The Stupak Stupor

We know that the House healthcare reform bill passed after an eleventh-hour compromise (you might say betrayal) on abortion access. We know the compromise, the Stupak-Pitts amendment, is bad. But do we know exactly how it's bad for women (and their partners)? Here's a quick primer on what the amendment actually means for any woman accessing healthcare through the newly-created health insurance exchange.

Over the summer, legislators struck an agreement on abortion funding in which private plans offered through the health insurance exchange couldn't use federal dollars to cover abortion care. They could, however, cover abortion care with funds from individuals' premiums, and the agreement, the Capps Amendment, required at least one plan in every region to offer abortion care, and at least one not to. As many observers predicted, the Capps Amendment didn't mollify anti-abortion crusaders, namely the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which commands an outsize role in the debate over healthcare reform.

So what we ended up with was drastically worse. After the initial compromise fell apart, Rep. Bart Stupak introduced the eponymous amendment, under which any plan purchased with any federal subsidy cannot cover abortion services--even with private funds. Plus, the public plan won't cover abortion care. While plans participating in the health insurance exchange are legally permitted to offer a version of the plan that does cover abortion--enrollment limited to those who pay for the entire plan without any subsidy--it's unlikely plans will go the extra mile to offer that coverage, Planned Parenthood's Laurie Rubiner said this morning on the Brian Lehrer Show. That would be "awfully complex," Rubiner explained. Because the majority of Americans purchasing insurance through the exchange would be using affordability credits, the plan without abortion coverage will become the "standard plan." Rubiner also cited privacy concerns over purchasing abortion-inclusive coverage. The Wall Street Journal observed, "Insurers may be reluctant to [set up abortion-inclusive plans] because it could complicate how they pool risk and force them to label policies in a way that could draw attention from abortion opponents."

At Change.org, Jen Nedeau pointed out that even women who currently have employer-based insurance that does cover abortion care (and 87 percent of employer-based plans do) may ultimately be affected. "Since the plan for the uninsured is designed to open up to everyone over time, including large employers, it is likely that women will lose access to abortion coverage as part of any health insurance plan available for purchase," Nedeau explains.

In defending his amendment, Stupak made one misleading and one outright false claim. He argued that women could purchase "abortion riders" on top of their insurance, much like they might purchase a dental or vision rider. Such an abortion rider doesn't exist now, and the legislation does not provide for its creation. Rubiner pointed out that in states where private coverage of abortion care is outlawed, riders don't exist either. Besides, they defy logic: "Women would have to plan for their unplanned pregnancy," Rubiner added. "It's illogical to think they would look for a plan that includes abortion."

And for the falsehood: Stupak claimed that his amendment "goes no farther than Hyde," the amendment banning federal Medicaid funding for abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman's life. In fact, the amendment goes farther than Hyde in stipulating what kind of coverage a woman can purchase with private dollars. "It's the equivalent of arguing that women who receive abortions should not use public buses or highways to travel to the abortion clinic," Igor Volsky at Wonk Room points out.

In the Stupak amendment, the exceptions to the coverage ban read as follows: rape, incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death." The Center for American Progress's Jessica Arons writes, "Given insurance companies' dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they'll do with that language." And in case you wonder what that leaves out entirely: "Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion."

Comments (170)

1. I certainly hope that ms douglas's post information is correct. It would be good news to millions of future children in this country.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:35pm

2. It's really unfortunate that there is so much focus on the anti- reproductive freedom rider stuck on the bill the House approved. This is because, while, the infamous Stupak Amendment is certainly an attack on womens' basic right to control their own bodies, and it is certainly an attack on church-state separation, the furor over abortion unfortunately masks the real issues with the bill. The bill is a made-for-tv-pr atrocity that placed as its underpinning priorities:

   1) In no way threatening the chokehold the health care cartel currently holds on the American public and our economy,

   2) The deep need of the Democrats to have a salable fiction on "reform" to go into next year with.

   The bill is little more than a wet dream come true for health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. For everyone else, its a bad dream come true. The only silver lining in this disaster is that, via the Stupak Amendment, and via the silly and irrelevant "public" option that the vaunted Democrat Majority produced in their pushing of the "change" agenda, we can see the utter insipidity of the Democratic Party as an agent of progressive political change.

   Posted by syfriendly at 11/09/2009 @ 6:55pm

3. "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to undermine that right."

   That is from the Democratic Party's official platform (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html)

   Seems to me Stupak-Pitts is exactly the type of legislation the Dems are supposedly opposed to. When did the nutjobs take over the Democratic Party?

   Posted by SJim at 11/09/2009 @ 7:08pm

4. syfriendly,

   The right women have to control their own bodies does not include a right to murder a baby inside their body.

   Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 7:21pm

5. "The right women have to control their own bodies does not include a right to murder a baby inside their body"

   sjchermak,

   fyi: abortion is legal. hence, it is not murder.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 7:30pm

6. "It would be good news to millions of future children in this country"

   antisocialist, if a woman needs an abortion, she will get one.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 7:30pm

7. antisocialist, if a woman needs an abortion, she will get one.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 7:30pm

   It's shame you think so little of children. What if your mother had held that view while carrying you?

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 7:39pm

8. "It's shame you think so little of children. What if your mother had held that view while carrying you?"

   oh, grow up. try living in reality for a day, would you?

   Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 7:52pm

9. darladoon,

   The only reason abortion is legal is because judges made a ruling (they made law from the bench) that they do not have the authority to make, according to the Constitution. (U.S. Constitution, not the version you consult, Algore's Living Breathing)

   Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 8:08pm

10. "The only reason abortion is legal is because judges made a ruling"

    so you admit, then, that abortion is legal. good. glad we cleared up your......glaring mistake.

    and of course (!) whenever the SC rules against YOUR favor, they're "legislating from the bench."

    Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 9:22pm

11. The House healthcare bill could take America a step closer to bankruptcy, according to the editorial page editor of The Washington Post.

    "And for progressives in particular -- for those who believe that government has a mission to help the poor and protect the vulnerable -- that prospect should be alarming," writes Fred Hiatt. "If federal debt continues rising on its present path, hastened by a $1 trillion health-care bill, it is the poor and vulnerable who will be most harmed.

    "President Obama has acknowledged this dilemma and offered three broad answers: Health-care reform should not add to the deficit. It should control health-care costs," Hiatt continues. "And, once reform is passed, the government will get serious about deficit reduction.

    "Unfortunately, the House bill fails his first test. True, the Congressional Budget Office has said that the bill is paid for. But the CBO is not allowed to count $250 billion in projected Medicare payments to doctors over the next 10 years, because the House -- after first acknowledging that cost in its reform bill -- decreed it had nothing to do with reform because lawmakers didn't want to pay for it."

    Read the full story at The Washington Post

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 9:33pm

12. "The House healthcare bill could take America a step closer to bankruptcy, according to the editorial page editor of The Washington Post"

    yeah, according to fred hiatt.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 9:39pm

13. volsky's response to fred hiatt:

    "The 24.5% of GDP isn't a measure of government spending as a result of the House/Obama health care bill. It's a measure of the outlays of all of the President's policies in his 2010 budget in 2019 and does not capture the deficit-reducing effects of health care reform or the House bill."

    Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:46pm

14. Democratic leaders need to be smarter and not be snowed by conservative Democrats into weakening legislation by the EMPTY promise of votes.

    If they can't "guarantee" the votes, their issues must be ignored.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/09/2009 @ 11:07pm

15. does not capture the deficit-reducing effects of health care reform or the House bill."

    Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Wonder if that offsets the 70 billions of dollars of medicare and medicaid FRAUD that goes unchecked annually X 3yrs to 2010, and X 10yrs. to 2019? Don't hold your breath they have done little about it for how many years, and now what to give more opportunity for healthcare fraud also which they would be unable to "police" either!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 11:40pm

16. antisocialist, if a woman needs an abortion, she will get one.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 7:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes exactly , BUT its not going to be, nor should it be paid for by my tax dollars,or any ones elses who are morally opposed to abortion .

    And as much as it pisses off darla and the rest of you lefties it is the law . If you dont like it ,stop your bitching and moaning and CHANGE the law .

    Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 12:05am

17. "If you dont like it ,stop your bitching and moaning and CHANGE the law"

    oh, grow up, typical selfish male. try having a uterus you jerk.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:26am

18. bigpasture, so tell us, what's your plan to lower healthcare costs (and please, no mention of tort reform, that's chump change compared to what's necessary ).....

    (now, watch him cut n' paste from world net daily or fred hiatt)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:28am

19. It's official. The Joint Tax Committee informs us that under the terms of the Pelosi health-care bill, "Americans who do not maintain acceptable health insurance coverage and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years."

    And so we have, yet again, a perfect illustration of the truism that socialism would work perfectly if only there were no people. Since we do have people, with all their self-interested motives and unwillingness to bend their inherent nature to ideological demands, socialism in practice encounters problems, known as Enemies of the People.

    No wonder Pelosi et al. want desperately to jam this legislation through the House before lawmakers go home for the Veterans Day break and encounter Tea Parties more numerous and louder than before. How has American self-government come to this?

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 12:38am

20. bigpasture, that is a LIE, it is not "official". there won't any "imprisonment." there could be fines, but only if you don't pay your TAXES. this is a TAX CODE VIOLATION, not a violation of not buying health insurance.

    and here's dr. nancy just hours ago:

    "A white man deciding a woman's…… a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean I ... I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that they are now making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous--just outrageous. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much.

    And folks it's not about abortion. It really is about one more burden for women navigating the health care system. Before I blow my top, time to turn to Monica Novotny at the news desk. Monica, get me out of here."

    pretty much sums up how i feel.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:41am

21. "No wonder Pelosi et al. want desperately to jam this legislation through the House before lawmakers go home for the Veterans Day break and encounter Tea Parties more numerous and louder than before"

    pelosi can't "jam" any legislation through. there is an organic process, bigpasture, or did you never take civics class?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:43am

22. digby hits the nail on the head:

    "This amendment doesn't just punish Lord Saletan's little sluts. All women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when a wanted pregnancy goes wrong. It only has an exemption for the life of the mother, but not for her her health, nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities. Click those links for what that means in real life"

    these pro-lifers are oh, so concerned about human lives, but evidently not at all concerned about our multi-trillion dollar offense industry, which has slaughtered millions in the last decade, tortured, injured, maimed, displaced, etc, etc.

    yeah, those catholic bishops are so consistent.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:56am

23. The Catholic Church has a 2000-year history of interfering in governments, undermining governments, overthrowing governments, sacking cities & nations, exploiting secular & clerical powers for personal & institutional wealth accumulation. The misery of others, particularly of women, has been essential to Catholic power. This is yet another example. Without misery, the Catholic church has far fewer followers.

    Posted by sloper at 11/10/2009 @ 01:01am

24. "The misery of others, particularly of women, has been essential to Catholic power. This is yet another example. Without misery, the Catholic church has far fewer followers."

    so true. the catholic church abhors women.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 01:07am

25. Firstly-Finally a story Santi can't tell,his abortion story He just can wring his hands every month or so over the children being killed in the current U.S. "war zones". As for his fellow buffoon,Big Pissture,how much money is being defrauded from the American people right now by your pals big insurance?That isn't important to these two holier than thou's. You two both decry a loss of individual rights to the state. I can not think of a greater loss to a woman. That's O.K. it is just another example of the hate monger club you belong to. You two get to masquerade with a great number of people in bible hider club.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 06:05am

26. Tim Price is the I object man, right. The new face of the Republican party. The Democrats should run advertisements of his performance on the House floor if they want to energize women in this country for health care. This is how Republicans treat women. Like dirt and as second class citizens,c'mon women unite.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 06:20am

27. oh, grow up, typical selfish male. try having a uterus you jerk.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:26am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Try having testicles, darla. You'll have to be responsible for your actions.

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 08:44am

28. I think darla is suffering from testicle envy LOL

    Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 08:51am

29. I am a man, and I can't understand the obsession that people have with abortion, particularly when natural abortions do occur, and when most abortions are performed with tremendous legal restrictions as it is.

    Now, to those who purport that abortion is murdering an innocent child, a fetus is not a child, and to what level are we going to reduce it to: a sperm? an egg? The teenager masturbating in the bathroom is now a potential murderer? This is ridiculous!

    Abortion should receive federal funds and should be absolutely legal but rare. Finally, it should be a decision between the woman, her family AND her doctor.

    Posted by citizen477 at 11/10/2009 @ 09:00am

30. I can not think of a greater loss to a woman. That's O.K. it is just another example of the hate monger club you belong to. You two get to masquerade with a great number of people in bible hider club.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 06:05am

    Ah, freedom to murder your own child....only leftists can find that liberating.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 09:07am

31. these pro-lifers are oh, so concerned about human lives, but evidently not at all concerned about our multi-trillion dollar offense industry, which has slaughtered millions in the last decade, tortured, injured, maimed, displaced, etc, etc. yeah, those catholic bishops are so consistent. Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:56am | ignore this person | warn this person darla, over 60 million babies have been aborted since the passage of Roe v. Wade. You can try to slant our concern for human life in any direction you like, but this is a FACT. 60 million killed! No slant - just truth.

    And, here's another fact, darla. Many of those who receive abortion services, (certainly not all, and not even the majority), regret their actions later in life. Actions they took because it was facilitated by Planned Parenthood, and the notions that because abortion is a legal right it is also somehow moral.

    You're trying to make the case that pro-lifers are unsympathetic toward expectant mothers. Believe me when I tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. We agonize over that issue: How can we save the life of that infant, while respecting the rights of the mother? There is no good answer, but we have come to the decision that the infant is an innocent, a victim of circumstances created by the actions of another. Who should we give the greatest degree of protection? In any other situation, where would the legal rights reside? If you believe that the fetus is not a person, then you can justify leaning toward the rights of the woman. But if you are of the belief that life begins at conception, then how can you NOT vigorously defend the infant? You will argue that it cannot be determined as to the beginning of life, so the benefit of that doubt should

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 09:13am

32. (Sorry for the double post )

    darla, over 60 million babies have been aborted since the passage of Roe v. Wade. You can try to slant our concern for human life in any direction you like, but this is a FACT. 60 million killed! No slant - just truth.

    And, here's another fact, darla. Many of those who receive abortion services, (certainly not all, and not even the majority), regret their actions later in life. Actions they took because it was facilitated by Planned Parenthood, and the notions that because abortion is a legal right it is also somehow moral.

    You're trying to make the case that pro-lifers are unsympathetic toward expectant mothers. Believe me when I tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. We agonize over that issue: How can we save the life of that infant, while respecting the rights of the mother? There is no good answer, but we have come to the decision that the infant is an innocent, a victim of circumstances created by the actions of another. Who should we give the greatest degree of protection? In any other situation, where would the legal rights reside?

    If you believe that the fetus is not a person, then you can justify leaning toward the rights of the woman. But if you are of the belief that life begins at conception, then how can you NOT vigorously defend the infant?

    You will argue that it cannot be determined as to the beginning of life, so the benefit of that doubt should inure to the expectant mother, rather than the fetus. But what if you KNEW that life does if fact, begin at conception? Could you still support the extermination of the innocents, darla?

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 09:18am

33. Yes exactly , BUT its not going to be, nor should it be paid for by my tax dollars,or any ones elses who are morally opposed to abortion . Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 12:05am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I am morally opposed to wars, which are paid for with my tax dollars. are you willing to extend me the same privilege you assert for yourself?

    I am also morally opposed to the death penalty, which is paid for with my tax dollars.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 09:25am

34. Yes I am Emile . Just get the law changed . Thats how democracy works. Only vote for those who share your views, and vot against those who dont. If a majority agree with you then thats great , and your views will be followed .

    Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 09:36am

35. Stupak-Pitts. Right off the bat, any bill with a name like Stupak-Pitts should be a clue as to it's intentions.

    But not to worry, no need to get panties or jockeys in a bunch over this. The entire bill in it's current or future incarnation in the Senate will never pass. It is doomed. It is a cobbled up mess and does not deserve to pass anyway. It is not healthcare reform.

    And if you have any sense you should be rooting for it to fail. If some watered down ineffective tradegy of a bill does happen to be signed into law by our ineffective watered down president we will not see any real effective healthcare reform for at least 15 to 20 years, if ever.

    The congress will glad hand each other at producing a pile of crap and then move on to the next issue they need to screw up. In their minds they will have solved the Health Care Crisis!

    However if it doesn't pass, they will have to start over. And in the meantime the situation will get so bad they just may be forced to give us single payer. Like HR 676.

    Or if they were really smart and had some balls the Democrats could seize the moment and take a 51 vote reconcilliation vote on expanding Medicare for all. This would only entail lowering the eligibility for Medicare from 65 to at birth.

    Easy peezy lemon squeezy!

    But the Dems don't have any balls and are not very smart. And most of them are already bought and paid for in one way or another.

    So probably more of us will die while they play games instead of doing the peoples business. But cheer up! Death is only a temporary condition..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/10/2009 @ 09:43am

36. Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 09:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

    this is actually NOT the way it works. we are not ruled by majority. if we were there would be no need for a supreme court. we could just have a plebiscite and the decisions would be made accordingly.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 09:59am

37. Interesting, all this uproar over the abortion issue, but not a word about the fact that not one sentence in those 1900+ pages addresses tort reform.

    Oops! I'm wrong! There is ONE section buried in there that actually PROHIBITS the states from effecting tort reform relating to health care.

    Interesting also, every single Democrat congressperson has as their major financial contributor, their State Trial Lawyers Association.

    I wonder if this could have anything to do with the strange practice of slamming down the gavel and declaring any member who mentions tort reform on the floor of the house to be "out of order"?

    It probably doesn't matter - I can't imagine how restricting law suits against doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies could ever reduce the cost of health care.

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:01am

38. this is actually NOT the way it works. we are not ruled by majority. if we were there would be no need for a supreme court. we could just have a plebiscite and the decisions would be made accordingly.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 09:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Apparently you missed the point. We (conservative, currently a majority of the citizens) are forced to recognize the right of women to abortion. We are, however, protected from having to pay for it, based on moral and/or religious objections.

    If you feel that your tax dollars should be excluded from being spent on defense, take your case to the SC, and abide by their ruling.

    We (conservatives) are fine with that. The Hyde Amendment is a compromise made to avoid further "legislation from the bench" in regard to abortion. Stupak-Pitt is just an extension of that thinking, that you can be sure will be left out in the final document. As promised by Pelosi....

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:14am

39. I did not say the majority rules Emile . We elect members of congress who make the laws . If you want a law changed you must elect those who will do what you want them to do. Thus you must elect a majority of senators and represenatives who share your views . The courts come in to play to determine whether those laws passed are constitutional or not .

    Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 10:15am

40. My Wife is very active in antiabortion work. She and most of her active friends are NOT Catholic. I believe you are misdirecting people byfocusing so much on the Catholic fraction.

    The Stupak Amendment neither prohibits Abortion nor facilitates it. I believe it is a workable halfway compromise.

    Th entire question will become moot when the Supreme Court rules on the obvious Unconstitutionality of the "individual insurance mandate." What is the fallback position?

    John D. Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 11/10/2009 @ 10:19am

41. darladoon,

    Up above,you displayed your lack of understanding of the Constitution with the following:

    "....and of course (!) whenever the SC rules against YOUR favor, they're "legislating from the bench."..."

    Actually, it is when they make law....and as you should know, the Constitution grants law-making powers to the Excecutive and Legislative branches of the federal government only, not the judicial.

    There was and is nothing in the Constitution that comes even close to addressing the subject of abortion.

    The judges made a very loose interpretation of privacy rights.

    This interpretation was so loose that even "pro-choice" legal scholars have commented that Roe v Wade was bad law.

    So, there are people who think Baby murder is OK who agree that Roe v Wade was bad law.

    By the way, just because abortion is legal does not mean it isn't murder....it just means that when one commits this particular kind of murder there are no legal consequences.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 10:54am

42. "Try having testicles, darla. You'll have to be responsible for your actions"

    abortion is LEGAL, antisocialist. it's f*cking LEGAL, ok? this stupak amendment is just one more way that wacko christians are making it tremendously difficult for WOMEN to navigate the healthcare system. women already pay more for healthcare just by being women. being a woman is, literally, a pre-existing condition.

    and this amendment has tremendous restrictions in it, ones that will force low-income women to find other ways of finding an abortion if they need one.

    you seem to be living in this fantasy world that a woman will NEVER need an abortion: say, even if she gets CANCER during her term. this amendment will prevent her from having an abortion even if she gets cancer.

    if you had a uterus, antisocialist, you would understant. but you don't. you're a typical, selfish, christian, white male, who doesn't know f*ck all about having children.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 10:58am

43. "By the way, just because abortion is legal does not mean it isn't murder"

    (moronic quote of the day)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 10:59am

44. "The Stupak Amendment neither prohibits Abortion nor facilitates it"

    it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for women, who sign up with one of the insurance options available through this "reform" bill, to get an abortion if she needs one.

    how is that not "prohibiting" it?

    you people seem to think that women don't ever need abortions.

    well, they do. and christian women (especially catholic women) have more abortions than anyone. why? because their idiotic parents and teachers never taught them how to put a condom on a penis.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:05am

45. Hey darla maybe you should direct all that anger and hate you have towards those liberal female members of the house who expressed their "outrage " at the Stupak amendment then turned around and voted for the bill despite it including said amemdment . You and your fellow lefties are the ones who voted them into office and they stuck it to you BIG TIME. So tell us now whos the ignorant morons???

    Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 11:25am

46. "Hey darla maybe you should direct all that anger and hate you have towards those liberal female members of the house who expressed their "outrage " at the Stupak amendment then turned around and voted for the bill despite it including said amemdment "

    all of the democratic women voted AGAINST the amendment.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:30am

47. fyi: abortion is legal. hence, it is not murder.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 7:30pm

    A good point, but it makes it hell for those arguing against capital punishment as "state sanctioned murder."

