Stop anti-abortion bill H.R. 3

In the midterm elections, Republicans hammered President Obama for his handling of the economy and spoke unceasingly about the dire need for jobs. Full Story
Peralta de Peralta

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1 Feb 10, 2011
Go H.R. 3!

"Financing an abortion could become more difficult if a bill prohibiting Pennsylvanian women from paying an abortion provider with insurance provided by the federal health care bill is passed in the State Senate." So what? 95% of abortions are for convenience. Why in the world should I pay hundreds of dollars for the convenience of some idiot that's too irresponsible to make sure that she took her pill [paid for by taxpayers] or to irresponsible to make sure a condon was used, or both [if that's what it takes].

February 10, 2011 - Yesterday, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) called the measures "draconian" and "despicable," and warned that they would allow hospitals to deny life-saving abortions to dying women."

What a liar. As if killing babies isn't "draconian" and "despicable". As if any of these bills deny the right of abortions to save the mother's life, or in cases of rape or incest.

"It's getting in the way of how we need to move our country forward with job creation" said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)

Is she actually admitting that abortions are big business and really are a form of birth control instead of actually being to save the mother's life or for rape & incest cases? How honest of her.

"Republicans say their intention is not to block access to abortions, but to make sure that taxpayers aren't forced to fund them." Right on. You want to kill your baby because you slept around, got preggers and are to lazy and irresponsible to put on your Big Girl panties and deal, then don't expect my to have to pay for it. You want to kill your baby for convenience, then you pay for it. I don't want to have any part of it.

Or maybe liberals are worried that if Republicans do manage to keep taxpayer's from paying for irresponsible people (who can't seem to remember to wear a condom or take a pill who then decide to use abortion as a convenient way to be selfish), that abortion providers are going to go receive unemployment bennies? Isn't that what liberals like? Or maybe progressives are worried that all of those babies who's lives might be saved are going to grow up to compete with them or their kids for jobs?

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#2 Feb 10, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
Go H.R. 3!
"Financing an abortion could become more difficult if a bill prohibiting Pennsylvanian women from paying an abortion provider with insurance provided by the federal health care bill is passed in the State Senate." So what? 95% of abortions are for convenience. Why in the world should I pay hundreds of dollars for the convenience of some idiot that's too irresponsible to make sure that she took her pill [paid for by taxpayers] or to irresponsible to make sure a condon was used, or both [if that's what it takes].
February 10, 2011 - Yesterday, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) called the measures "draconian" and "despicable," and warned that they would allow hospitals to deny life-saving abortions to dying women."
What a liar. As if killing babies isn't "draconian" and "despicable". As if any of these bills deny the right of abortions to save the mother's life, or in cases of rape or incest.
"It's getting in the way of how we need to move our country forward with job creation" said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
Is she actually admitting that abortions are big business and really are a form of birth control instead of actually being to save the mother's life or for rape & incest cases? How honest of her.
"Republicans say their intention is not to block access to abortions, but to make sure that taxpayers aren't forced to fund them." Right on. You want to kill your baby because you slept around, got preggers and are to lazy and irresponsible to put on your Big Girl panties and deal, then don't expect my to have to pay for it. You want to kill your baby for convenience, then you pay for it. I don't want to have any part of it.
Or maybe liberals are worried that if Republicans do manage to keep taxpayer's from paying for irresponsible people (who can't seem to remember to wear a condom or take a pill who then decide to use abortion as a convenient way to be selfish), that abortion providers are going to go receive unemployment bennies? Isn't that what liberals like? Or maybe progressives are worried that all of those babies who's lives might be saved are going to grow up to compete with them or their kids for jobs?
Have you actually read the bill or are you simply reading PL talking points? Are you aware that it affects PRIVATE non-governmental insurance policies as well? Are you aware that the Hyde Amendment already precludes federal monies being spent on abortion services? Are you a "small government" Republican who wants "big government" to intervene in all aspects of private life? Do you make the same arguments for those "irresponsible people" who eat too much? Are we not going to cover their weight related problems such as diabestes, hypertension, etc.? How about folks involved in auto accidents? If they were driving recklessly or a mile over the speed limit should they be precluded from receiving healthcare insurance benefits?
Cleo

