Abortion Funding through Insurance?
 

It's awfully interesting how people have jumped on the Hyde Amendment
that says no taxpayer money can be used to fund abortions.

I totally understand the sentiment. Abortion is the least best course
for resolving a pregnancy but I also believe it's up to the mother to
determine the outcome of any pregnancy, not the government.

So, assuming that government shouldn't be using our tax dollars to
fund that which so many of us find abhorant and against our nature and
beliefs, why should we fund:

War that is not specifically in answer to a threat
State or federal executions

Thoughts?


BTW: The Stupak amendment goes much farther, insisting that any
PRIVATE insurance that is part of the insurance exchange, cannot offer
abortion coverage. That's not the public option but the exchange,
which is private but part of the collective that will be offered to
all, since it may be partially subsidized.

The funny part of this is that many private policies are presently
subsidized federally by taxpayer money but no one talks about the Hyde
Amendment with regards to those.

Abortion Funding through Insurance?
 

"jps" wrote in message
...

It's awfully interesting how people have jumped on the Hyde Amendment
that says no taxpayer money can be used to fund abortions.

I totally understand the sentiment. Abortion is the least best course
for resolving a pregnancy but I also believe it's up to the mother to
determine the outcome of any pregnancy, not the government.

There's a group that thinks there are people in favor of abortion, huh??? No
one favors abortion. As you said, it's the least best course, and abortions
in the US are way down. Yet, it's used as a cudgel to make those who favor a
woman's right to choose look evil. I find that the most disgusting of all.

So, assuming that government shouldn't be using our tax dollars to
fund that which so many of us find abhorant and against our nature and
beliefs, why should we fund:

War that is not specifically in answer to a threat
State or federal executions

Thoughts?

I used to think the death penalty was the correct punishment, but I changed
my mind. There are too many situations where people are found to be innocent
after they were convicted of gruesome crimes. It's better to let 10 guilty
people go free than to wrongly convict an innocent.


BTW: The Stupak amendment goes much farther, insisting that any
PRIVATE insurance that is part of the insurance exchange, cannot offer
abortion coverage. That's not the public option but the exchange,
which is private but part of the collective that will be offered to
all, since it may be partially subsidized.

The funny part of this is that many private policies are presently
subsidized federally by taxpayer money but no one talks about the Hyde
Amendment with regards to those.

They're trying an end run around the law of the land. The scary part is that
it just might work. Save your coat hangers.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Abortion Funding through Insurance?
 

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:51:30 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .

It's awfully interesting how people have jumped on the Hyde Amendment
that says no taxpayer money can be used to fund abortions.

I totally understand the sentiment. Abortion is the least best course
for resolving a pregnancy but I also believe it's up to the mother to
determine the outcome of any pregnancy, not the government.

There's a group that thinks there are people in favor of abortion, huh??? No
one favors abortion. As you said, it's the least best course, and abortions
in the US are way down. Yet, it's used as a cudgel to make those who favor a
woman's right to choose look evil. I find that the most disgusting of all.

So, assuming that government shouldn't be using our tax dollars to
fund that which so many of us find abhorant and against our nature and
beliefs, why should we fund:

War that is not specifically in answer to a threat
State or federal executions

Thoughts?

I used to think the death penalty was the correct punishment, but I changed
my mind. There are too many situations where people are found to be innocent
after they were convicted of gruesome crimes. It's better to let 10 guilty
people go free than to wrongly convict an innocent.


BTW: The Stupak amendment goes much farther, insisting that any
PRIVATE insurance that is part of the insurance exchange, cannot offer
abortion coverage. That's not the public option but the exchange,
which is private but part of the collective that will be offered to
all, since it may be partially subsidized.

The funny part of this is that many private policies are presently
subsidized federally by taxpayer money but no one talks about the Hyde
Amendment with regards to those.

They're trying an end run around the law of the land. The scary part is that
it just might work. Save your coat hangers.

It's not going to work. The lawmakers will write their way around it.
Republicans don't want the issue to go away, it'd be their final
undoing.

Abortion Funding through Insurance?
 

jps wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:51:30 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
It's awfully interesting how people have jumped on the Hyde Amendment
that says no taxpayer money can be used to fund abortions.

I totally understand the sentiment. Abortion is the least best course
for resolving a pregnancy but I also believe it's up to the mother to
determine the outcome of any pregnancy, not the government.
There's a group that thinks there are people in favor of abortion, huh??? No
one favors abortion. As you said, it's the least best course, and abortions
in the US are way down. Yet, it's used as a cudgel to make those who favor a
woman's right to choose look evil. I find that the most disgusting of all.

So, assuming that government shouldn't be using our tax dollars to
fund that which so many of us find abhorant and against our nature and
beliefs, why should we fund:

War that is not specifically in answer to a threat
State or federal executions

Thoughts?
I used to think the death penalty was the correct punishment, but I changed
my mind. There are too many situations where people are found to be innocent
after they were convicted of gruesome crimes. It's better to let 10 guilty
people go free than to wrongly convict an innocent.

BTW: The Stupak amendment goes much farther, insisting that any
PRIVATE insurance that is part of the insurance exchange, cannot offer
abortion coverage. That's not the public option but the exchange,
which is private but part of the collective that will be offered to
all, since it may be partially subsidized.

The funny part of this is that many private policies are presently
subsidized federally by taxpayer money but no one talks about the Hyde
Amendment with regards to those.
They're trying an end run around the law of the land. The scary part is that
it just might work. Save your coat hangers.

It's not going to work. The lawmakers will write their way around it.
Republicans don't want the issue to go away, it'd be their final
undoing.

It's a covered procedure in Canada.

Health care decisions decided by religious fanatics never turns out
well, and the US allows decisions to be made with religious fanatics in
mind.

They have their fanatics, but they seem to have overcome allowing them
to make the decisions for the rest of us.