    Posted by Mistral at 11/10/2009 @ 11:38am

48. "A good point, but it makes it hell for those arguing against capital punishment as "state sanctioned murder"

    not "hell," but pretty difficult. keep in mind: a fetus is not a person. capital punishment kills persons.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:47am

49. Just a quick note: Roe v. Wade is not legislation from the bench, it decided the constitutionality of criminal abortion laws. It declared anti-abortion laws unconstitutional based on the interpretation of the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. That is, in fact, the job of the S.C.--to decide whether or not laws are unconstitutional. That was established in the Constitution and reinforced by the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. It is what the Supreme Court has done ever since.

    I don't see people complaining when the Court rules in favor of their opinions--or at least complaining about "legislating from the bench."

    Posted by naranjera at 11/10/2009 @ 12:10pm

50. lots of interesting interpretations of things constitutional here today. I think some need to go watch schoolhouse rock again.

    1. Congress comes up with legislation, otherwise known as a bill. 2. The bill only becomes law if the president signs it or there are enough votes to override a veto (basically) 3. The president doesn't come up with legislation per se, as any legislation the president desires must be routed through house and senate by a sponsor that must actually come up with the text of the bill. 4. The constitutionality of the current HB 3962 is based on the Commerce clause, same as Social Security and Medicare/aid -- not the 10th Amendment (states rights) -- if you have any question about the constitutionality of Social Security look it up on the SSA site. 5. Whomever doesn't like abortion, please go look into the legal definition of murder prior to posting, otherwise you just sound shrill. And yes I will probably get flack for this comment, but please do look into it. 6. Whatever comes out of the Senate still needs to be combined with HB 3962, so this issue is far from over. 7. Last I checked, at the Federal level, we only get to vote for a single representative and two senators. Something to do with legislative districts and all. 8. Most Americans are under the strict label conservative. Instead most are like me and wish the conservatives would stop using inculcated mendacity and volume to stir up the lesser informed. 9. The repubs didn't come up with any form of alternative that would actually help the average Joe. 10. I could comment about Onanism, but that was before we understood that men and women naturally shed unwanted reproductive cells.

    Posted by sayitaintso at 11/10/2009 @ 12:13pm

51. One day soon, I may need a prostate operation and I expect to be turned down since I may endanger future children, regardless the fact that I am seventy and the very last thing I want right now is to be a father again.

    Posted by bobheffren at 11/10/2009 @ 12:18pm

52. In the late 60s I had frequently heard the saying, IF MEN COULD HAVE BABIES, ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT.

    I am a man who understands that to decide to have an abortion must be a very difficult decision for a woman to make; one we men never have to make. We need more men to back all women's right to choose. Since men don't have babies their input on the abortion issue must be subjected to an advisory capacity and no other influence on that right for women.

    The time has come for all of us to insist that the Democratic Party take off the gloves and get tough with the opponents of women's rights as well as viable health care for all.

    Since 1950 We have been subjected to thirty-six years of Republican administration and over twenty years with the Democratic party in place. The result has been increasingly unaffordable health care for all but a few.

    The vast majority of the United States population is for a health plan that would be superior to the proposed plan, a plan that's almost as bad as having no plan at all.

    Abortion is a physical as well as a mental health issue. To deny coverage is for men in the ruling class increasing profits on their investments in the insurance "industry."

    The outrage over weak Democrats' support for the insurance companies is going to lead to that party remaining ineffectual until it will be time to replace them with a party that has the real interests of All American residents in mind.

    It's time for the Democratic Party wake up, to shed bipartisanship; the Republicans certainly have done so. Two parties must be equivalent to two philosophies of politics. Today we are stuck with Republicans and Republicans Lite.

    Posted by James Sauli at 11/10/2009 @ 12:22pm

53. 'if you had a uterus, antisocialist, you would understant. but you don't.' -- darladoon

    There is a point to be made saying that different people have different perspectives. On the other hand, remember that in days gone by women were the victim of the demeaning notion that they couldn't think rationally, only emotionally, all because of the presence of certain internal organs.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/10/2009 @ 12:53pm

54. the very last thing I want right now is to be a father again. Posted by bobheffren at 11/10/2009 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    a simple in office procedure takes care of that, it's called a vasectomy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 12:53pm

55. I am surprised that no one has raised the larger point of the issue.

    Now that it is finally law that women in this country be paid equally to men for the same work, the conservatives want to dictate to them how they can spend the money they earn! The amendment to the health care bill would prohibit a woman from spending her money on a private insurance policy in the health insurance exchange that provides for this aspect of a woman's health care.

    What's next: withholding restaurant service to a woman not accompanied by a man? Then a shoestore? This amendment is just a poorly disguised effort to return women to being barefoot, in the kitchen and pregnant!

    A right not protected is a right lost, nibble by nibble!

    Keep up the fight

    Posted by crloftin at 11/10/2009 @ 12:54pm

56. Vasectomies are next! Just ask any conservative!

    Posted by crloftin at 11/10/2009 @ 12:57pm

57. The life of a fetus cannot be separated from the life of the pregnant woman. This is unique in medicine and law. No one can create a set of medical principles or legal principles giving a right to life to the fetus, because by doing so, inevitably the woman's rights become limited. the bottom line is that if you're a man you have no say. the moment that we as men can get pregnant then we can be part of the discussion. its really rather simple. it's obsurd that we men can get federal funding for erections. this all comes down to choice. we are one nation. no man should dictate reproductive rights. as for the religious right, your relationship with god is your relationship with god. discussing it publicly is condemnable. those with faith rarely discuss it or force those beliefs on others. i'm constantly amazed that the ignorant always sound ignorant.

    Posted by marston at 11/10/2009 @ 1:05pm

58. The life of a fetus cannot be separated from the life of the pregnant woman. This is unique in medicine and law. No one can create a set of medical principles or legal principles giving a right to life to the fetus, because by doing so, inevitably the woman's rights become limited.

    this is very fine, succinct.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 1:08pm

59. Democrats, a bad bill will get you bad results. A bad bill will get you bad results. A bad bill will get you bad results. F--- Bi-Partisanship, F--- Moderates, F--- getting along with Conservatives. Make them filibuster - they'll stall anyway.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 11/10/2009 @ 1:09pm

60. 2010 - 0

    Posted by DPGrassley at 11/10/2009 @ 1:09pm

61. Bi-Partisanship is betrayal, I'd let 10 Bohners go free to guillotine one Baucus.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 11/10/2009 @ 1:11pm

62. I always pose the same scenario for anti-choice folks:

    If the law of the land proscribes abortion.....if it construes abortion to be premeditated murder...what will that mean?

    It will mean this: That any woman who opts for a back alley abortion will not only put her life at risk, but will be seen [in the eyes of the law] as someone who can be charged, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced for murder.

    And if she does this in a state like Texas, she will be put on death row with all the other murderers.

    And this will be so even if her pregnancy was the result of a rape or of incest. After all, that wasn't the fetus's fault, right? And if life is construed [again, legally] to start at the point of conception then those who work in fertility clinics or in the field of stem cell research may also be arrested for committing murder.

    It's amazing how many anti-choice fanatics never really think it through to this. Point it out to them. Note how, in desparation, their daugther, sister, mother, aunt etc. may opt for an abortion in some subterranean office in some subterranean part of town. Note how, should they get caught, they may well be convicted of murder and end up sitting on death row.

    Then watch them start stuttering and stammering.

    george walton

    Posted by iambiguous at 11/10/2009 @ 1:11pm

63. Enough already. Drop the health bill --it's a mess (see below)

    Try taking up 2 more important issues: 1-a jobs program 2-out of AF/Pak, Iraq

    This could happen if the dems rid themselves pro-wall street crowd and the pro-empire crowd.

    Good luck dems!

    Now--why the house health care bill is a mess;

    "House Passes Sweeping Health Care Reform Legislation," scream the headlines. Sadly, mush is what the House passed. Obama says House plan is "courageous." Pul-eese. this is not courageous. All countries in Europe cover abortions in their health care plans, not us, though. With the House plan more people are somewhat covered--not Cadillac insurance, mind you, more like roller skater insurance--if you fall and bruise your knees, the first knee is a $25 co-pay, the second in $1000. No single payer and therefore no cost cutting. And Medicare (seniors) gets cut to the tune of 500 billion! The insurance companies (AARP included!) are ecstatic --millions more customers at government expense.

    Posted by hkaplan at 11/10/2009 @ 1:20pm

64. It's hypocritical and irony at it's base level. If you want woman NOT to have an abortion- then there will be a significant increase in unwanted babies. We as Americans must increase spending (taxes) to care for these kids. The kids should be cared for until 18 yrs of age, but the same individuals against abortion are also against increases in spending. Thereby, they want to be involved in you having the baby but they lack the same candor when it comes to caring for it. You can't have it both ways.

    Posted by pauly at 11/10/2009 @ 1:20pm

65. No one can create a set of medical principles or legal principles giving a right to life to the fetus, because by doing so, inevitably the woman's rights become limited.

    this is very fine, succinct.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 1:08pm

    What do people posting comments here think?

    Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed/forbidden?

    Life of the mother, health of the mother, mental health of the mother, rape, incest, sex selection, inability to fit in the prom dress, deformity of the fetus,...?

    Time limit? No time limit? Where on the continuum from five minutes after conception to quickening to viability to when labor begins...?

    Posted by Mistral at 11/10/2009 @ 1:23pm

66. I certainly hope that ms douglas's post information is correct. It would be good news to millions of future children in this country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:35pm

    Larry, there aren't enough jobs to go around right now and you want to bring more children into our nation? What kind of existence are you condemning those children to?

    Typical right winger - love the fetus, hate the child and despise the adult.

    Now, I am sure you won't understand the nuances of my position, but I am pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. As a person who cannot have a child, I do not feel it is within my rights to demand that women be forced to have children if they do not choose to do so. That is their choice, not mine.

    However, I would try to encourage (in a peaceful and respectful way) that every women (except in cases of rape or incest) consider adoption, instead of abortion, while ALWAYS keeping abortion legal so she doesn't have to go to some back alley clinic and have her own life destroyed as well. It's a sad enough situation and choice to make without people screaming at you as you walk into a clinic.

    But that kind of subtlety is beyond you, I have no doubt.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:33pm

67. The right women have to control their own bodies does not include a right to murder a baby inside their body.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 7:21pm

    Evidently, you don't know the law.

    Not surprising.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:35pm

68. "Yes exactly , BUT its not going to be, nor should it be paid for by my tax dollars,or any ones elses who are morally opposed to abortion ."

    Which of course excludes any US taxpayer, who opposes all US wars or any US war, from paying US taxes.

    Posted by sloper at 11/10/2009 @ 1:49pm

69. Yes exactly , BUT its not going to be, nor should it be paid for by my tax dollars,or any ones elses who are morally opposed to abortion .

    And as much as it pisses off darla and the rest of you lefties it is the law . If you dont like it ,stop your bitching and moaning and CHANGE the law .

    Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 12:05am

    But what about MY tax dollars going to support a war (i.e. the killing of people) that I believe is morally reprehensible?

    And BTW, abortion is legal in America. It has been since the 70's. It's YOUR side that keeps wanting to change the law, idiot.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:49pm

70. Ah, freedom to murder your own child....only leftists can find that liberating.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 09:07am

    No one finds abortion "liberating" and your post only shows your complete and utter ignorance of what women go through when they make the decision to have or not have a child.

    Pro-choice advocates like myself simply have respect for the fact that women have their own minds and can make their own decisions, quite without having god, daddy or Big Brother tell them what to do.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:56pm

71. Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 09:18am

    Think of it this way elcobar - 60 million more unemployed during this recession.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:57pm

72. Actually, democracy or anything like it is dead in this country. The corporations own the parties, the real estate, the flag (yes the flag! It's the corporate symbol of empire),the politicians who write whatever laws are needed for continuation of the status quo.

    We don't need to be directly oppressed by anyone, as in El Salvador, Italy and Germany early to mid '40s. The reason for that is we oppress ourselves; we keep ourselves "in line." We do this through our belief that we have any kind of say-so in our government or culture.

    Our culture is dictated through commercials and commercialism inn the so called liberal media. We in sufficiently large numbers buy into it.

    Our democracy boils down to a skirmish between the extreme right and the centrist right (the so called socialists).

    Most people I have encountered wouldn't know a socialist from any other philosophical scholar. As long as we allow electronic mass media to define the parameters of the debate we are finished.

    Posted by James Sauli at 11/10/2009 @ 2:02pm

73. Actually, it is when they make law....and as you should know, the Constitution grants law-making powers to the Excecutive and Legislative branches of the federal government only, not the judicial.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 10:54am

    It is only the Legislative body that has law-making powers. The Executive can enter into agreements with foreign nations which have the same effect as law, but only when enacted by the Legislature.

    You know, laws like the anti-torture agreements we signed onto after WWII and which Bush and his cronies threw out the window. Yeah...those kinds of laws.

    Perhaps you should read the Constitution before you pretend to know anything about it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 2:03pm

74. Why did the Democrats allow the Stupak amendment to be included in the health bill? Because Pelosi knows that if this bill were to fail, and it would have failed without the prolife members of Congress, it would mean a defeat for Obama and would be a huge boost for the Republicans. She knows she cannot allow that to happen. She was given her marching orders by Rahm and Obama. If the bill had failed, it would have meant that the next year we would see a politically weakened Obama, even less influential than he is now, who would not be able to get anything done. So even though Obama got up in front of the Planned Parenthood conference in '07 and said that he'd sign the Freedom of Choice Act as one of the first things he'd so as president, he'll throw the pro abortion people right under the bus if it means he's weaker politically. The man is only looking out for himself and has fooled so many interest groups into thinking he's 0n their side. He's only on their side if it strengthens him politically because it means another group on his side. If that group becomes a liability, like the pro abortion people during the health care bill, under the bus you go. The Stupak amendment will likely be included in the Senate bill and you better believe it that he'll tell Reid to get it voted on. Without the Stupak amendment, it won't reach the floor for a vote. If it dies in the Senate, Obama is a one term President. Do you really think he'll risk his second term for NARAL and Planned Parenthood?

    Posted by golperuano at 11/10/2009 @ 2:03pm

75. Stephen_Carver1,

    I said (correctly so):

    "....The right women have to control their own bodies does not include a right to murder a baby inside their body....."

    Then you said:

    ".....Evidently, you don't know the law...."

    But then I ask:

    What does "the law" have to do with this?

    A higher authority than "our law" or "the law" has determined that A WOMAN DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MURDER A BABY INSIDE HER BODY.

    Evidently, you do not understand, period.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 2:13pm

76. This anti-abortion argument sounds so 70's. A lot of tiresome female bashing. I'd like to remind all that every abortion involves a man. Discuss.

    Posted by ohiogirl at 11/10/2009 @ 2:15pm

77. Stephen: You're making too much sense. If the right wingers had a choice that states for each baby born into poverty, your taxes will increase by a certain amount, so we can care for them. See, how many would be re-considering their view. Nobody is advocating Abortion but you adjust to the times. Right Winger's view: -Healthcare for all - "No, it'll increase taxes" -Abortion - "No, it's immoral" -Care for Kids in Poverty - "No, it'll increase taxes" -Send troops to Afghanistan and increase spending - "Yes, they protecting me "

    -As a Right Winger, it's all about ME.

    Posted by pauly at 11/10/2009 @ 2:16pm

78. The Nation claims dissemination of 'unconventional wisdom' since 1865. That may well be but wisdom has a timeless factor that prompts me to point out that Emily Douglas like most other commentators begs a vital [sic] truth: "We know the compromise, the Stupak-Pitts amendment, is bad. But do we know exactly how it's bad for women (and their partners)?" It has taken me a long time to come down on the Pro -Life side of the abortion debate but now that I have I am relieved to know my choice for myself is not at the expense of another life I chose to procreate. There is an inherent selfishness and immaturity in putting the 'aware' progenitors ahead of the unaware innocent whom they 'animate' in cohabitation with nature. The different worlds sharing our 21st Century are blinded by mirrors flashing 'enlightenments' into one anothers' eyes that contain few facets of intelligent compassionate love. So few, with respect, that 1865 readers of this periodical might wonder how our 'unconventional wisdom' discounts the results of its own selfcentredness and kindred 'madnesses' in our lemminglike rush in pursuit of delusory happiness, quick satisfaction and achievements that imply the draconian dismissal of the rights of those who not only cannot defend themselves but are killed by the mindlessness that procreates them.

    Posted by mater at 11/10/2009 @ 2:51pm

79. This is getting to be a deck chairs on the Titanic discussion. Take about three minutes to read Bill Moyers foreword to Amy Goodman's Breaking the Sound Barrier. It may be available on Amazon.com. Even better, buy the book.

    The corporate owned mass media Control most of the information distributed/sold to the public. Serious plays are being made to control the internet and sites such as the one in which we are now participating.

    We must be realistic about what corporate America can as well as cannot do. What does American capitalism do in the most inept manner? Bumble into wars, fail to look out for the citizens, then expertly obfuscate their ineptitude.

    Rights to choose will not be defeated. The people won't allow it. This same vigor must be applied to demanding a pullout from the middle east, health care, and the well being of the rest of us.

    The military has between one and four thousand dollars per second to conduct operations in the middle east. Do the math yourself, don't believe me. That blood money would be so much better spent here at home. We wouldn't even notice, economically, a difference in health care spending no matter how expensive.

    Let's stop quibbling about Nancy Pelosi and Joe Lieberman. They must follow the known will of the "silenced majority." Let us be silent no longer.

    Posted by James Sauli at 11/10/2009 @ 2:53pm

80. Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 2:13pm

    Is your higher law part of the Constitution? Or is your higher law actually banned by the Constitution, thus making the Constitution the highest law of the land?

    I am not going to argue your religion with you; can believe or not as you choose. I care not as long as you don't for your beliefs on other citizens of this great nation.

    However, the law of the land, as of now, recognizes a woman's right to an abortion. There is no "higher law" that she need be concerned with, except in her own conscience. No law created by men will ever change that.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:01pm

81. Posted by mater at 11/10/2009 @ 2:51pm

    So, women who don't agree with your (kinda long and rambling) viewpoint, should be forced to have children they either didn't want in the first place, or were forced upon them by rape or incest?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:09pm

82. I hate to be the one to tell some of you this, but here's what's been going on. Conservative, pseudo-religious people have stated that they will not be able to overturn Roe V Wade, but instead will chip away at a woman's right to choose until it is no more. They're doing that.

    Anyone remember the right-wingers saying they don't want government getting between them and their doctors. How dare women have the right to control their own bodies. So break out the metal coat hangers and call up the funeral homes. Time for some of them danged uppity women to face the music.

    Posted by USAFree1 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:20pm

83. You evangelical Christians make me sick with your hypocrisy about not providing universal healthcare reform. If Jesus magically came back to earth, the first thing he would do would be to heal the sick and the lame. Remember, you hypocritical, condescending creeps, you great spreaders of "Christianity" who would deny your neighbor the most basic right of all life, the right to live a healthy life, you're supposed to love your neighbor like you love yourself. If Jesus came back, he would vomit at the disgusting, selfish behavior of all who claim to be his followers. You are the modern day money lenders.

    Posted by endsurg at 11/10/2009 @ 3:28pm

84. "By the way, just because abortion is legal does not mean it isn't murder"

    (moronic quote of the day)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

    He he he! Very good dear darladoon.

    Posted by USAFree1 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:28pm

85. if you had a uterus, antisocialist, you would understant. but you don't. you're a typical, selfish, christian, white male, who doesn't know f*ck all about having children.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 10:58am

    Sure Darla, raising 5 sons and having 8 grandchildren means I know nothing about having children.

    changing their diapers, getting up in the middle of the night to feed them, comfort them, nurse them through illnesses, wipe their noses, bandage their cuts and burns, hug them when they cry. Yeah, I know nothing about having children.

    Being in the delivery room also means I know nothing about having children.

    Having "sympathy" morning sickness (an interesting phenonemon BTW) means I know nothing about children.

    Seeing some of my grandchildren while they were in the womb, sucking their thumbs, laughing, eating, moving around, all those wonderful moments I witnessed mean I know nothing about having children.

    Darla, have you ever had a child? If not, you know nothing about having children.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:30pm

86. It's amazing how many anti-choice fanatics never really think it through to this. Point it out to them. Note how, in desparation, their daugther, sister, mother, aunt etc. may opt for an abortion in some subterranean office in some subterranean part of town. Note how, should they get caught, they may well be convicted of murder and end up sitting on death row.

    Then watch them start stuttering and stammering.

    george walton

    Posted by iambiguous at 11/10/2009 @ 1:11pm

    You don't have a clue. So, when a mother drowns her children, do you say, "it's her child. she has the right to terminate his/her life"?

    If the nation ever recovers it's moral compass and starts valuing the children in the womb again, then yes, women who abor their children should face prosecution for murder. It will be up to a prosecutor, judge, and jury to decide what level of punishment.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:34pm

87. Now, I am sure you won't understand the nuances of my position, but I am pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. As a person who cannot have a child, I do not feel it is within my rights to demand that women be forced to have children if they do not choose to do so. That is their choice, not mine.

    However, I would try to encourage (in a peaceful and respectful way) that every women (except in cases of rape or incest) consider adoption, instead of abortion, while ALWAYS keeping abortion legal so she doesn't have to go to some back alley clinic and have her own life destroyed as well. It's a sad enough situation and choice to make without people screaming at you as you walk into a clinic.

    But that kind of subtlety is beyond you, I have no doubt.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:33pm

    Why should a child be murdered because a mother doesn't want the responsibility for her actions in having sex?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:41pm

88. You don't have a clue. So, when a mother drowns her children, do you say, "it's her child. she has the right to terminate his/her life"?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:34pm |

    Thats why I posted the question above about what people think the limits are. If somebody thinks the boundary line is birth, then termination five minutes before birth is a medical procedure and termination five minutes after is murder. So, what do people posting comments here think?

    Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed/forbidden?

    Life of the mother, health of the mother, mental health of the mother, rape, incest, sex selection, inability to fit in the prom dress, deformity of the fetus,...?

    Time limit? No time limit? Where on the continuum from five minutes after conception to quickening to viability to when labor begins...?

    Posted by Mistral at 11/10/2009 @ 3:59pm

89. Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed/forbidden?

    Life of the mother, health of the mother, mental health of the mother, rape, incest, sex selection, inability to fit in the prom dress, deformity of the fetus,...?

    Time limit? No time limit? Where on the continuum from five minutes after conception to quickening to viability to when labor begins...?

    Posted by Mistral at 11/10/2009 @ 3:59pm

    Life of the mother

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:08pm

90. It probably doesn't matter - I can't imagine how restricting law suits against doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies could ever reduce the cost of health care. Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

    restricting to what level? what's the reform you want to see?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2009 @ 4:12pm

91. Santi-you say no abortions,hooray for life. You also said how many moderate Muslims fit on the head of a pin. You defeat all of your argum,ents with your war mongering. I am not very religious but I feel like I am more religious than you. Why,because I actually think I understand "Thou shalt not kill". You sir do not,enough of your hypothetical spiritualism,go back to creating a modern day Crusades.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 4:25pm

92. 1. In the late 60s I had frequently heard the saying, IF MEN COULD HAVE BABIES, ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT. Posted by James Sauli at 11/10/2009 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person To your points, James – The idea that since men don't actually get physically pregnant they should have less input into the abortion issue is ridiculous. Do you love your children less than your wife does? When your wife was pregnant did you just watch TV and not even notice what was happening? Because I took part in my wife's pregnancies, and thought about the baby growing inside her constantly, just as she did. It was OUR children, not just hers. Apparently you're some other kind of father.

    The Democrat Party took of the gloves several generations ago – where have you been? Perhaps you haven't noticed that the Democrat motto is "the end justifies the means". Cheating in elections to win is considered acceptable to Libs, in spite of the fact that it completely defies the spirit of our constitution. (Have you heard of ACORN?)

    Note that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all provided to us by the Democrats, have only served to INCREASE the cost of healthcare. Why should we expect a different result from the same government with this new plan? Democrats are obviously impervious to education.

    You are completely out of touch on this one, James. Two-thirds of those with employer provided health insurance are satisfied with their plan, and don't want the government to mess it up for them.

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 4:36pm

93. Absolutely no employers, including all small business owners, want this plan. Show me any single person between the ages of 18 and 35 who want to be required to buy health insurance they probably won't need. Show me any retired person who is looking forward to the proposed cuts in this plan. Show me any disabled person, most of who are currently on Medicaid, who are looking forward to this plan. And last, as you point out, this plan sucks for women. Exactly who are the "vast majority of people" you think want this plan?

    Your suggestion that men are a "ruling class", and would deny abortion on anything remotely resembling financial grounds is preposterous, and lends to expose the true slant of your entire post.

    The Democrat Party is anything but "ineffectual", and is considered by us conservatives to be the more destructive to mankind than Katrina and Mount St. Helens combined. The "great unfinished business of the Democrat Party", to quote it's recently departed patriarch, is the destruction of the middle class, an event which will be assisted by this recent legislative nightmare.

    Conservatives are of the same mind, James. It's time to wake up and rally the troops before you Libs completely ruin this country.

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 4:37pm

94. Again, how telling it is that this new Democrat plan completely fails to address the issue of tort reform, and not one of the Libs on this forum seems to consider that to be an issue worth discussion, in spite of the known fact that cost of malpractice insurance for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies are the single most costly item in healthcare, which is passed on to consumers. How do you explain that?

    Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 4:38pm

95. antisocialist, there's a HUGE difference between the raising of children and the gestation of children. it's impossible to overstate this.

    i repeat: if men could get pregnant, then abortion would not only be legal, it would be widespread.

    it's a power game.

    men never have to take responsibility for their actions; whereas a woman is solely responsible.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 4:47pm

96. antisocial, did you ever wonder why your mother aborted you?

    Posted by gamphd at 11/10/2009 @ 4:57pm

97. Elcobar; I stand by what I said. I have had a chilld of mine killed by a man. You weren't there and don't know a damn thing about me, where I've been, what I've done, or what I have read.

    I have watched the Democrats waffle and cave in over and over again. Yes, they have passed some decent legislation. It was often a watered down version for what was proposed.

    Where again were the Democrats when the USA invaded Iraq? I told friends the day I heard Bush was burning wood in his brain, thinking about running for president, that he would find an excuse to invade Iraq. I was absolutely certain. He still had H. Kissinger and James Baker in his baseboards. Not to mention Cheney and the old Nixon gang.

    If I could see that the Republicans were going to concoct an excuse to invade, why couldn't elected democratic types, whose job it is to be thorough about what is going on today, not 1939, see what looked so very obvious to some of us ten years ago?

    Posted by James Sauli at 11/10/2009 @ 5:10pm

98. Stephen_Carver1,

    You forget that if abortion is "the law of the land" it is only so because judges went ouside the bounds of their judicial responsibilities.

    Law was made from the bench, which is not how the Constitution says law is made.

    Besides, if abortion is morally wrong (which it is) then if it is law then the law is wrong.

    Aren't you on the left the ones who have for years in a lot of other situations proclaimed that if something is morally wrong but the law says it is OK, then the law is wrong?

    But when something you think is OK is law then all of a sudden law is absolute!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 5:16pm

99. To elcobar, cont. there was a problem with the site I live in the rust belt; two thirds of the people here are under or unemployed. Employers who had been providing health care have been cutting back or eliminating it. The reason? It's too expensive. I have a son in school, 6th grade, and have spoken with parents of other students. The percentage who have no health care at all is a disgrace. We either must not get sick, mortgage our homes, or just go die someplace so we will be out of the reactionary hair of neanderthal thinkers like you and your ilk.

    Besides, you telling me about ACORN and the end justifying the means, and on and on. You are one of the very people who needs to turn off Rush Limbaugh, your single source of information. And Read books by writers other than Rush's clones. Are you fourteen years old or something? You write and think as though you are.

    Read Ron Susskind and Richard Clark. They are good Republicans who dropped out because the actions of their party made them sick . We have had eight years of embarrassment and humiliation by a know-nothing group of opportunists running the white house. now all we can do is act to get the Democrats so have a spine.

    Posted by James Sauli at 11/10/2009 @ 5:27pm

100. The Stupak Amendment makes second-class citizens of women! As Margaret Sanger said, "No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body."

     Abortions will always be necessary to address unexpected medical developments. Pregnancies can endanger the health of women with pre-existing conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and epilepsy. Other women must take medications or receive chemotherapy, endangering their health or that of their fetus if they continue their pregnancies. Some conditions developed during pregnancy can leave women with lifetime impairment if their pregnancy continues. A fetus diagnosed as anencephalic (lacking a forebrain or cranium) has no chance of survival outside the womb. A woman who is forced to carry an anencephalic fetus to term may suffer complications that jeopardize both her physical and mental health, including the emotional trauma of carrying a baby she knows will be born only to die.

     Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions, even for ectopic pregnancies, nor do they do sterilizations or dispense contraceptives, which would help prevent many abortions. We can expect that outlawing most contraceptives will be next on the Catholic agenda, and with Catholicism being the most prevalent religion in Congress, women's rights are lost.

     Posted by JBrazill at 11/10/2009 @ 5:33pm

101. You forget that if abortion is "the law of the land" it is only so because judges went ouside the bounds of their judicial responsibilities.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 5:16pm

     Sjc, I will refer you to naranjera's post at 12:10 pm which I have pasted below.

     Also, it is not your place, or anyone else's, to decide what cases the Supremes should or should not hear. They chose to hear Roe v Wade and they chose to rule on it. Only they can make that choice. If you Republicans were so hot to do something about abortion, you've certainly had enough time to do it, yet the Republicans in Congress never seem to do anything about it. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Could it be because they all think you guys are crackpots and single issue voters who wouldn't vote for Dems anyway, so they don't REALLY have to worry about your issue as long as they continue to pay lip service to it?

     Now from naranjera:

     Just a quick note: Roe v. Wade is not legislation from the bench, it decided the constitutionality of criminal abortion laws. It declared anti-abortion laws unconstitutional based on the interpretation of the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. That is, in fact, the job of the S.C.--to decide whether or not laws are unconstitutional. That was established in the Constitution and reinforced by the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. It is what the Supreme Court has done ever since.

     I don't see people complaining when the Court rules in favor of their opinions--or at least complaining about "legislating from the bench."

     Posted by naranjera at 11/10/2009 @ 12:10pm

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 5:52pm

102. Guess I will always be waiting for the proabortionist leftist to explain why if a man in my state causes a woman to abort her child he is a first or second degree murderer, but if the woman and her doctor do the same it is not murder but exercising her right to choose? Does that mean only a woman and her doctor can play God?

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:17pm

103. Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 4:25pm

     I'm no war monger. I simply believe in the right of self defense which many on the left seem to no longer believe in. You will not find one statement by Jesus or the apostles that has Christ condemning all wars or rebuking the need at times for war. Quite the contrary. Wars for power or greed or enslavement of others are evil and that is what Islam has declared now nearly 1600 years.

     You may be more "religious" than I am. That's because for those who truly follow Christ, religion is is usually filled with the traditions of men rather than following Christ in a personal, intimate relationship.

     And it's not "thou shalt not kill". It's you shall not murder. Those who misquote that, usually leave out Numbers 35:9-15 or Joshua 20:1-6

     <The Lord said to Moses, "Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.

     "When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, designate cities of refuge to which people can flee if they have killed someone accidentally. These cities will be places of protection from a dead person's relatives who want to avenge the death. The slayer must not be put to death before being tried by the community. Designate six cities of refuge for yourselves, three on the east side of the Jordan River and three on the west in the land of Canaan. These cities are for the protection of Israelites, foreigners living among you, and traveling merchants. Anyone who accidentally kills someone may flee there for safety.>

     The passage then gives criteria for murder versus unintentionall killing and for the eventual release of a person who unintentionally kills another.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 6:23pm

104. Guess I will always be waiting for the proabortionist leftist to explain why if a man in my state causes a woman to abort her child he is a first or second degree murderer, but if the woman and her doctor do the same it is not murder but exercising her right to choose? Does that mean only a woman and her doctor can play God?

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:17pm

     It's liberal ideology 102. that's the second class they take after liberal ideology 101- advanced marxism on redistribution of wealth.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 6:25pm

105. Posted by naranjera at 11/10/2009 @ 12:10pm Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     that was indeed a good post.

     Stephen, you have been doing good work and a lot of it.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 6:31pm

106. Stephen_Carver1,

     Thank you for the information from "naranjera".

     Maybe in your next post you can explain why you sent it to me, since that is basically what I told Darladoon earlier.

     =================

     ".....There was and is nothing in the Constitution that comes even close to addressing the subject of abortion.

     The judges made a very loose interpretation of privacy rights.

     This interpretation was so loose that even "pro-choice" legal scholars have commented that Roe v Wade was bad law.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 10:54am..."

     =================

     I know the purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not. What you do not seem to understand is that a loose interpretation of the laws can get so loose that it is effectively making law from the bench, creating law where it did not exist before. That IS how law is made from the bench, that is the bone of contention that Conservatives have with leftist judges.

     It is a real stretch to say that a right to privacy entitles someone to nuke a baby in their body. That is really overdoing it.

     As for the first part of your post, people have been working to try and stop abortion for years. Your post sounds suspiciously like stuff Mask has written before.....you (and Mask) seem to think the GOP could have just waved a magic wand and stopped abortion, and chose not to for political purposes.

     You crow about how abortion is the law of the land. What that means is that someone can not be prosecuted for it. That is all.

     It does not mean the law is right, it does not mean people's tax money must pay for it, and it does not mean I or others do not have the right to try and stop it and speak our mind.

     This still is a free country.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 6:46pm

107. antisocialist, et al.: How much do you guys get paid to troll liberal sites? Just curious. And if you're doing it for free, you must lead incredibly boring lives if you need to get your jolly's off trying to irritate liberals on the internet.

     Posted by SJim at 11/10/2009 @ 6:48pm

108. SJim,

     1. Yes, my life is boring. So what?

     2. It is important to argue against liberals and try and change minds in order to stop the liberalism. I am not a person of any influence or prominence, who holds any kind of public position or political office. Thus, this is an avenue to try and make a productive impact .....to change people's minds.....to see what the lib arguments are so as to be able to argue effectively against them.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 6:56pm

109. Now I know what, "dumb as a barrel of hammers", means. E

     Posted by julien38 at 11/10/2009 @ 7:01pm

110. Each hammer has Stupak stamped on the head.

     Posted by julien38 at 11/10/2009 @ 7:03pm

111. sjchermak,

     I wasn't talking about you, really, since you seem to actually engage with the other posters in an intelligent manner (even if I disagree with what you're saying). I was speaking to the trolls who are argumentitive and disagreeable for the sake of being argumentitive and disagreeable. I'm fine with conservatives arguing with liberals over policy matters, even if I think trying to change people's minds through argumentation is similar in effectiveness to pissing in the wind; that's why I don't go out of my way to look at conservative blogs (unless I feel like getting riled up).

     Posted by SJim at 11/10/2009 @ 8:00pm

112. Antisocialist, admit it. You wife changed more diapers than you, she made more career sacrifices than you, she did more childcare than you . . .

     It's so obvious that you believe in male privilege (and male superiority). But then, most evangelicals believe that men are superior. Even "liberal" Jim Wallis believes in it. 90% of the speakers and musicians at his "justice" revivals are men.

     When is Christianity going to repent of its misogynistic legacy?

     Posted by ktrig at 11/10/2009 @ 8:46pm

113. I forget: is the RU486 pill available in the US or do you have to go to France toget it? Thanks, L. "Anti-Socialist," whatever that means, should take a wlak to clear his/her head.

     Posted by Louie1 at 11/10/2009 @ 9:18pm

114. Why do you righties who are dogging this site care about abortion anyway. You don't seem to give a crap about any life but your own. You need to go get yourself a life and quit playing around with right wing politics. You are just the string puppets for the billionaires. The second they don't need you they will cruch you like an insect. Go into the armed forces and defend yourself some freedom in Afghanistan. Put your body where your ideology is.

     Posted by James Sauli at 11/10/2009 @ 9:35pm

115. Antisocialist, admit it. You wife changed more diapers than you, she made more career sacrifices than you, she did more childcare than you . . .

     It's so obvious that you believe in male privilege (and male superiority). But then, most evangelicals believe that men are superior. Even "liberal" Jim Wallis believes in it. 90% of the speakers and musicians at his "justice" revivals are men.

     When is Christianity going to repent of its misogynistic legacy?

     Posted by ktrig at 11/10/2009 @ 8:46pm

     You have no idea about my life.

     I changed as many diapers as my wife did. We also rotated nights on getting up with the kids.

     And in our family, I do all the cooking, all of the grocery shopping (because I'm very good at getting bargains). I do the laundry and we share the rest of the housekeeping chores.

     perhaps you never read the scriptures.

     Ephesians 5:25-30

     <For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God's word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. And we are members of his body.>

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:13am

116. Guess I will always be waiting for the proabortionist leftist to explain why if a man in my state causes a woman to abort her child he is a first or second degree murderer, but if the woman and her doctor do the same it is not murder but exercising her right to choose? Does that mean only a woman and her doctor can play God? Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:17pm

     --because men don't own women or any microscopic humans growing in them.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/11/2009 @ 07:25am

117. You crow about how abortion is the law of the land. What that means is that someone can not be prosecuted for it. That is all. It does not mean the law is right, it does not mean people's tax money must pay for it, and it does not mean I or others do not have the right to try and stop it and speak our mind. This still is a free country. Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 6:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --there's plenty of unaborted bastards who need a home...put your money where your loud mouth is.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/11/2009 @ 07:29am

118. It is important to argue against liberals and try and change minds in order to stop the liberalism. I am not a person of any influence or prominence, who holds any kind of public position or political office. Thus, this is an avenue to try and make a productive impact .....to change people's minds.....to see what the lib arguments are so as to be able to argue effectively against them. Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 6:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --you're not even a person of any influence or prominence within the very narrow confines of the anonymous comment sections on the nation.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/11/2009 @ 07:32am

119. Ephesians 5:25-30 Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:13am

     Doesn't that particular scripture smack of sexism? Seems to me it does. It places a man above a woman. It subjugates women. It places a man in the position of the forgiver and the woman in the position of the forgiven. Which seems to indicate that women are by nature wicked and sinful and in need of the eternal "forgivness" of their husbands.

     That would place women in the category of the "human race" who arrogantly rebelled against the "Almighty God", and the husband in the position of God who unconditionally loves the rebellious and unrepentant human race, but forgives their weaknesses no matter how often they sin.

     The church that Christ speaks of is the body of the faithful, and is often referred to as his wife or bride.

     This all seems a bit perverted to me.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/11/2009 @ 08:04am

120. Santi-Simply another way out for you. Congratulations in your "crusade". That is not what you said or stand for.This Muslim "crusader",the mentally ill guy who sprayed bullets in all directions obviously was shaped by "Western"thought.He killed adults,not blindly blew himself up in a marketplacewhere anyone could be.Should the guy get the firing squad,seems like it to me. The question is bigger than that and you have weighed in on it charlatan. You personally have a better relationship with God than Islamic people.That is you talking ,not me because I couldn't believe my eyes oh religious expert.These guys are no different than the Irish were who shot,blew up,and terrorized each other in the name of God. Their God ,who was better than the guy on the other side of the streets God.So go quote God speaking to Moses from on high about "accidental" killings and real killings and see where you sit.Go find 10 or 14 more quotes justifying murder in the Bible. I want you to remember that calling people out for their version of God is hypocritical and I wonder who is throwing the stones here.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/11/2009 @ 08:07am

121. This all seems a bit perverted to me.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/11/2009 @ 08:04am

     But don't mind me, I'm just a recalcitrant Buddhist.. Carry On!

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/11/2009 @ 08:10am

122. urmygyro,

     Did you read the part in my last post about this being a free country?

     Everybody has a right in this country to weigh in on public policy.......

     Thus, your call I "put my money where my mouth is" is not relevant.

     Nobody has the right to lay down conditions that others must meet in order to be able to comment.

     I have remarked about this before, because I have seen this type of stuff on this site before.

     Sometimes, men are told they have no right to comment on abortion.....only women can weigh in.

     I have seen it implied that if one has not served in the military and/or been in the fighting in Iraq or are planning to join the fighting in Iraq, then those people can not advocate we go to war against terrorists who want to kill us.

     Of course, those who are opposed to war against those trying to kill us can comment all day long, whether they have been in the military, been in Iraq, etc. or not!!!

     Read the following again:

     Everybody has a right in this country to weigh in on public policy.......

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 08:18am

123. Did you read the part in my last post about this being a free country? Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 08:18am

     Why don't you ask the over 7.2 million people who are either behind bars or on probation or parole in this country how "Free" they think it is?

     In 2007 we had more than 2.3 million people behind bars. Even China which ranks 2nd and has a population of 1.3 billion only has 1.5 million behind bars.

     I realize "freedom" is measured by many variables. But the ultimate measure of being free has to be viewed from the perspective of being in a cage or not.

     We currently jail people in public and private prisons. Many times for the sole purpose of securing a cheap source of labor. Some newer private prisons are actually built around a specially designed factory. And the lobbies for these private prisons are always pushing for legislation to put more people in prison for life.

     Like the very real "three strikes and your out" laws. These laws have actually put people in prison for life for shoplifting and three convictions.

     We have Gulags in this country and nobody on the MSM ever talks about it.

     Yeah, we really live in a "Free" Country".

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/11/2009 @ 08:39am

124. Everybody has a right in this country to weigh in on public policy.......

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 08:18am

     But nobody has to provide a forum for such comments. Weren't there some posts by rykart on another blog that "disappeared" a few days ago? Some "anti-Israeli" posts? I wish I could find out - I can't tell if they aren't there anymore, or if I just can't find them. Anybody have any answers?

     Posted by Mistral at 11/11/2009 @ 08:47am

125. chaoszen,

     Implied in your post is that the people in prison in this country do not belong there - apparently -

     They have committed crimes - things like robbery, assault, vandalism, murder, use of illegal drugs, etc.

     The fact that they are in prison is so people who are not criminals have a better chance of living free of being victims of crime.

     Mistral,

     You are correct....nobody has to provide a forum for comments of any kind.

     By it's own decision The Nation does provides a forum and to it's credit as best as I know it does not censor commentary.

     It was urmygyro who was implying restrictions (put my money where my mouth is implies if I don't do that I should shut up) on who could speak on a forum where the people who operate the forum (The Nation) invoke no such restrictions.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 09:12am

126. People seem to be forgetting Peolsi had exactly two options last week because she did not have the votes to pass health care legislation: withdraw the bill for further consideration or allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Without Stupak there would have been no bill.

     Politics has always been about practicing the art of the possible which is why Washington chews up idealistic young legislators and spits out hardened pols. The miracle is not that we got a flawed--but correctible in the future--health care bill but that we got one at all.

     Lets all breath a half-sigh of relief and go on to commenting, tweeting, blogging, lobbying on behalf of the Senate version. For those who have problems with short term memory, the Pew Research poll showed for the first time 51% of those polled were opposed to abortion in most cases.

     This is not a result of newly generated activism on the part of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, but as a result of research into fetal pain and the development of the fetus. More people are re-thinking their position on abortion as more scientific facts come to light.

     As I have read more on the scientific discoveries about gestation, I have changed my position from believing abortion regrettable but necessary to a position that abortion is counter-indicated in all instances except the life, health or sanity of the mother. No religious persuasion had any part in my change of views as I am an Atheist.

     It is difficult for me to understand logically how those who work to abolish the death penalty can be comfortable with support for abortion. It is equally puzzling how those who are virulently pro-life can continuously vote for legislators who preserve the death penalty.

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 09:12am

127. death penalty= abortion?

     you must be out of your mind. abortion is a privacy issue first and foremost.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:32am

128. Consider an alternate universe:

     ...where the proponents of abortion are people who want to control the reproduction of undesirables, whether those genetically malformed or simply of the wrong ethnic groups. They require that medical schools and teaching hospitals (even those with religious reservations) teach the procedure to all OB/GYN and surgery students. Federal programs pay doctors highly for performing the procedure.

     ...and the anti-abortion protesters are concerned about the laws requiring doctors to inform unmarried or poor patients or those with possible genetic abnormalities about the difficulties of raising children. The doctors must provide informational pamphlets on abortion that say it's not fair to make their children a burden on their neighbors and the taxpayers. These laws seem to be observed especially rigorously in certain neighborhoods.

     Posted by Mistral at 11/11/2009 @ 09:34am

129. 'Consider an alternate universe' -- Mistral

     Why should we consider this alternate universe?

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/11/2009 @ 09:38am

130. EmileduBois:

     Yes, the death penalty and abortion both result in the death of a human being. We have scientific proof that a fetus has both brain activity and the ability to feel pain. That makes him/her human to my way of thinking.

     I also recognize a citizen's right to privacy. Two (or more) consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they wish in their bedrooms, jacuzzis, motels, or the back seats of their cars without interference from the government. Contraception is not rocket science, and condoms are available in just about every public restroom. Our private acts do not need to result in the creation of another human, except in very rare cases when protection fails.

     When we have created another human, however, all bets are off the table. The decision to abort a fetus involves three humans with only one, the woman, usually having the right to invoke "privacy." Where is the equal representation for the fetus (a Guardian ad Litem) and the male? With the right of privacy goes the responsibility for its effects.

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 09:59am

131. I totally reject the argument that a man who wishes to take responsibility should have NO WAY TO PROTECT HIS CHILD FROM BEING KILLED.,

     Either a man shares responsibility or he doesn't. If the principle of child support payments is valid, there should be shared responsibility. If ther man has no rights to his child, then abolish child support.

     John D. Froelich

     Posted by balataf at 11/11/2009 @ 10:14am

132. 'Consider an alternate universe' -- Mistral

     Why should we consider this alternate universe?

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/11/2009 @ 09:38am

     Broadens perspective. Instead of liberationists versus prohibitionists we have social engineers versus social workers.

     Also in this universe the death-penalty/abortion question wouldn't come up.

     Posted by Mistral at 11/11/2009 @ 10:30am

133. this is WAY more just about abortion:

     "None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation"

     but not the gyno visit? that's not covered?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 10:33am

134. Posted by balataf at 11/11/2009 @ 10:14am | ignore this person | warn this person View your ignore list.

     you make no distinction between a fetus and a child. this is an absurd conclusion.

     once a baby is born, the state has an interest, before that it is solely the mother who has sway. the man involved is not a father until the child is born.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 11:16am

135. It does not mean the law is right, it does not mean people's tax money must pay for it, and it does not mean I or others do not have the right to try and stop it and speak our mind.

     This still is a free country.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 6:46pm

     You're absolutely right; it IS a free country and the people on your side of Roe v Wade can continue to fight to change the law. As of right now, it IS the law of the land (whether it lines up with your morals or not) and people like me and Darla will continue to fight you every step of the way as you try to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

     Free country indeed. May the best woman win.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 11:56am

136. Posted by balataf at 11/11/2009 @ 10:14am | ignore this person | warn this person View your ignore list.

     you make no distinction between a fetus and a child. this is an absurd conclusion.

     once a baby is born, the state has an interest, before that it is solely the mother who has sway. the man involved is not a father until the child is born.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 11:16am

     baby killing leftists live in an alternate reality.

     I've never seen expecting parents refer to it as the "fetus". Most fathers like myself, proudly proclaimed "that's my child" we're expecting" to friends and other similar comments.

     It's a shame you think so little of children.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 11:58am

137. Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:13am

     Curious, Larry...who did all the baby taking care of when you were in the service overseas? That's usually when you married couple have children. Did you rotate child care duties with your wife then?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 12:22pm

138. Yes, the death penalty and abortion both result in the death of a human being. We have scientific proof that a fetus has both brain activity and the ability to feel pain. That makes him/her human to my way of thinking.

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 09:59am

     Your "way of thinking" would also place pretty much every animal on the planet (including some insects) in the category of human being.

     Every animal on the planet can feel pain and has brain activity.

     Does it matter to you AT ALL that women have brain activity and can feel pain as well and that they know exactly what they are doing when they make this choice? You people seem to think that women get abortions without any thought whatsoever about what they are doing.

     I would argue that 100% of women who have abortions know exactly what is going on and have deep emotions about it. Many of them may regret it later; but for that moment in their lives when they make that decision, it is the right decision to make for them. Making abortion illegal will NOT stop woen from making that decision; it will simply put the life of the woman in danger by having it done in some back alley; which is evidently exactly what you people want.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 12:34pm

139. Curious, Larry...who did all the baby taking care of when you were in the service overseas? That's usually when you married couple have children. Did you rotate child care duties with your wife then?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 12:22pm

     I didn't have children until after I got out of the military

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:48pm

140. I didn't have children until after I got out of the military

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:48pm

     well, it sounds like you were (and are) a good dad.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:01pm

141. I would argue that 100% of women who have abortions know exactly what is going on and have deep emotions about it.

     yeah right, you know exactly how 100% of women feel. whattabunchofnonsense.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 1:05pm

142. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this is what we call hyperbole.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 1:06pm

143. I didn't have children until after I got out of the military

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:48pm

     well, it sounds like you were (and are) a good dad.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:01pm

     Thank you.

     I understood something deep about parenting from the time we were expecting my firstborn.

     I had my motorcycle accident when my wife was about 4 months pregnant. I was supposed to be on disability for 6 months but returned to work after 6 weeks because disability was not enough to continue my payments to the doctor and the hospital in advance of the delivery. that's when I knew that I would do everything I could to be the best parent possible.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:18pm

144. Stephen_Carver1: I would have expected greater intelligence from posters on this site. Treatment of the human fetus is the only issue at question. Animal rights are a whole 'nother subject.

     I have never denied the agonizing required of a woman who makes a decision to abort, but many of those reasons are based on inconvenience or poverty--a teenage student who wants to go to college in the fall or a single mom who already has two children. Neither inconvenience or poverty is a legitimate reason for terminating a life when adoption is a viable alternative. I also have no problem with terminating a pregnancy which results from rape or incest or when the fetus is not expected to live outside the womb. Rape and incest go to the issue of the mental health of the mother, although I personally know one woman whose deep religious conviction allowed her to bear a child conceived through rape. She put the child up for adoption without ever seeing it, and has never had a moment's regret about any of her actions. She said she considered herself in the same light as a surrogate mother.

     It makes infinitely more sense to fully fund contraception and all other normally recommended gynecological services through the health care legislation as preventive care. Additionally, the government should sponsor a sex-education curriculum which has actually been proven to reduce teen pregnancy. In this day and age, there is no reason for a woman to have an unwanted child.

     Just as a question, does anyone know if the House bill authorizes funding for Viagra, Cialis ect?,

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 1:31pm

145. yeah right, you know exactly how 100% of women feel. whattabunchofnonsense.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 1:05pm

     emile, before you go off half-cocked on me, actually re-read the post. My point is that women know what they are doing when they decide to have an abortion and don't need (or want) anyone telling them what to do with their own bodies. Women aren't stupid is the point of my post.

     Now, if you disagree with my belief that 100% of women aren't stupid when it comes to their own bodies, then you can go off on me.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:38pm

146. Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 1:31pm

     Dude, you're the one who set the standard for humanity as "being able to feel pain" and having "brain functions" not me. My point was that to be human is to be more than to be able to feel pain and have brain functions.

     As I have stated before, I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I believe the choice is the woman's and that she should always have the right to seek a safe and legal termination of her pregnancy if she so chooses. However, I also believe that adoption is always a better option.

     But the CHOICE is the woman's and her family's (if she chooses to consult them); it is not for the law or other people to get involved with a woman's right to decide what to do in the case she finds herself pregnant with a child she doesn't want.

     Better (not less) sex education in schools is required and will help lessen the rate of teen pregnancies.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:44pm

147. first larry describes the fetus as:

     "baby killing leftists live in an alternate reality"

     then he describes the fetus as:

     "It's a shame you think so little of children"

     which is it, larry? are fetuses "babies" or "children"?

     and if you support birth control, which you claim you do, then is not that also abortion?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 1:54pm

148. first larry describes the fetus as:

     "baby killing leftists live in an alternate reality"

     then he describes the fetus as:

     "It's a shame you think so little of children"

     which is it, larry? are fetuses "babies" or "children"?

     and if you support birth control, which you claim you do, then is not that also abortion?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 1:54pm

     I didn't call them a fetus. I said that the left does. I always refer to them as babies, infants, or children.

     Birth control is not abortion, it is the prevention of conception.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 2:07pm

149. Stephen, it was a stupid remark. I have no problem with the rest of your post.

     when I was young, I and, to be frank, the women I consorted with, were somewhat blase about abortions, which were an inconvenience and little more. I imagine this is still true for some women.

     the adoption thing is beside the point. the state cannot force a woman to complete the pregnancy. it's just not anyone's business but her own.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 2:57pm

150. project much elcobar? Sure you weren't barry25 in another life?

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/11/2009 @ 3:16pm

151. It makes me sick when people scream about their tax dollars being used for abortions so another energy hungry mouth can be brought into the world to increase pollution and global warming along with the poverty in 3rd world countries. They can scream about babies here in the US but don't give a damn about those in poor countries where babies and children starve to death every day. If these Right Wing "save the babies" nuts have their way with the economy and healthcare, how long will it be before these "babies" they are saving end up starving and dying of disease like the 3rd world babies they care so little about. Besides they, the Right Wing nuts, already have a pretty good way to stop abortions, it's called MURDER the doctors that provide reproductive services to women. I see it works pretty good in Kansas. You know it works pretty good in California except they kill kids in Jewish Daycares before they can even decide if they want to be doctors.

     Posted by sickoftheright at 11/11/2009 @ 3:26pm

152. another energy hungry mouth can be brought into the world to increase pollution and global warming

     Posted by sickoftheright at 11/11/2009 @ 3:26pm

     Wherever you stand on the issue, isn't this Jonathan Swift sort of argument irrelevant? (If the carbon footprint of an abortion was very large, would you oppose it?)

     Posted by Mistral at 11/11/2009 @ 4:20pm

153. Stephen_Carver1

     You say:

     ".........But the CHOICE is the woman's and her family's (if she chooses to consult them); it is not for the law or other people to get involved with a woman's right to decide what to do in the case she finds herself pregnant with a child she doesn't want........"

     Apparently "other people" not getting involved includes the "child she doesn't want", i.e., the Baby.

     It appears the Baby has no say in this. Who speaks for the Baby?

     Oh, that's right.....it is the Woman's choice alone (according to you)........apparently the Baby has no say.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 5:27pm

154. Oh, that's right.....it is the Woman's choice alone (according to you)........apparently the Baby has no say.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 5:27pm

     First, you have absolutely no common sense at all. Second, stop misquoting me. It is the woman's choice alone and if she so chooses to bring others into the discussion, that is also her choice because the fetus resides in HER body, not yours.

     In my family (and in most American families), I didn't have a say in anything I did (I could make requests, but had no decision-making capabilities), until my parents told me I could. That process usually begins around puberty, but some families start it earlier and some later, but they certainly don't allow a baby to decide anything until it has the mental, physical and emotional capabilities of doing so. You would call that "good parenting" and be right to do so.

     Of course the fetus has no say (or call it a baby, whatever). A child cannot even talk until about a year after they are born. A child cannot feed itself, bathe itself, clothe itself...who do you think does all that stuff? Yeah, the child's mother and the family, which is why she (and they if she so chooses) are the ONLY people who get to even have a voice in the discussion.

     You just want to butt your religion into other people's lives; people you don't even know, and as soon as the child is born, don't care about, because they are poor, or immigrant, or some other minority.

     I thank god that our law does not allow you and nutcases like you to do that.

     Would you like it if the government told you that you could no longer masturbate because of all the potential human lives you are destroying? (And don't tell me you've never done it...over 100 MILLION lives you have personally KILLED the first time alone!)

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 6:02pm

155. I agree with the poster who said that those who do not believe the father has any say in the future of the fetus until it is born must also agree that the father should not be responsible for child support once the baby is here. After all, whether or not a baby is ever born is solely the "private right" of the mother.

     Great! That will take millions of child support paying dads off the hook. If it is my "private right" to carry a baby to term or not (I am a Dudette, not a Dude), it is my "private right" to support that child to adulthood if I choose not to abort. With or without a father present. After all, men shouldn't be "forced" to participate in the rearing of a child they didn't want if a women can't be "forced" to bear an inconvenient offspring.

     Once we remove the rights/privileges/responsibilities of fatherhood from men, we pretty much guarantee a breakdown of society.

     Show of hands now--how many of you actually have children? The minute my husband and I found out we were pregnant--yes "we"--I didn't get there by myself--he considered the little blob our baby with a name, potential personality and all kinds of plans for the future. This kind of prenatal love occurs whether or not the parents ever enter a church. It is called a genetic imperative and will trump "privacy rights" every day of the week.

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 6:32pm

156. Of course the fetus has no say (or call it a baby, whatever). A child cannot even talk until about a year after they are born. A child cannot feed itself, bathe itself, clothe itself...who do you think does all that stuff? Yeah, the child's mother and the family, which is why she (and they if she so chooses) are the ONLY people who get to even have a voice in the discussion.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 6:02pm

     Not saying there aren't arguments on both sides, but your comment works against your argument. You're not allowed to kill a baby, even though it's helpless to feed itself, so why should you be able to kill similarly helpless viable fetus?

     Posted by Mistral at 11/11/2009 @ 6:47pm

157. Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 6:32pm

     Sorry I called you a dude.

     I am glad that when you and your husband got pregnant, that you shared everything with him. It sounds like you have a great family life.

     But what about girls and women who don't have such a great family life? Girls who get raped by their father? Girls who get pregnant accidentally because they didn't know enough about sex to know that they even COULD get pregnant? Or the boys, for that matter, who don't know enough that what feels good when you're 15 can get a girl pregnant?

     What about the single working women who think they've taken every precaution (birth control, condoms, etc.) and still find themselves pregnant?

     What about the married women who find themselves pregnant because their husband lied about getting a vasectomy?

     None of these scenarios are unheard of. I am sure there are more.

     Ultimately, because a woman is the only person who knows at the VERY beginning if she even IS pregnant, she has to make a decision to tell anyone. That decision is a choice. She could choose not to tell anyone. If she chooses to tell the father, great...then they can both be involved in the process of decision-making.

     However, because the unborn resides inside her body until the moment of birth, that life is solely her responsibility (as far as prenatal care, etc.), which means that the ultimate well being of the unborn baby (including its life or death) are the responsibility of the mother and no one else.

     NO ONE has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body, just like no has the right to tell a man what he can or cannot do with his body.

     If women do not have this MOST BASIC right of self-determination, then we have no rights at all.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 6:52pm

158. Stephen_Carver1,

     You like to get on your high horse, don't you?

     You start off with instruction as to how children are not usually involved family "decision-making".

     But we are talking something different here than whether a child should have dessert if they haven't eaten their vegetables first.

     Your analogy does not match the situation.

     But then you launch into the standard leftist tirade.

     You say:

     "......and as soon as the child is born, don't care about, because they are poor, or immigrant, or some other minority...."

     I guess I don't care about the born children because I am conservative........and only if one believes in socialism are they deemed to "care".

     Any you of course throw the race card besides, second nature for those on the left to do so.

     But what you do not understand is this......a child born in less then optimistic circumstances would fare much better in a Conservative America than a Liberal America.........

     Because Conservatism sees all people as equal and promotes self-responsibility and achievement and encourages people to strive for success and is color-blind.....

     Whereas liberalism promotes policy that keeps people as helpless wards of a "kind, caring compassionate state" managed by racist liberals who look down upon those of color with condescension and fake compassion.....viewing them as helpless victims who need benevolence from rich white liberals in order to survive..........this is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

     If you don't like my comments you need to remember you brought them on with your tirade......I told you before that I had the right to speak out against abortion and you don't like it but that doesn't change the fact that I have the right to do so.

     You can't defend the abortion...so you throw fits of anger instead.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 6:54pm

159. Not saying there aren't arguments on both sides, but your comment works against your argument. You're not allowed to kill a baby, even though it's helpless to feed itself, so why should you be able to kill similarly helpless viable fetus?

     Posted by Mistral at 11/11/2009 @ 6:47pm

     I can see why you might think that. However, because I believe you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE as to when a fetus becomes a human being, I posit that every fetus is a POTENTIAL human life until the moment of birth. At birth (whether at 9 months or 3 weeks), it becomes a human life and is therefore protected under the law against murder, etc.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 6:57pm

160. You can't defend the abortion...so you throw fits of anger instead.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 6:54pm

     I'm not angry at all. I think you are simply just a religious nutcase buffoon trying to force your views on abortion onto people who don't agree with you.

     And believe me, my high horse is actually quite small.

     I enjoy your rantings because you say that a conservative country is better for children that a liberal country and yet have nothing to prove that assertion except how you feel about politics.

     Did the number of poor people in America get larger or smaller under George W Bush? I'll give you a hint: larger. How is that good for children?

     You guys had the entire Congress and the White House for almost eight years, yet chose to do nothing about abortion. Minimum wages never go up under Republican administrations; how is that good for children?

     I could go on and on discussing ways in which neo-conservatism is actually BAD for American families, but you wouldn't get it anyway.

     As long as abortion is available to women in America, men like you won't be happy because it's about power to you; not what's good for women. While I don't know you, I would imagine you have some misogynistic tendencies, based simply on what you've posted here. You don't want women to be equal to men; you don't want women to have control over their own bodies, etc. It's a pretty typical conservative viewpoint; women should carry children and raise families, that's all.

     Well, hopefully, we'll continue to vote more Democratic women into Congress...and then just WATCH how quickly women's rights come to fore of our national conversation.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 7:09pm

161. However, because I believe you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE as to when a fetus becomes a human being, I posit that every fetus is a POTENTIAL human life until the moment of birth. At birth (whether at 9 months or 3 weeks), it becomes a human life and is therefore protected under the law against murder, etc.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 6:57pm

     Yes, but WHY do you posit this? A utilitarian position that if you don't there'll be more back-alley abortions? A libertarian position that I (the fetus) have no right to take sustenance from you (the mother) even if without it I can't survive? A limited government position that the government doesn't have the power to forbid certain things, like marijuana use or dogfighting? A privacy position, that a woman can do what she likes with her body even though a nine month gestation fetus would be killed because of this?

     Posted by Mistral at 11/11/2009 @ 7:22pm

162. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 6:52pm

     Why must the baby be murdered because of these incidents of conception?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 8:03pm

163. Stephen_Carver1,

     From racism and class warfare, now you throw sexism cards.

     You tried to engage in another standard leftism....this time that those opposed to abortion are trying to oppress women.

     You on the left try to ignore the fact that there are plenty of pro-life women around. This is one of the reasons leftists can't stand next-President Sarah Palin. She does not fit the leftist "pro-choice" stereotype you on the left expect women to adhere to.

     What does the minimum wage have to do with this? Are you aware that although yes, there are a few trying to raise families on minimum wage, most people on minimum wage are kids just starting out with jobs like at McDonalds and similar places.

     It is a leftist theory that raising the minimum wage is necessary to help the poor. The opposite has been shown to be the case......unemployment among Black teenagers got worse when the minimum wage was raised..........small businesses could not afford to hire more people so raising the minimum wage actually hurt people rather than helped them.

     You say I am trying to force my views on abortion on those who don't agree with me.........aren't you trying to do the same thing?

     The answer is yes, you are......and if you and those on the same side of the political fence as you had your way, people would be forced to pay taxes to finance it as well, even if they opposed it.

     The legality of abortion is a matter of public policy, and all citizens have a right to weigh in on the subject, you don't have exclusive right to set the laws of this country.

     The Baby in the mother's womb is not just a lump of inert tissue like in the hand or foot, it is something that exhibits life-like behavior independent of it's mother......

     But you say I am a "religious nutcase" for considering that!

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 8:16pm

164. here's a little tidbit for the morons who claim that in Roe vs Wade the Supremes legislated from the bench:

     As Justice Harry Blackmun stated in the opinion of the Court in Roe vs Wade, in 1973:

     "It is perhaps not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage....It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most states today."

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 8:32pm

165. It is called a genetic imperative and will trump "privacy rights" every day of the week. Posted by Lrobb at 11/11/2009 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     it's called bullshit and it trumps nothing.

     I am a proud father of a strapping 19 year old young man.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 8:35pm

166. genetic imperative is NOT a legal construct. privacy rights is.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 9:42pm

167. laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 8:32pm

     Possibly because the surgical techniques that enable an abortion are of relatively recent vintage?

     Posted by Mistral at 11/12/2009 @ 08:50am

168. The inherent and unsolveable problem for the Right is this: their Any Randie wing sings a WHOLE DIFFERENT tune about abortion than the religionist wing.

     To the Randies, it's all that "power to the individual" stuff, and you are no individual until you make it out of that womb under your own steam.

     Good luck reconciling that to fill your "big tent".

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/12/2009 @ 3:21pm

169. Any Randie? Oh well.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/12/2009 @ 3:21pm

170. "Again, how telling it is that this new Democrat plan completely fails to address the issue of tort reform"

     According to a 2004 analysis by the CBO, medical malpractice claims only account for 2% of health care spending payments. Tort Reform, while often touted by the Right as a panacea for HC reform, would prove to be of of little consequence.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/15/2009 @ 02:59am