Negaunee, MI

#3 Feb 10, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
Go H.R. 3!
"Financing an abortion could become more difficult if a bill prohibiting Pennsylvanian women from paying an abortion provider with insurance provided by the federal health care bill is passed in the State Senate." So what? 95% of abortions are for convenience. Why in the world should I pay hundreds of dollars for the convenience of some idiot that's too irresponsible to make sure that she took her pill [paid for by taxpayers] or to irresponsible to make sure a condon was used, or both [if that's what it takes].
February 10, 2011 - Yesterday, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) called the measures "draconian" and "despicable," and warned that they would allow hospitals to deny life-saving abortions to dying women."
What a liar. As if killing babies isn't "draconian" and "despicable". As if any of these bills deny the right of abortions to save the mother's life, or in cases of rape or incest.
"It's getting in the way of how we need to move our country forward with job creation" said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
Is she actually admitting that abortions are big business and really are a form of birth control instead of actually being to save the mother's life or for rape & incest cases? How honest of her.
"Republicans say their intention is not to block access to abortions, but to make sure that taxpayers aren't forced to fund them." Right on. You want to kill your baby because you slept around, got preggers and are to lazy and irresponsible to put on your Big Girl panties and deal, then don't expect my to have to pay for it. You want to kill your baby for convenience, then you pay for it. I don't want to have any part of it.
Or maybe liberals are worried that if Republicans do manage to keep taxpayer's from paying for irresponsible people (who can't seem to remember to wear a condom or take a pill who then decide to use abortion as a convenient way to be selfish), that abortion providers are going to go receive unemployment bennies? Isn't that what liberals like? Or maybe progressives are worried that all of those babies who's lives might be saved are going to grow up to compete with them or their kids for jobs?
Listen up Sparky..by taking away money from family planning organizations that PREVENT pregnancies, how is that going to reduce the need for more abortions?

My tax dollars pay for many things, including tax breaks for those of you who have children. No more tax breaks for reproduction. This means you too Sparky.
Peralta de Peralta

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#4 Feb 10, 2011
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>Have you actually read the bill or are you simply reading PL talking points? Are you aware that it affects PRIVATE non-governmental insurance policies as well? Are you aware that the Hyde Amendment already precludes federal monies being spent on abortion services? Are you a "small government" Republican who wants "big government" to intervene in all aspects of private life? Do you make the same arguments for those "irresponsible people" who eat too much? Are we not going to cover their weight related problems such as diabestes, hypertension, etc.? How about folks involved in auto accidents? If they were driving recklessly or a mile over the speed limit should they be precluded from receiving healthcare insurance benefits?
I've read all 3 bills, so 'Yes' I do know that it would preclude so-called 'private' insurance. Under Obamacare,'private' insurance is a fallacy.

If you want to kill your unborn baby for your personal convenience, pay for it yourself. If you speed, don't wear your seat belt or helmet, drive drunk and are reponsible for your injuries, why should my taxes go to pay for your care? I'm into personal responsibility and accountability. If you know you're a diabetic and refuse to eat sensibly, why should I continue to pay for your healthcare?

I use my personal income to help the charities that I choose to help, like St. Jude's Children Hospital, the Shriners, homeless shelters, etc.
Peralta de Peralta

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#5 Feb 10, 2011
Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen up Sparky..by taking away money from family planning organizations that PREVENT pregnancies, how is that going to reduce the need for more abortions?
My tax dollars pay for many things, including tax breaks for those of you who have children. No more tax breaks for reproduction. This means you too Sparky.
I've go no problem with 'family planning'. Planning indicates forethought and consideration of the consequences of actions. Abortions after-the-fact for irresponsible people is not the same thing.

I've no problems with taking away tax breaks for children & dependents. But then the progressives will holler about that because then all of those on welfare who are irresponsibly popping out babies won't get money back on taxes they didn't pay. So go for it.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Grapevine, TX

#6 Feb 10, 2011
Republicans promised to drive a wooden stake through the heart of ObamaCare and this is part of that goal.

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#7 Feb 10, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read all 3 bills, so 'Yes' I do know that it would preclude so-called 'private' insurance. Under Obamacare,'private' insurance is a fallacy.
If you want to kill your unborn baby for your personal convenience, pay for it yourself. If you speed, don't wear your seat belt or helmet, drive drunk and are reponsible for your injuries, why should my taxes go to pay for your care? I'm into personal responsibility and accountability. If you know you're a diabetic and refuse to eat sensibly, why should I continue to pay for your healthcare?
I use my personal income to help the charities that I choose to help, like St. Jude's Children Hospital, the Shriners, homeless shelters, etc.
We're not talking about charities. Are you saying that people should be denied access to health care insurance (which they pay for themselves) if they're in an auto accident, don't eat/exercise properly, etc.? Is that really what you're saying?

I'm all for personal responsibility as well -- and, like you, I use my person income to help the charties I choose. I also use it to pay for my healthcare insurance which, unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, you believe should be limited not by what I'm willing to pay for, but by what you feel is acceptable?

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Grapevine, TX

#8 Feb 10, 2011
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>We're not talking about charities. Are you saying that people should be denied access to health care insurance (which they pay for themselves) if they're in an auto accident, don't eat/exercise properly, etc.? Is that really what you're saying?
I'm all for personal responsibility as well -- and, like you, I use my person income to help the charties I choose. I also use it to pay for my healthcare insurance which, unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, you believe should be limited not by what I'm willing to pay for, but by what you feel is acceptable?
I think most conservatives do not object to private insurance plans paying for abortions.

But most Americans draw the line at imperial decrees that mandate abortion coverage for all private insurance plans.

Then there are the 30 million new entitlees who are getting ObamaCare for free at our expense.

If we fail to kill ObamaCare entirely then at the very least the majority will decide what the downtrodden will be given and what they won't.
Cleo

Negaunee, MI

#9 Feb 10, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
<quoted text>
I've go no problem with 'family planning'. Planning indicates forethought and consideration of the consequences of actions. Abortions after-the-fact for irresponsible people is not the same thing.
I've no problems with taking away tax breaks for children & dependents. But then the progressives will holler about that because then all of those on welfare who are irresponsibly popping out babies won't get money back on taxes they didn't pay. So go for it.
YOu can't have an abortion until you get pregnant. This bill not only restricts PRIVATE INSURANCE from offering the coverage, it also takes away vital family planning dollars from places like Planned Parenthood. Neither of these are acceptable.

No, the progressives won't hollar about that...we're sick and tired of paying for those who think having an unlimited number of children are going to get them into heaven.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Grapevine, TX

#10 Feb 10, 2011
Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu can't have an abortion until you get pregnant. This bill not only restricts PRIVATE INSURANCE from offering the coverage, it also takes away vital family planning dollars from places like Planned Parenthood. Neither of these are acceptable.
No, the progressives won't hollar about that...we're sick and tired of paying for those who think having an unlimited number of children are going to get them into heaven.
Planned Parenthood is a private corporation.

It shouldn't be getting taxpayer money anyway.
Cleo

Negaunee, MI

#11 Feb 10, 2011
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Planned Parenthood is a private corporation.
It shouldn't be getting taxpayer money anyway.
Its a Non-Profit Corporation that provides health care primarily to women, as such it deserves to get monies just like hospitals do.

Actually I agree with you. Private Corporations shouldn't be getting any taxpayer money, and that includes brownstone develeopment and tax incentives for corporations to relocate from state to state.
barbara

Hawley, MN

#12 Feb 10, 2011
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Planned Parenthood is a private corporation.
It shouldn't be getting taxpayer money anyway.
i have a great idea -- why not abort tea partiers ?

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Grapevine, TX

#13 Feb 11, 2011
Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a Non-Profit Corporation that provides health care primarily to women, as such it deserves to get monies just like hospitals do.
Actually I agree with you. Private Corporations shouldn't be getting any taxpayer money, and that includes brownstone develeopment and tax incentives for corporations to relocate from state to state.
Planned Parenthood may be "non-profit" but I assure you they don't work for free.

Taxpayer money goes directly into the pockets of the Planned Parenthood management and staff.

And I agree with you that politicians should not be picking winners and losers in the private marketplace.

No more corporate subsidies for any private industry or no-profit organization.

Let the free marketplace make those decisions.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Grapevine, TX

#14 Feb 11, 2011
barbara wrote:
<quoted text>

i have a great idea -- why not abort tea partiers ?
How ironic that people who think like you are into killing their own and therefore reducing the future lib voting base.

While conservatives continue to populate the country with more conservatives.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christopher Smith Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rep. Smith: Obama Gave $227 Million To Group Im... Oct 13 Foster 3
CDC chief says ebola must be contained in Africa Aug '14 yep 7
Supporters hail freedom for Sudanese Christian ... Jul '14 American_Infidel 6
Antiabortion bill would have the IRS verify rape (Jan '14) Jan '14 Cat74 14
Syrian Christians ask why the U.S. is siding ag... (Jun '13) Jul '13 rtloder 143
Christopher Smith nude (Mar '13) Mar '13 Annetta 1
China Has No Intention Of Changing The Way It D... (Oct '12) Oct '12 attila the Han 20

Christopher Smith People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE