional position), it is wrong to force anyone to pay for another persons abortion.
The hypocrisy of the conservative/religious movement in politics is enormous. There is no logic in claiming two contradictory things:
1. Government must not get between patients and their doctors.
2. Patients and their doctors may not use insurance from this plan to cover a legal procedure that we personally do not approve of. We are the government and we say so.
If you want the government to butt out, then butt out!
Whats the deal with the last comment on , they are white men telling women what to do with their bodies. whats the deal. These are the same women spewing this same maessage to our children in schools and on tv, and other media . keeping the baby you and your partner made and I do mean male partner. What ever happend to that option. I guess its just true that we are a true "Throw away" nation.Dr.nancy and the mess next to her shows were we went wrong.
Every woman should be entitled to 1 abortion paid for by the Gov. at the same time they should be given a hysterectomy. think of all the money we would save in Welfare. think of all the children who wont grow up in a bad environment. honestly, what kind of mother would consider killing her baby anyway. should she even be allowed to be a mother?
every man shoud ONLY be entitled to any form of medical insurance upon his suppling a dna sample and pre-paid (into a trust) child support for 2.4 children through college age. (unless he can supply indisputable medical proof of double orchiectomy or irreverible azoospermia)
LOL your feisty, I like feisty. I'd rather the Government not get involved with my medical Insurance. but let's assume they did, why should I have to supply a DNA sample? wouldn't the woman who I supposedly got pregnant be able to ID the daddy of her soon to be dead fetus? Just curious why you would want a woman to give birth to a baby she obviously don't want? or why you would want to repeatedly pay for a woman who can't remember who knocked her up?
Maybe you misunderstood me, I am for a woman's choice to have children or not (Pro Choice) & I Believe it should be covered under this health care plan, but only once. to be sure it's only once, the woman should have her tubes tied at the time of the abortion. it's much cheaper in the long run then paying welfare & I Believe any woman that could kill her child is not fit to have children. better to kill it in the womb then to let it suffer 18 years to an unfit mother............
if my daughter, or the girlfriend of my son, got pregnant & was unable, or felt she would be unfit, to take care of the child I would pressure her to have the baby & let me & my wife adopt the baby. of coarse I don't have final say in the matter.
what are you talking about? if the woman chooses to have the child of coarse she's entitled to child support providing she can point out the daddy. but she shouldn't be eligible for squat if she can't. if she points out the daddy he should have to give up the DNA. if she's wrong, she should have to pay for the test.
some how this conversation went from abortion to support. now here's the moral hazard
too many Fathers are being replaced by welfare checks. a mothers teaches Love & Compassion. a fathers teaches Responsibility & Discipline. it's obvious what's lacking in society today.
Your Right, but not just men. applying for a birth permit should be like applying for a loan, complete with credit check, down payment & a signed contract. but how could you prevent it without mandating birth control? of coarse this is only meant to make you think, I don't actually believe this.
And, what happens when her legs are pried open and she's impregnated?
How bout you? What if your sister, mother, or girlfriend were raped? What if it's molestation? You know lots of girls get molested by family members, right?
Many people do not want to allow women to have access to birth control. It's a way to subjugate women.
RodgersRevolution - What kind of society are we when we let little girls get pregnant and refuse to educate them so the won't have to bear the pain of an abortion?
Are you kidding? I am ok with abortions for rape and incest victims. No one else. Rape and incest make up less than 1% of total abortions. Quit using this as the excuse to murder the innocent because their mothers are careless.
^0% of abortions are for women who already have one child. These families do not think they can afford to have an another child. I believe in choice, but under such circumstances I would have the child. And I have.
But that leaves the other 40%. The Feds (for the past 8) years and many religious organizations refuse to allow information be given to young women on how to prevent a pregnancy. You say girls should keep their legs closed but they don't.
My sister was pregnant at age 15 in 1966. She said she knew how babies were made. Ignorance should not be used as an excuse either. It is plain and simple. Some women like men choose to gamble with their lives. Yet they have to be held responsible for their actions or they will never change. Blaming the government for womens ignorance is also playing the victim. Why can't people understand the victim mentality. It should not be used.
If you tampon chewers would keep your legs closed then you wouldn't have to worry about going into the back alleys to die. But then, there goes your leverage huh.
Besides, why are you on a TV show, with all the protection and preference laws providing you an advantage in society, you should be on a battlefield defending your privileges.
BTW, why are women protected from serving in ground combat units.....don't you feminist believe in equality, or is that merely talk?
thought you might have something interesting to say, obviously not
In my opinion we should really be asking ourselves why the government is in the marriage business at all. Granting privileges to certain lifestyles is definitely un-constitutional. Not only should you be able to marry whoever you want regardless of gender, you should also be allowed to be a polygamist. The fact that we need to be "licensed" for marriage at all is troubling indeed.
It's not like the government is regulating religious marriage. They're handing out legal privileges. No one is born a polygamist, and furthermore the privileges granted through marriage are currently being given two one partner, not multiple partners.
Regardless, it's clear that the motivation for pro-life policy is religious, just as is the motivation for those against gay marriage. If it applies for abortion, so does it for same-sex marriage. Context.
This horrendous Stupak deal is just wrong. It flies in the face of rode v wade, and i cant believe it would stand up to legal scrutiny. Plus its wrong.
I'm calling bullshit on these two, intellectually dishonest women. the church is in no violation. just take it with a grain of salt like the rest of us.
ok so let me get this straigh, Catholic bishops voicing their concerns and opposition to abortion is a violation of church and state, so then when they objected to slavery and segregation were those also violations of church and state ? the church shouldn't be able to make you do anything, but it should be able to voice its concerns as those are the concerns of millions.
I think it is an obscenity to attempt to hold the ability of millions to access health care hostage to anything related to abortion. While I fully support a woman's right to privacy and choice, I also think that abortion is a terrible alternative, which should be elected ONLY as a last resort in the most extreme of circumstances. I think its practice should be difficult to procure and not readily available, in order to discourage people from being irresponsible and carefree regarding its use.
So let me get this straight. Under a democratic administration 95% of the country has gotten tax cuts, gun rights have been expanded, and now abortion rights are being limited. This should be the new strategy for Republicans path back to power, run as liberals and then govern like Reagan.
Pushed by Catholic bishops, huh? who woulda guessed?
You know, with the amount of shit the Catholic Church is in, you figure they'd learn to shut the fuck up and stop sticking their noses (and other organs) in where they don't belong. Hell, they're also threatening to stop helping homeless people if a gay marriage proposal passes in D.C.
I know that religious "charity" has always been highly conditional, but come on...are they SURPRISED that people are leaving their church in droves?
How many babies that are murdered could have found the cure for cancer. Found a way to create peace in the world? Most of the men pay child support. Babies should only be made in marriage. Thats commitment all the way around. Around 60% of marriages fail.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The last comment by that redheaded bitch was just unnecessary. It's not just "white men telling women how to vote" or whatever. It's about using public money WISELY!!!!!! Open your damn eyes!
Btw, that woman anchor was the same person who said "just get your damn vaccine!" for swine flu, as if swine flu is an epidemic, which is still is not, no matter how much sensationalizing they wanna do. I"m not wasting money to get a fuckin vaccine for something I'm never gonna get.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you can allow public funding of abortions, then you have to make it OK to also have Medicare funding of viagra for horny old men, antidepressants mandatorily covered for anyone who wants them (rather than perhaps telling them how to handle stress better), and so much other crap. This public funding of abortions crap just opens pandora's box. I really don't think women are dying on the streets b/c they're a few dollars short for an abortion. This ain't 1972.
How the hell does restricting public funding "restrict a woman's right to choose"?? It in no way does that!! You can still have all the abortions you want; you just can't ask taxpayers to foot the bill. We really are a nation of whiners and moochers and pansies, aren't we? I guess Phil Gramm was right.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
These liberal "women's groups" sicken me nowadays. They're so far off the mark when it comes to real equality and discrimination. They bitch about shit they know nothing about, like the reasons for the pay gap, and claim it's just "sexist" men keeping them down, or men telling them how to use their bodies. I'm tired of this shit!!!!!! Tammy Bruce, a former NOW head (or powerful member) knows this and got out while she still could.
I'm sure there are plenty of young women who are too lazy to cough up the funds to go to PP, so they want to grab from the public trough. It sickens me. Public funds should go to PUBLIC projects (which are constitutional, of course). And none of that earmark bullshit, either. Let states and localities fund their own shit like that, not the feds. I don't want to pay for YOUR state's crap that doesn't benefit me in the least.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
As a libertarian, I am appalled when gov't gets its meddling hands on social issues. They're SOCIETY's problem, not gov't's. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. Leave it to society to deal with and keep them legal. They're individual rights issues. But don't you dare force taxpayers to fund it and take sides. No funding of any abortion shit, whatsoever, prolife or prochoice. None of Obama's "reduce the number of abortions" crap through federal money. Private interests can work towards it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And here we go again. Prolife extremists countered by prochoice extremists. You don't have a right to have your abortion funded by taxpayers!! No ifs ands or buts! Find a diff. way to pay! I'm not paying for it. I'm prochoice, but I'm not gonna make the other taxpayers who may be against abortion paying for it. The nation is too divided on abortion to have it covered by some public plan. Sorry, ladies, but it's not happenin. You're just being desperate b/c no private insurer will do this.
How the hell does not funding abortions with tax dollars "undermine" Roe?? You gotta be jokin... That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! That woman sounds just as facetious as the Republicans on healthcare.
Women weren't getting taxpayer-funded abortions through any other plan before this, so why all of a sudden is it "soo" necessary? Answer? It's not. Women who want abortions just don't wanna cough up the money. It's about laziness.
Yeah, conservatives don't want to allow abortions to happen, except for their own groups like focus on the family have that provision in their own life insurance.
And they are perfectly fine with funding MEN"S ERECTIONS.
Because the video left this point out, all of the comments seem to fully miss what this amendment accomplished:
It says that insurance policies that are listed on a federal exchange EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PAY A PENNY IN SUBSIDIES (meaning that even if the patient pays every penny of it out of their own pockets) these plans can not offer abortion coverage.
Wow, can i please jump on your progressive band wagon?
I want to learn how to use insults to prove my view is correct.
People who are truly "progressive" should be interested in attacking ideologies and engaging in dialogue which would change peoples minds about the social issues that affect our community.
I would suggest your strategy of name calling and complaining is not effective.
Communication isn't the issue here. The fact is congress is mostly run by corporatist congressmen and senators. The majority of which comes from the Republican party while the rest is comprised of Blue Dogs. My calling them corporatist cuntwads only represents one person's frustration with the system.
you would think but I think they over played there hand here. the court may in the end not let this stand for people who have coverage they pay for by them self even if they got it thought the government exchange, yes. but I think the court will not get in the way of blocking the fed when it come to people who get coverage with any fed money. even if they pay for it them selfs out of there own pocket. This will not make it into the final bill by the way.
People should re-watch Vera Drake to remember what it's like when abortion is illegal but still made safe and accessible for the rich. The fact is poor and middle class women are persecuted, suffer and die.
Not really since Republicans and theocrats are only willing to fund abstinence only education. Yes birth control has made it easier for women and girls in some regards but the fact remains no clinical method is 100% reliable nor do all females have access to it. Some messages are timeless and the point and message of that film do remind of us what it was like for poor and working class woman. Making abortion illegal would re-create those same circumstances.
We do need to ration the medical procedures and precription drugs paid for under government insurance, however. Not only abortion but also certain types of cancer medicines will not be available on demand if the plans are to remain solvent.
as women, i believe we could come up with equally egregious reproductive rules for men, don't you think? neutering after 2 kids, or age 40, whichever comes first, forced marriage (because it's all about the kids, right?) chemical and physical barrier contraception for men. spermicide implants. how about putting the pregnancy responsibility and burden on men since they want to control our reproductive rights so badly. sound good?
this is simply saying federal funds wont pay for elective abortions.. your points are moot
elective abortions are controversial as many citizens strongly oppose them. I have yet to see large political protests regarding vasectomies.
In case you hadnt noticed if you chose to have the child, the government does make the fathers responsible for the pregnancy through the courts..child support, etc.
federal funds don't pay for abortions ALREADY. the status quo would keep that law intact. the stupak amendment prohibits a woman on a public plan from paying for an abortion EVEN WITH HER OWN FUNDS. basically what he wants to do is circumvent row v wade with this grandstanding tactic. my comment was a bit facetious, but really, beyond the political issue, if men were truly serious about unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion, then men should be clamoring for male birth control.
Thats just not accurate. If a women wants to have an abortion she can seemly pay it out of her own pocket.
How can what insurance you have change that?
Growing up I have personally known several women who chose to end their pregnancy. They all went to the clinic twice and paid cash for their procedures. The cost varied from approximately 350-625 dollars.
Your obviously personal vehement for males is prevented you from being objective about this legislation.
women who want an abortion can simply pay cash and have one just like they do today.
There is no way having or not having insurance can change that.
Every women I know who had an abortion paid cash as the vast majority do.
Taxing citizens to subsidize something so many don't agree with is morally incorrect. We should be going in the other direction and realize that we should be de-funding our corrupt government not granting them more authority.
i can understand your point about religions benefiting from a tax exempt status but in the end taxes are worse than religion.
this is because if the church acts immorally i can refuse to fund them.
When my government acts immorally i am compelled to pay for them to go over and torture and kill people in my name, and this compulsion is through force. the IRS specifically.
Yeah that sounds good to me but im just one citizen in this democracy. I would say the educating the public is the key part to that equation.
We have over 700 military bases in over 130 countries and these are only the "official" numbers. These bases represent nothing short of a global occupation. We have an empire and our government is engaged in aggressive militarism.
Those who truly want personal liberties should understand we can have a free society or an empire, but we cannot have both
Thankfully, doctors perform most abortions in America and they pay plenty of taxes. But let's look outside the money box for a moment, the bigger point is that now medical professionals provide this service. Devolving to the methods of the past would be barbaric.
There are any number of mostly male voluntary activities that result in injury, does it follow that they should also be deemed not suitable for insurance? (football, hockey, complications from misuse of viagra or steroids, etc)
Yes it does follow. I do not want my taxes paying for your boner pills. Thats the moral hazard. When you take money from people and use it to "help" others, you are forcing one group to subsidize the lifestyle of the other.
This is a necessary evil that should used carefully. Our politicians are bought and paid for by financial institutions, insurance companies, big pharma, etc.
So if we really want health care reform we should start by removing these people from public office.
health care reform seems necessary, govts are often flawed, people need to speak out and vote with the best information available, thankfully we live where speaking out and voting are rights.
Time to strip away tax exemption from all religious cults. Why should the Catholic or Mormon churches, who are politically at war with modernity and progress, not help pay down our nation's debt?
If the fetus is alive, nobody should have the right to kill it. The fetus experiences pain, which is measurable. Better not allow tax payer funds to kill life. And if most of the leaders are white male, why are we offended that the Stupak amendment is from white males? They could be green gorillas - how is that even relevant to the issue; the only question is if it's alive, or it's not, or not sure? 3 choices, better not take any chances
The Church-- all the moralistic religions-- need to come to grips with reality. Human beings are not prone to celibacy, no matter HOW attached religion is to that notion.
They have missed the point altogether, and in lieu of having a good argument for creating beauty in our lives-- they promote laws to achieve an end that must be forced upon us.
You CAN'T be against abortion w/o dealing with issues of environmental toxins, over-population, and privacy.
What is this bullshit? Its not the governments role to be an insurance company in the first place, and if they decide to be one, then taxpayer dollars sure as hell shouldn't go to funding abortions, especially given how grey the area is. Nobody really knows when exactly human life begins but we should heir on the side of caution
nobody knows where human life begins... i think an embryo is human life... and it also depends what you mean with human life... when an abortion is done, the clumps of cells isn't bigger than a few milimeters.
Hell if you take it very radical.. then taking a morning after pill is killing human life... and the female is certainly a killer when she has a miscarriage.
Look maybe you like killing people. You would be a great Hitler figure. Be responsible for your actions. I am holding you accountable for your body and I will not pay for your stupid decisions. They grow into people. You are judge and jury over life. You must be so proud to kill.
The basic bill had already achieved a compromise w/ pro-life & choice advocates, clarifying that the Hyde law (which says no Fed funds can be used for abortion) applied to the bill.
Stupak & his group insisted that it needed more clarification. They wouldn't vote for the base bill unless it was made more clear. However, the Stupak piece went further, saying that ins. co's could not offer abortion coverage if they also took Fed funds. Wiping out abortion coverage altogether
It is 3 minutes. They were pointing out that there is an ongoing effort to overturn R. v. W., they mentioned opportunism of parties involved, they acknowledged the susceptibility of new legislation. They commented on the ignorance and, reaction of interested parties... It's 3 minutes, what do you want? Journalism is what happens behind the camera, this is just the presentation of it...
I understand that. I try to think about news as a springboard. If you're interested & resourceful enough, you can do your own investigation into the finer details. Few people want, require, have patience, or time for more than a cursory overview... Sometimes that's all you need. If you NEED the information, you'll likely already have it... if you are a news-hound, I sympathize with your holistic desires... -best
Getting pregnant is the fault of the person who is in charge of their bodies. This is not healthcare. It is irresponsibility. And I will be damned if I will pay for their irresponsibility. Women grow up and quit leeching off the people.
Unless they're raped. Or perhaps they're young and didn't know any better because of Abstinence-Only education. Or maybe they have Down's Syndrome and get pregnant by another mentally challenged person. Then there are cases when abortion is necessary for health reasons. Also, you forget that Abortions decrease costs, because less unwanted pregnancies = less people who commit crimes that you have to incarcerate later.
rape makes up less than 1% of total abortions. Whatever happened to responsibility? Women want to be treated equally even though they also want to be irresponsible.
Hello, rape was ONE circumstance I mentioned. Besides, it's irelevant if it's 1%, you would have women pay because they were raped, and bring possibly HIV + to term because you're selfish. I repeat: You gave an incomplet answer RodgersRev. Abortions benefit society in the long run.
In the case of rape or a person has a mental defect then I find it acceptable to have a tax payer funded abortion. Yet you failed to tell me why women do not have to be responsible for themselves? A person has bear the responsibility for their actions.. Sorry its just that I don't cop out on mine. I think it is better for society if everyone stops being a victim to irresponsibility.
Here you have to look at the downside that could actually affect the economy in the long run because a society is one big boat.
Let's say that no woman could have an abortion or even take the morning after pill. So every woman that gets pregnant has to have their child. Think about the effects. More women would have to bring their children to work because our society has no maternal care. Employers won't want to hire a woman who has to bring their child. You are not thinking in the long run
...Or perhaps you'd be better served to not spend the public dollar and never create a safety net (aka subsidize) and therefore: let people learn from mistakes, other people learn from witnessing those mistakes, and *gasp* people actually learn to plan their future, take responsibility for themselves, their actions, and *gasp* consequences. :D
Now vote me down because you all fail at life and you're all bitter.
Wait a second njcarlos1, you think people should take responsibility for themselves and be accountable for their own actions? What is this crazy talk?
That's why we have a huge and ever growing government to take care of us from cradle to grave, you silly goof!
How about women become responsible? Women created this mess. If you cannot afford the child don't accept the sperm. I wish I could make up excuses for my fuck-ups. Yet I am a man and not a victim. Society is better off without irresponsible women.
@RodgersRevolution you're a horrific misogynist piece of shit and i cannot fucking wait for your views to be considered archaic and viewed in the same vein as people who believed blacks were only 3/5 of a person
you know... what about a guy putting on a rubber if he doesn't want to be called daddy... takes 2 to tango...it isn't only the womens fault for getting pregnant a guy is also involved. and a condom can break...
Once again. Pass the buck. I am not going to fund your irresponsible ass. Cross your legs. Get a job and save up for abortions. Try the pill. The guy pays no matter what. It is time for you to be held accountable. You cannot make the bread unless you add the ingredients. When are the women responsible? Go ahead and tell me.
Cop out. Women can kill the baby. So much for 2 to tango. Cut the bullshit. You want women to be victims. I say they are the scourge of society with these murderous behaviours. It is their fault for letting the man fuck them. They are not victims you narrow minded piece of crap.
If it takes 2 to tango then why does the man have nothing to say about the abortion? Its the womans body all the way around. You cannot pick and choose when you have rights.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually the world's greatest atrocities have been committed by secular states and even more specifically by atheist and/or communist states. Even now the North Korea is the world's most atheist country and they are responsible for the greatest atrocities in current times. This fact comports with Nietche philosophy actually.
GET A FUCKING LIFE. Catholic priests have molested children, and dumbasses like the POPE, have given them safe harbor.
Do you remember the crusades? How the Spanish Inquisition? What about Judas and the thirty pieces of silver?
The bottom line is that RELIGIONS (et al.) harm us as a species. I don't care if you believe in Mo-HAM-HEAD, Jesus, or Zeus, all of you motherfuckers are equally worthless, if you KILL in the name of...
The ATHEIST, communist Khmer Rouge killed more people than Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades combined few times over. When you bring in atheist Mao China, atheist Soviet Union atrocities and deaths in the last century or so are astronomically greater than all atrocities you can chalk up to any religion in all of human history. The molestations and the sexual slavery perpetuated by atheist communist party members in Northeast China makes Catholic priest scandal look like a picnic in the park
Nietchze didn't have anything to do with the catholic church's involvement with Nazi Germany. It also doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the greatest atrocities in human history have been committed by secular and/or atheist states in the 20th century.
Ah, interesting. Would the quantity of the casualties also indicate the effectiveness of modern technology? At what point did any of those regimes declare that they killed in the name of secularism?
Technology was had by both theist and atheists during the turmoil of the 20th century. And yet the gravest and the vastest atrocities were committed by atheist and communist secular states. That's simple, empirical, indisputable fact. The claim is also not that these states committed atrocities in "name of secularism" whatever that means. The claim is that these states believed in a system of government and world order that included atheism.
I'm sorry that realities of human atrocities, war, violence, etc., shatters your naive irrational scapegoating of theism. These bad things have happened and are happening regarding of whether people believe in God or not. Human beings and human history have produced these atrocities irrespective of theism or atheism.
Anyways, I will agree that "Human beings and human history have produced these atrocities irrespective of theism or atheism." And I also believe that both sides should do their best to assist their brothers and sisters.
You did claim that NK wasn't atheist. That's not a strawman arguement at all. If you don't think theism is the problem then that's fine with me. I assumed you did since you seemed to be defending those who did. If you not, I'm glad you're on side on this.
"Sending them to the back alleys to die"???!!!
Doubleyoo-tee-eff is she thinking?
glovisy 1 year ago
Where in the constitution is congress given the authority to rule on such things? This should be refered to the states or the people. Damn both sides who keep the subject alive merely for their financial gain.
supressorgrid 2 years ago
cocobear33, I agree. Whatever your opinion of abortion (I think it should be decided at the state level and lower...like the death penalty, which is the constitutional position), it is wrong to force anyone to pay for another persons abortion.
jscottupton 2 years ago
there is no law that says tax payers have a right to pay for your abortions , you want to have one pay for it yourself
cocobear33 2 years ago
@cocobear33 You've got that right!
lovetowatchable 2 years ago
2:58 "white men telling women about reproduction"
is race really pertinent to this issue?
atuvelman 2 years ago
Anything to take away from the fact they are murdering babies.
phillejackson 2 years ago
The hypocrisy of the conservative/religious movement in politics is enormous. There is no logic in claiming two contradictory things:
1. Government must not get between patients and their doctors.
2. Patients and their doctors may not use insurance from this plan to cover a legal procedure that we personally do not approve of. We are the government and we say so.
If you want the government to butt out, then butt out!
GretchenDawntreader 2 years ago
No one has the right to dictate one's body should be used as a violation of her freedom and liberty.
The TALIBAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS have their own sexual identity issues that they obviously haven't worked out. They should stay out of Women's issues!
As for the Democratic Party, under Obama it's Neo-Neanderthal Party. What a fiasco. Now I understand why Barack said:
"Periodically, when she feels "down", Hillary launches attacks to boost her appeal"!!! got it, Your Hopeness!
Veltanschaung 2 years ago
Aaah a penis appeared in my vagina! I need the government to solve this problem!!!
DiscountPeople 2 years ago
Abortion is legal, but the government should NOT have to pay for it.
Silveracity 2 years ago 2
I agree.
cloud52ab 2 years ago
Whats the deal with the last comment on , they are white men telling women what to do with their bodies. whats the deal. These are the same women spewing this same maessage to our children in schools and on tv, and other media . keeping the baby you and your partner made and I do mean male partner. What ever happend to that option. I guess its just true that we are a true "Throw away" nation.Dr.nancy and the mess next to her shows were we went wrong.
maximouni 2 years ago
Every woman should be entitled to 1 abortion paid for by the Gov. at the same time they should be given a hysterectomy. think of all the money we would save in Welfare. think of all the children who wont grow up in a bad environment. honestly, what kind of mother would consider killing her baby anyway. should she even be allowed to be a mother?
davidpark68 2 years ago
david,
every man shoud ONLY be entitled to any form of medical insurance upon his suppling a dna sample and pre-paid (into a trust) child support for 2.4 children through college age. (unless he can supply indisputable medical proof of double orchiectomy or irreverible azoospermia)
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
david,
Pls ignore my reply!
Just checked your channel and you subscribe to Lee of How The World Works and I will not engage in a battle of wits with anyone so unarmed.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
LOL your feisty, I like feisty. I'd rather the Government not get involved with my medical Insurance. but let's assume they did, why should I have to supply a DNA sample? wouldn't the woman who I supposedly got pregnant be able to ID the daddy of her soon to be dead fetus? Just curious why you would want a woman to give birth to a baby she obviously don't want? or why you would want to repeatedly pay for a woman who can't remember who knocked her up?
davidpark68 2 years ago
david,
you qualify for my insurance plan, you continually shoot blanks!
oh shoot, i promised myself i wouldn't engage.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
your right, I do. after my second son I chose to get snipped. I also paid for the operation.
now back to the discussion.
if a woman don't want children don't you think it's her responsibility to do the same?
davidpark68 2 years ago
david,
why you, not the infamous, generic HER you speak of so highly?
you CHOSE? interesting choice of word!
was it because you could merely be snipped, as you so blithely phrase it,
while it would be a much more serious, costly procedure for her?
congrats on your babies, happy for you, usually enhances our abilities to empathize with others, now close your eyes and imagine you had a daughter,,,
Walking a mile is worth so much more than talking a mile!
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
Maybe you misunderstood me, I am for a woman's choice to have children or not (Pro Choice) & I Believe it should be covered under this health care plan, but only once. to be sure it's only once, the woman should have her tubes tied at the time of the abortion. it's much cheaper in the long run then paying welfare & I Believe any woman that could kill her child is not fit to have children. better to kill it in the womb then to let it suffer 18 years to an unfit mother............
davidpark68 2 years ago
.............
we did rock, paper, scissors.....I lost
if my daughter, or the girlfriend of my son, got pregnant & was unable, or felt she would be unfit, to take care of the child I would pressure her to have the baby & let me & my wife adopt the baby. of coarse I don't have final say in the matter.
davidpark68 2 years ago
dave,
Please refrain from flippancy.
This is not a game!
You assume unfit , i assume financially unable.
You assume she WANTS to give anyone her baby rather than have adequate resources to raise him/her well.
I'm done!
Perhaps we can both reflect on our positions and be bigge persons tomorrow.
Bye.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
Bye
davidpark68 2 years ago
Dave,
That was nice, thanks.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
dave,
but you are not willing to require dna samples and support for the children.
It's not only HER child!
Labels like pro choice or pro life mean nothing when the bills need paying, after all that's How The World Works.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
what are you talking about? if the woman chooses to have the child of coarse she's entitled to child support providing she can point out the daddy. but she shouldn't be eligible for squat if she can't. if she points out the daddy he should have to give up the DNA. if she's wrong, she should have to pay for the test.
davidpark68 2 years ago
some how this conversation went from abortion to support. now here's the moral hazard
too many Fathers are being replaced by welfare checks. a mothers teaches Love & Compassion. a fathers teaches Responsibility & Discipline. it's obvious what's lacking in society today.
davidpark68 2 years ago
i think men should all get some sort of lience to pro-create. just saying, itd solve ALOT of problems.
tra12345iscool 2 years ago
Your Right, but not just men. applying for a birth permit should be like applying for a loan, complete with credit check, down payment & a signed contract. but how could you prevent it without mandating birth control? of coarse this is only meant to make you think, I don't actually believe this.
davidpark68 2 years ago
I say women should cross their legs. That would cure the problem.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
And, what happens when her legs are pried open and she's impregnated?
How bout you? What if your sister, mother, or girlfriend were raped? What if it's molestation? You know lots of girls get molested by family members, right?
Many people do not want to allow women to have access to birth control. It's a way to subjugate women.
RodgersRevolution - What kind of society are we when we let little girls get pregnant and refuse to educate them so the won't have to bear the pain of an abortion?
2tsaybow 2 years ago 2
Are you kidding? I am ok with abortions for rape and incest victims. No one else. Rape and incest make up less than 1% of total abortions. Quit using this as the excuse to murder the innocent because their mothers are careless.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
^0% of abortions are for women who already have one child. These families do not think they can afford to have an another child. I believe in choice, but under such circumstances I would have the child. And I have.
But that leaves the other 40%. The Feds (for the past 8) years and many religious organizations refuse to allow information be given to young women on how to prevent a pregnancy. You say girls should keep their legs closed but they don't.
2tsaybow 2 years ago
My sister was pregnant at age 15 in 1966. She said she knew how babies were made. Ignorance should not be used as an excuse either. It is plain and simple. Some women like men choose to gamble with their lives. Yet they have to be held responsible for their actions or they will never change. Blaming the government for womens ignorance is also playing the victim. Why can't people understand the victim mentality. It should not be used.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
@RodgersRevolution People don't like to be held responsible for their actions, plain and simple!
lovetowatchable 2 years ago
If you tampon chewers would keep your legs closed then you wouldn't have to worry about going into the back alleys to die. But then, there goes your leverage huh.
Besides, why are you on a TV show, with all the protection and preference laws providing you an advantage in society, you should be on a battlefield defending your privileges.
BTW, why are women protected from serving in ground combat units.....don't you feminist believe in equality, or is that merely talk?
jsruss1961 2 years ago
Comment removed
jsruss1961 2 years ago
Abortion shouldnt be paid for by this government.
Abortion is wrong. The majority of America thinks its wrong, outside the bounds of rape and incest cases.
If you want to slut it up, use other options besides abortion; like restraint and protection.
EmpathyWorks 2 years ago
Oh good another abortion discussion. Oh joy. I bet it won't be settled this time ether.
Happy days.
Let's not do this again soon.
shampoovta 2 years ago
Someone should give Stupak a hysterectomy.
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 2 years ago
Interesting, I never hear anyone in the media talk about the separation of church and state in the context of gay marriage...
FortunateSon87 2 years ago
how would you place it in that context?
revenge53142 2 years ago
I would use my brain
FortunateSon87 2 years ago
my apologies for asking you to do so...
thought you might have something interesting to say, obviously not
In my opinion we should really be asking ourselves why the government is in the marriage business at all. Granting privileges to certain lifestyles is definitely un-constitutional. Not only should you be able to marry whoever you want regardless of gender, you should also be allowed to be a polygamist. The fact that we need to be "licensed" for marriage at all is troubling indeed.
revenge53142 2 years ago
I just don't see the difficulty at all.
It's not like the government is regulating religious marriage. They're handing out legal privileges. No one is born a polygamist, and furthermore the privileges granted through marriage are currently being given two one partner, not multiple partners.
Regardless, it's clear that the motivation for pro-life policy is religious, just as is the motivation for those against gay marriage. If it applies for abortion, so does it for same-sex marriage. Context.
FortunateSon87 2 years ago
This horrendous Stupak deal is just wrong. It flies in the face of rode v wade, and i cant believe it would stand up to legal scrutiny. Plus its wrong.
ChemC
ChemicalChrisOttawa 2 years ago 2
NOW wasn't doing its job. They should have let it be known that the vote was going to be "scored".
flowergirl1313 2 years ago
I'm calling bullshit on these two, intellectually dishonest women. the church is in no violation. just take it with a grain of salt like the rest of us.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
ok so let me get this straigh, Catholic bishops voicing their concerns and opposition to abortion is a violation of church and state, so then when they objected to slavery and segregation were those also violations of church and state ? the church shouldn't be able to make you do anything, but it should be able to voice its concerns as those are the concerns of millions.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
Murders
blrenx 2 years ago
I think it is an obscenity to attempt to hold the ability of millions to access health care hostage to anything related to abortion. While I fully support a woman's right to privacy and choice, I also think that abortion is a terrible alternative, which should be elected ONLY as a last resort in the most extreme of circumstances. I think its practice should be difficult to procure and not readily available, in order to discourage people from being irresponsible and carefree regarding its use.
armyveteran101st 2 years ago
'it is an obscenity to attempt to hold the ability of millions to access health care hostage to anything related to abortion.'
Exactly.
MarquisdeBarrabas 2 years ago
So an elected representative is overruling the legal opinion of some judge? Oh no, our entire system is in jeopardy.
TacticusPrime 2 years ago
stupid bitches
IronChefWannabe 2 years ago
Have you noticed all woman against abortion, are women you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place.....
ExoneratedUndead 2 years ago
So let me get this straight. Under a democratic administration 95% of the country has gotten tax cuts, gun rights have been expanded, and now abortion rights are being limited. This should be the new strategy for Republicans path back to power, run as liberals and then govern like Reagan.
terrence0258 2 years ago 6
abortions is the best thing ever
i've been responsible for 3
WKaliberr 2 years ago
Your mom does not count.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
Pushed by Catholic bishops, huh? who woulda guessed?
You know, with the amount of shit the Catholic Church is in, you figure they'd learn to shut the fuck up and stop sticking their noses (and other organs) in where they don't belong. Hell, they're also threatening to stop helping homeless people if a gay marriage proposal passes in D.C.
I know that religious "charity" has always been highly conditional, but come on...are they SURPRISED that people are leaving their church in droves?
Azadeth666 2 years ago 3
After the baby is born how many of the men acually pay child support? How many baies are born out of wedlock? How many mariges fail?
ETericET 2 years ago
How many babies that are murdered could have found the cure for cancer. Found a way to create peace in the world? Most of the men pay child support. Babies should only be made in marriage. Thats commitment all the way around. Around 60% of marriages fail.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The last comment by that redheaded bitch was just unnecessary. It's not just "white men telling women how to vote" or whatever. It's about using public money WISELY!!!!!! Open your damn eyes!
Btw, that woman anchor was the same person who said "just get your damn vaccine!" for swine flu, as if swine flu is an epidemic, which is still is not, no matter how much sensationalizing they wanna do. I"m not wasting money to get a fuckin vaccine for something I'm never gonna get.
whoo689 2 years ago
I hope you are right, but if do get it and end up in hospital I hope you or your insurance can pay for the treatment.
As for the abortion issue, well, I can not convince you to change your mind, I just hope you are not a white male trying to tell women what to do.
diginando 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you can allow public funding of abortions, then you have to make it OK to also have Medicare funding of viagra for horny old men, antidepressants mandatorily covered for anyone who wants them (rather than perhaps telling them how to handle stress better), and so much other crap. This public funding of abortions crap just opens pandora's box. I really don't think women are dying on the streets b/c they're a few dollars short for an abortion. This ain't 1972.
whoo689 2 years ago
How the hell does restricting public funding "restrict a woman's right to choose"?? It in no way does that!! You can still have all the abortions you want; you just can't ask taxpayers to foot the bill. We really are a nation of whiners and moochers and pansies, aren't we? I guess Phil Gramm was right.
whoo689 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These liberal "women's groups" sicken me nowadays. They're so far off the mark when it comes to real equality and discrimination. They bitch about shit they know nothing about, like the reasons for the pay gap, and claim it's just "sexist" men keeping them down, or men telling them how to use their bodies. I'm tired of this shit!!!!!! Tammy Bruce, a former NOW head (or powerful member) knows this and got out while she still could.
whoo689 2 years ago
I'm sure there are plenty of young women who are too lazy to cough up the funds to go to PP, so they want to grab from the public trough. It sickens me. Public funds should go to PUBLIC projects (which are constitutional, of course). And none of that earmark bullshit, either. Let states and localities fund their own shit like that, not the feds. I don't want to pay for YOUR state's crap that doesn't benefit me in the least.
whoo689 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As a libertarian, I am appalled when gov't gets its meddling hands on social issues. They're SOCIETY's problem, not gov't's. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. Leave it to society to deal with and keep them legal. They're individual rights issues. But don't you dare force taxpayers to fund it and take sides. No funding of any abortion shit, whatsoever, prolife or prochoice. None of Obama's "reduce the number of abortions" crap through federal money. Private interests can work towards it.
whoo689 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And here we go again. Prolife extremists countered by prochoice extremists. You don't have a right to have your abortion funded by taxpayers!! No ifs ands or buts! Find a diff. way to pay! I'm not paying for it. I'm prochoice, but I'm not gonna make the other taxpayers who may be against abortion paying for it. The nation is too divided on abortion to have it covered by some public plan. Sorry, ladies, but it's not happenin. You're just being desperate b/c no private insurer will do this.
whoo689 2 years ago
How the hell does not funding abortions with tax dollars "undermine" Roe?? You gotta be jokin... That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! That woman sounds just as facetious as the Republicans on healthcare.
Women weren't getting taxpayer-funded abortions through any other plan before this, so why all of a sudden is it "soo" necessary? Answer? It's not. Women who want abortions just don't wanna cough up the money. It's about laziness.
whoo689 2 years ago
abortion and free/pro choice reg this issue are here to stay.
This reality trumps the religious rite wing agenda.
period.
1019drummer 2 years ago 3
Yeah, conservatives don't want to allow abortions to happen, except for their own groups like focus on the family have that provision in their own life insurance.
And they are perfectly fine with funding MEN"S ERECTIONS.
Party of Dicks.
deviant24x 2 years ago 3
Because the video left this point out, all of the comments seem to fully miss what this amendment accomplished:
It says that insurance policies that are listed on a federal exchange EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PAY A PENNY IN SUBSIDIES (meaning that even if the patient pays every penny of it out of their own pockets) these plans can not offer abortion coverage.
How is that not a big deal?
slimydick23 2 years ago 3
Conservacunts have their tentacles stretched everywhere. Thats why we can't get reform. Thats why we can't get a progressive agenda.
Ed76638 2 years ago
Wow, can i please jump on your progressive band wagon?
I want to learn how to use insults to prove my view is correct.
People who are truly "progressive" should be interested in attacking ideologies and engaging in dialogue which would change peoples minds about the social issues that affect our community.
I would suggest your strategy of name calling and complaining is not effective.
revenge53142 2 years ago
It wasn't as much an insult as it was an observation. We can't get a real progressive agenda because corporatist cuntwads still control congress.
Ed76638 2 years ago
not insulting to conservatives? ok
you progressicunt, liberacunt,demicunt
maybe the country cant get a progressive agenda because the people who hold those beliefs have such a terrible way of communicating those ideas
revenge53142 2 years ago
Communication isn't the issue here. The fact is congress is mostly run by corporatist congressmen and senators. The majority of which comes from the Republican party while the rest is comprised of Blue Dogs. My calling them corporatist cuntwads only represents one person's frustration with the system.
Ed76638 2 years ago
Comment removed
revenge53142 2 years ago
this isn't a big deal
marniespeaks 2 years ago
this is a big deal. it goes way past anything that has ever been put up before.
thetruthaboutstuff 2 years ago
nah, they can't restrict abortion - the courts won't allow it - it's really a brilliant chess move when you think about it
marniespeaks 2 years ago
you would think but I think they over played there hand here. the court may in the end not let this stand for people who have coverage they pay for by them self even if they got it thought the government exchange, yes. but I think the court will not get in the way of blocking the fed when it come to people who get coverage with any fed money. even if they pay for it them selfs out of there own pocket. This will not make it into the final bill by the way.
thetruthaboutstuff 2 years ago
People should re-watch Vera Drake to remember what it's like when abortion is illegal but still made safe and accessible for the rich. The fact is poor and middle class women are persecuted, suffer and die.
hollygolightly66 2 years ago 2
That film is set in the 1950's, even before the pill became available, let alone IUDs, latex condoms, the morning after pill, etc.
Your reasoning is outdated by several decades.
MarquisdeBarrabas 2 years ago
Not really since Republicans and theocrats are only willing to fund abstinence only education. Yes birth control has made it easier for women and girls in some regards but the fact remains no clinical method is 100% reliable nor do all females have access to it. Some messages are timeless and the point and message of that film do remind of us what it was like for poor and working class woman. Making abortion illegal would re-create those same circumstances.
hollygolightly66 2 years ago
It costs $300-$500 for an abortion
If your willing to spread your legs, you should be willing to spend the money
In cases of rape or incest though i believe is a different story
SaveOurSovereignty3 2 years ago
We do need to ration the medical procedures and precription drugs paid for under government insurance, however. Not only abortion but also certain types of cancer medicines will not be available on demand if the plans are to remain solvent.
gamoonbat 2 years ago
as women, i believe we could come up with equally egregious reproductive rules for men, don't you think? neutering after 2 kids, or age 40, whichever comes first, forced marriage (because it's all about the kids, right?) chemical and physical barrier contraception for men. spermicide implants. how about putting the pregnancy responsibility and burden on men since they want to control our reproductive rights so badly. sound good?
junkforkaryn 2 years ago 3
this is simply saying federal funds wont pay for elective abortions.. your points are moot
elective abortions are controversial as many citizens strongly oppose them. I have yet to see large political protests regarding vasectomies.
In case you hadnt noticed if you chose to have the child, the government does make the fathers responsible for the pregnancy through the courts..child support, etc.
Your message seems very angry concerning men
revenge53142 2 years ago
federal funds don't pay for abortions ALREADY. the status quo would keep that law intact. the stupak amendment prohibits a woman on a public plan from paying for an abortion EVEN WITH HER OWN FUNDS. basically what he wants to do is circumvent row v wade with this grandstanding tactic. my comment was a bit facetious, but really, beyond the political issue, if men were truly serious about unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion, then men should be clamoring for male birth control.
junkforkaryn 2 years ago 2
Thats just not accurate. If a women wants to have an abortion she can seemly pay it out of her own pocket.
How can what insurance you have change that?
Growing up I have personally known several women who chose to end their pregnancy. They all went to the clinic twice and paid cash for their procedures. The cost varied from approximately 350-625 dollars.
Your obviously personal vehement for males is prevented you from being objective about this legislation.
revenge53142 2 years ago
i love men!! read the fucking amendment and try to comprehend what these Talibangelicals are trying to do here, it will surprise you.
junkforkaryn 2 years ago
once again you do not address the main point..
women who want an abortion can simply pay cash and have one just like they do today.
There is no way having or not having insurance can change that.
Every women I know who had an abortion paid cash as the vast majority do.
Taxing citizens to subsidize something so many don't agree with is morally incorrect. We should be going in the other direction and realize that we should be de-funding our corrupt government not granting them more authority.
revenge53142 2 years ago
take away tax exemption from all religions. now. When religion gets into politics, it's time to start paying the state. bottom line.
asphyxiafeeling 2 years ago 7
umm hey by the way..
planned parenthood is a non-profit, therefore is tax exempt...
not that im big on religion as im a atheist
I just thought i should point out the people doing the abortions dont pay taxes either
revenge53142 2 years ago 3
well that's a great point.. i wasn't aware of that!
makes things seem more leveled!
asphyxiafeeling 2 years ago
i can understand your point about religions benefiting from a tax exempt status but in the end taxes are worse than religion.
this is because if the church acts immorally i can refuse to fund them.
When my government acts immorally i am compelled to pay for them to go over and torture and kill people in my name, and this compulsion is through force. the IRS specifically.
religion=Bad
taxes=Bad
religion+taxes=good????
i think not
revenge53142 2 years ago
another good point. It's a lot more complicated then i originally thought.
maybe low taxes, limited government, combined with an informed and well-education electorate = the winning formula?
asphyxiafeeling 2 years ago
Yeah that sounds good to me but im just one citizen in this democracy. I would say the educating the public is the key part to that equation.
We have over 700 military bases in over 130 countries and these are only the "official" numbers. These bases represent nothing short of a global occupation. We have an empire and our government is engaged in aggressive militarism.
Those who truly want personal liberties should understand we can have a free society or an empire, but we cannot have both
revenge53142 2 years ago
What does most of that have to do with the video?
yotafro 2 years ago
If you boil down the main issue, in my opinion it is about personal liberties. A woman's right to choose an elective medical procedure.
I think if we truly want to protect our civil liberties, we need to take authority away from the Federal government not grant them more authority.
revenge53142 2 years ago
Thankfully, doctors perform most abortions in America and they pay plenty of taxes. But let's look outside the money box for a moment, the bigger point is that now medical professionals provide this service. Devolving to the methods of the past would be barbaric.
There are any number of mostly male voluntary activities that result in injury, does it follow that they should also be deemed not suitable for insurance? (football, hockey, complications from misuse of viagra or steroids, etc)
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
Yes it does follow. I do not want my taxes paying for your boner pills. Thats the moral hazard. When you take money from people and use it to "help" others, you are forcing one group to subsidize the lifestyle of the other.
This is a necessary evil that should used carefully. Our politicians are bought and paid for by financial institutions, insurance companies, big pharma, etc.
So if we really want health care reform we should start by removing these people from public office.
revenge53142 2 years ago
rev,
we agree.
health care reform seems necessary, govts are often flawed, people need to speak out and vote with the best information available, thankfully we live where speaking out and voting are rights.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago
she got the same fake ass smile from Pelosi's plastic surgeon.
HOPE in one hand, BUSH in the other
bigc028282 2 years ago
Gee, that's only about three and a half miles from making any sense at all, biggy
integral 2 years ago
Time to strip away tax exemption from all religious cults. Why should the Catholic or Mormon churches, who are politically at war with modernity and progress, not help pay down our nation's debt?
SubmarinerAndroid 2 years ago 5
Take the tax exemption away from groups like Planneed Parenthood
CarryANationIII 2 years ago
If the fetus is alive, nobody should have the right to kill it. The fetus experiences pain, which is measurable. Better not allow tax payer funds to kill life. And if most of the leaders are white male, why are we offended that the Stupak amendment is from white males? They could be green gorillas - how is that even relevant to the issue; the only question is if it's alive, or it's not, or not sure? 3 choices, better not take any chances
chrismas7 2 years ago
See my video response.
The Church-- all the moralistic religions-- need to come to grips with reality. Human beings are not prone to celibacy, no matter HOW attached religion is to that notion.
They have missed the point altogether, and in lieu of having a good argument for creating beauty in our lives-- they promote laws to achieve an end that must be forced upon us.
You CAN'T be against abortion w/o dealing with issues of environmental toxins, over-population, and privacy.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Stupid Stupak
BullnBearAnalytics 2 years ago
What is this bullshit? Its not the governments role to be an insurance company in the first place, and if they decide to be one, then taxpayer dollars sure as hell shouldn't go to funding abortions, especially given how grey the area is. Nobody really knows when exactly human life begins but we should heir on the side of caution
skiandride 2 years ago
nobody knows where human life begins... i think an embryo is human life... and it also depends what you mean with human life... when an abortion is done, the clumps of cells isn't bigger than a few milimeters.
Hell if you take it very radical.. then taking a morning after pill is killing human life... and the female is certainly a killer when she has a miscarriage.
robinvan1983 2 years ago
A clump of cells? Don't fool yourself and don't try to fool others.
MarquisdeBarrabas 2 years ago
no it is a full grown baby within the first month apperently?
robinvan1983 2 years ago
Look maybe you like killing people. You would be a great Hitler figure. Be responsible for your actions. I am holding you accountable for your body and I will not pay for your stupid decisions. They grow into people. You are judge and jury over life. You must be so proud to kill.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
They talked for 3 minutes and never even mentioned what the amendment contains. Some great journalism here, lol.
It's all appeals to emotion and other nonsense. Just forget the actual policy under discussion, IT SENDS WOMEN INTO DARK ALLEYS TO DIE!
dennist3hmenace 2 years ago 4
@dennist3hmenace
The basic bill had already achieved a compromise w/ pro-life & choice advocates, clarifying that the Hyde law (which says no Fed funds can be used for abortion) applied to the bill.
Stupak & his group insisted that it needed more clarification. They wouldn't vote for the base bill unless it was made more clear. However, the Stupak piece went further, saying that ins. co's could not offer abortion coverage if they also took Fed funds. Wiping out abortion coverage altogether
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me. Your comment contained more information than the clip!
dennist3hmenace 2 years ago 2
It is 3 minutes. They were pointing out that there is an ongoing effort to overturn R. v. W., they mentioned opportunism of parties involved, they acknowledged the susceptibility of new legislation. They commented on the ignorance and, reaction of interested parties... It's 3 minutes, what do you want? Journalism is what happens behind the camera, this is just the presentation of it...
go4011s 2 years ago
I guess I would have liked to see more facts about the story, that's all. Isn't the point of news programming to inform people?
Oh, I forget that MSNBC and FOX aren't actually "news." Never mind then. Disregard my comments.
dennist3hmenace 2 years ago
I understand that. I try to think about news as a springboard. If you're interested & resourceful enough, you can do your own investigation into the finer details. Few people want, require, have patience, or time for more than a cursory overview... Sometimes that's all you need. If you NEED the information, you'll likely already have it... if you are a news-hound, I sympathize with your holistic desires... -best
go4011s 2 years ago
Getting pregnant is the fault of the person who is in charge of their bodies. This is not healthcare. It is irresponsibility. And I will be damned if I will pay for their irresponsibility. Women grow up and quit leeching off the people.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
Unless they're raped. Or perhaps they're young and didn't know any better because of Abstinence-Only education. Or maybe they have Down's Syndrome and get pregnant by another mentally challenged person. Then there are cases when abortion is necessary for health reasons. Also, you forget that Abortions decrease costs, because less unwanted pregnancies = less people who commit crimes that you have to incarcerate later.
Zakdayak 2 years ago
rape makes up less than 1% of total abortions. Whatever happened to responsibility? Women want to be treated equally even though they also want to be irresponsible.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
Hello, rape was ONE circumstance I mentioned. Besides, it's irelevant if it's 1%, you would have women pay because they were raped, and bring possibly HIV + to term because you're selfish. I repeat: You gave an incomplet answer RodgersRev. Abortions benefit society in the long run.
Zakdayak 2 years ago 5
In the case of rape or a person has a mental defect then I find it acceptable to have a tax payer funded abortion. Yet you failed to tell me why women do not have to be responsible for themselves? A person has bear the responsibility for their actions.. Sorry its just that I don't cop out on mine. I think it is better for society if everyone stops being a victim to irresponsibility.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
Here you have to look at the downside that could actually affect the economy in the long run because a society is one big boat.
Let's say that no woman could have an abortion or even take the morning after pill. So every woman that gets pregnant has to have their child. Think about the effects. More women would have to bring their children to work because our society has no maternal care. Employers won't want to hire a woman who has to bring their child. You are not thinking in the long run
Luinreg 2 years ago
...Or perhaps you'd be better served to not spend the public dollar and never create a safety net (aka subsidize) and therefore: let people learn from mistakes, other people learn from witnessing those mistakes, and *gasp* people actually learn to plan their future, take responsibility for themselves, their actions, and *gasp* consequences. :D
Now vote me down because you all fail at life and you're all bitter.
njcarlos1 2 years ago
Wait a second njcarlos1, you think people should take responsibility for themselves and be accountable for their own actions? What is this crazy talk?
That's why we have a huge and ever growing government to take care of us from cradle to grave, you silly goof!
dennist3hmenace 2 years ago
Naw you have it right!
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
How about women become responsible? Women created this mess. If you cannot afford the child don't accept the sperm. I wish I could make up excuses for my fuck-ups. Yet I am a man and not a victim. Society is better off without irresponsible women.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
@RodgersRevolution you're a horrific misogynist piece of shit and i cannot fucking wait for your views to be considered archaic and viewed in the same vein as people who believed blacks were only 3/5 of a person
kelsbackonyoutub 2 years ago
Um what are you talking about? You can call me names yet there is no argument.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
Wow that is a stretch.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
@RodgersRevolution oh wait i just saw your profile and subscriptions. pro-troll, damn
kelsbackonyoutub 2 years ago
Non argument. Attack even though you make no sense.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
Maybe the absence of maternal care and those kind of employers are the problem, not the foetuses.
MarquisdeBarrabas 2 years ago
Non maternal love. That is a scary thought. Yet you may be on to something.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
you know... what about a guy putting on a rubber if he doesn't want to be called daddy... takes 2 to tango...it isn't only the womens fault for getting pregnant a guy is also involved. and a condom can break...
robinvan1983 2 years ago
Once again. Pass the buck. I am not going to fund your irresponsible ass. Cross your legs. Get a job and save up for abortions. Try the pill. The guy pays no matter what. It is time for you to be held accountable. You cannot make the bread unless you add the ingredients. When are the women responsible? Go ahead and tell me.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
i don't have a vagina. so if you make someone pregnant ... it is the women fault not the guy that actually came inside o her and not used a condom
robinvan1983 2 years ago
Who let the guy in? It is the responsibility of the woman to make sure it is safe. Women are not victims you freak. They are the problem.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
damn you sure are ike a muslim, they pin everything on women... theey where burka's and such cause men say otherwise they are flaunting for sex...
robinvan1983 2 years ago
You failed to respond properly. You choose to blame everyone except the woman. Its ok. This country is full of victims and short on mature adults.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
no it is the faut o the guy and a woman... takes 2 to tango... you need sperm and an egg
robinvan1983 2 years ago
Cop out. Women can kill the baby. So much for 2 to tango. Cut the bullshit. You want women to be victims. I say they are the scourge of society with these murderous behaviours. It is their fault for letting the man fuck them. They are not victims you narrow minded piece of crap.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
If it takes 2 to tango then why does the man have nothing to say about the abortion? Its the womans body all the way around. You cannot pick and choose when you have rights.
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
LMAO... over turns Roe vs Wade.
Drama queen.
joshpnw 2 years ago
thumbs down
kingtafari9 2 years ago
No... not the dreaded 'thumbs down'
joshpnw 2 years ago 2
The issue of bringing our health care at large out of the stone age before it's too late supersedes your silly feminist alarmism.
RichoRosai 2 years ago
Religion kills.
Richardgwm 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually the world's greatest atrocities have been committed by secular states and even more specifically by atheist and/or communist states. Even now the North Korea is the world's most atheist country and they are responsible for the greatest atrocities in current times. This fact comports with Nietche philosophy actually.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
Really? Have you ever met a North Korean?
toribaltimore 2 years ago
I did actually but anyone with any knowledge of who Nietche was, rudimentary European history and casually watches news on TV should know this.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
"Crossed races always mean at the same time crossed cultures, crossed moralities: they are always more evil, crueller, more restless." - Nietzsche
You're quoting from a losing box...
Your quantitative analysis is entertaining.
toribaltimore 2 years ago
I never quoted anything. LOL.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
Nietzsche was also an atheist and his philosophy had a great influence on Nazism. That's your box, not mine...
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
Dude - ENOUGH!!!
GET A FUCKING LIFE. Catholic priests have molested children, and dumbasses like the POPE, have given them safe harbor.
Do you remember the crusades? How the Spanish Inquisition? What about Judas and the thirty pieces of silver?
The bottom line is that RELIGIONS (et al.) harm us as a species. I don't care if you believe in Mo-HAM-HEAD, Jesus, or Zeus, all of you motherfuckers are equally worthless, if you KILL in the name of...
Be a better person, yourself.
toribaltimore 2 years ago
The ATHEIST, communist Khmer Rouge killed more people than Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades combined few times over. When you bring in atheist Mao China, atheist Soviet Union atrocities and deaths in the last century or so are astronomically greater than all atrocities you can chalk up to any religion in all of human history. The molestations and the sexual slavery perpetuated by atheist communist party members in Northeast China makes Catholic priest scandal look like a picnic in the park
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
@melonbarmonster
And how did Nietzsche factor into the Catholic Church's involvement?
PTurchan1 2 years ago
Nietchze didn't have anything to do with the catholic church's involvement with Nazi Germany. It also doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the greatest atrocities in human history have been committed by secular and/or atheist states in the 20th century.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
@melonbarmonster
Ah, interesting. Would the quantity of the casualties also indicate the effectiveness of modern technology? At what point did any of those regimes declare that they killed in the name of secularism?
PTurchan1 2 years ago
Technology was had by both theist and atheists during the turmoil of the 20th century. And yet the gravest and the vastest atrocities were committed by atheist and communist secular states. That's simple, empirical, indisputable fact. The claim is also not that these states committed atrocities in "name of secularism" whatever that means. The claim is that these states believed in a system of government and world order that included atheism.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
I'm sorry that realities of human atrocities, war, violence, etc., shatters your naive irrational scapegoating of theism. These bad things have happened and are happening regarding of whether people believe in God or not. Human beings and human history have produced these atrocities irrespective of theism or atheism.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
@melonbarmonster
You enjoy strawmanning don't you?
Anyways, I will agree that "Human beings and human history have produced these atrocities irrespective of theism or atheism." And I also believe that both sides should do their best to assist their brothers and sisters.
PTurchan1 2 years ago
Although NK again is a shining example of an official ATHEIST country where people are killed for not being atheists on a regular basis.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
What strawman argument did I give? Do you know what a strawman argument is? LOL.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
@melonbarmonster
Yes, you've done it several times now:
"naive irrational scapegoating of theism."
"you shouldn't claim superior knowledge about NK than the North Koreans themselves. That's just common sense "
PTurchan1 2 years ago
You did claim that NK wasn't atheist. That's not a strawman arguement at all. If you don't think theism is the problem then that's fine with me. I assumed you did since you seemed to be defending those who did. If you not, I'm glad you're on side on this.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago