Giuliani on public funding of abortion

Women's Coalition for Giuliani event, 11/3/89

• Category

  News & Politics

[slyjokerg]

Abortion groups, or any group, lobbying for something doesn't in the slightest way mean that it is ever going to come to be. Again, you are incredibly naive and paranoid. Allies on the SC? LOL. 6 cathies are on the SC. If anything, the concern should be that they might overturn Roe itself, ffs. LOL. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the SC would rule that public funding had to be in place, AND IT WOULD FIRST HAVE TO BE PASSED BY CONGRESS, WHICH IS NEVER EVER EVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

[slyjokerg]

CONT...

The only abortions covered by federal funds are when the women has a medically necessarily abortion. That is incredibly rare to the point of being a non-issue. Do YOU think a woman should die in the name of no public funding of abortions?

WTF are you talking about? Obama hasn't issued any executive order that pays for abortions with public money, nor could he. You are drinking someone's kool-aid. And the topic wasn't state funding, even though there is also very little of that.

[slyjokerg]

I didn't name call you, actually. I characterized something about you, but I didn't name call, just to be accurate.

YOU are incredibly naive, since you don't know that party platforms regularly contained fringe, extreme views that have no chance of coming to be law. It is part of the process of political posturing.

This is going to take a minute, so... CONT...

[u-said-what?]

If this is a moot point, whey are so many abortion rights groups lobbying to have federal funding of abortions? They certainly have allies on the Supreme Court, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That I don't act as if this is a dead issue is not a mark of "silly paranoia." Much of what critics of Obamacare and the 2009 Stimulus predicted was called paranoia and turned out to be true.

[u-said-what?]

Wow, you just love name-calling, don't you? You are incredibly naive if you think a major political party stating its support for abortion rights "regardless of ability to pay" means anything other than taxpayer subsidization.

And are you telling me that absolutely no abortions are covered by Medicaid? None? Are you telling me no court is going to overturn Obama's executive order, or that future presidents won't rescind the order? Are you saying no states fund abortions with taxpayer $?

[slyjokerg]

And btw, that quote doesn't state, "... and we intend to use federal dollars to pay for them." You show great naivety, and silly paranoia for that matter.

[slyjokerg]

You are incredibly ignorant. Abortion is not funded by any federal taxpayer dollars, via de facto federal law. What is known as the Hyde Amendment is attached to all social appropriations bills, making it literally banned from happening. This reality is in absolutely no danger of being changed AT ALL. But beyond that reality, EVERYONE pays for things with their tax dollars for which they would rather not pay. It is a basic reality for everyone in the functioning of our society.

[u-said-what?]

It's not irrelevant when the 2012 Democratic Party platform unequivocally calls for taxpayer-subsidized abortions:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."

[slyjokerg]

BTW... it literally IS an organism. LMAO

[slyjokerg]

It isn't public funded, so your caveat is irrelevant.