STUPAK CHANGES NOTHING

Under Stupak, if you want to get an abortion, you can pay out of pocket, just like now. No change.
If you pay for your own private insurance, and your plan covers abortion, you can have an abortion. No change there either.

Since the Hyde Amendment, federal funding for abortion has been illegal.
The problem isn't the Stupak amendment, it's the Hyde Amendment.
Why has the left-wing chosen NOW to get pissed off, when it's been on the books for years?
Why have they never made an issue about it before now?
SHOWBOATING.

The usual stuff:
BLOG: http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com
FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/1OtiqI
TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/punkpatriot
STORE: http://punkpatriot.etsy.com
DONATE? http://bit.ly/7OwKc2

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• stupak
• the punk patriot
• punk
• patriot
• abortion
• healthcare
• hyde amendment
• kill
• kids
• annoying
• stupid
• comedy
• sarcasm
• atheism
• pro-life
• pro-choice
• robots
• showboating
• pro-wrestling
• false opposition

[geometrololi]

@gngarcia1983 argeed

[FeelFreeToArgue]

Yup, way too much nattering about details and not enough people like Kucinich and Dean pointing out the the health care bill is just a useless corporate sellout.

Watching the health care bill snake its way to irrelevancy has provided an excellent laboratory for examining the final meltdown of our system of govt, much in the same way that Copenhagen provided a lab for what is wrong w/ international power relationships.

The private insurers are getting what they paid for, plain & simple.

[AnnieGetYourGang]

This is so true of so much. Oh No! Not the Stupak Amendment!!! Then pretty soon no one's talking about the criminalization of poverty that will send those of us who can't afford health insurance to prison if we can't pay hefty fines for not being able to afford it.

[DKfansown]

Did you make that flag yourself?

[Iker888]

i am nitpicking the term, and the phrase isnt unreasonable, its unrealistic. you think too much of my complaint, if it could even be called that. i am just pointing out the word choice, not bashing all that stands behind them.

[KidOmniMan]

Yes if you are making a good valid point and not just nitpicking the term "killing children in the streets like dogs" then I don't get it. Children have died and the IDF has the blood on their hands but to say they were killed like dogs is unreasonable? It may be a complex issue but this statement isn't completely inaccurate, it may bring emotion into it more than you would like but it isn't like he is saying there are children only hit-squads looking for little girls to kill for no reason.

[Iker888]

you just dont get it do you? OF COURSE children have died, and the IDF has blood on their hands. this statement just portrays an exaggerated image which grossly oversimplifies the issue to the point of distortion. and, since i apparently need to clarify everything, this by no means justifies the IDF's actions or diminishes its culpability.

[KidOmniMan]

I just watch it again and he doesn't say shooting, he says killing and in your own statement here you mention civilian casualties. It would be pretty hard to say that no children have died because of the Israeli military, I'm sure some even died in the street.

[Iker888]

sarcasm aside, thats what serious political vlogs should at least aspire to, if you're content with misinformation, than there's not much to discuss

cheers

[KidOmniMan]

You're right every vlog on YouTube should be completely accurate.