President Obama suggested Monday that he was not comfortable with abortion restrictions inserted into the House version of major health care legislation, and he prodded Congress to revise them.
“There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo” on abortion, Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News. “And that’s the goal.”
On the one hand, Mr. Obama said, “we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”
On the other hand, he said, he wanted to make sure “we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,” because he had promised that “if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it’s not going to change.”
Hmmm. That’s funny, as that was not his tune before he had the bill passed in the House.
There is not a snowball’s chance in the really hot stinky bad place of that happening. Forget the 60 votes they need to overcome the GOP filibuster of any reform bill. I doubt the Dems could come up with 51 senate votes for any bill that allows federal money directly or by use of accounting gimmicks to fund abortion.
Don’t under estimate this man. Look at what he’s been able to accomplish thus far! I would not have given a “hoot in hell’s chance” for a Government takeover of the car and banking industry either….but they did it. He’s on a mission to change the fundamentals of America, and he’s got 3+ years to do it.
What happened to the stated policy aim of reducing the need for abortions?
Oh yeah….I forgot to mention his authorizing sanctuary and free housing for Hamas terrorists, citizen’s rights for terrorists as to trials and defense attorneys, and the Executive Branch’s takeover of the Federal Banking system.
[blockquote]I would not have given a “hoot in hell’s chance†for a Government takeover of the car and banking industry either….but they did it.[/blockquote] Technically the bank & auto bailouts were well under way before Obama took office, you have to credit George Bush with that accomplishment.
Sorry Scottie, W wasn’t any good with his budgeting, but you cannot blame this stuff on him. This is the blessed one’s deal all the way.
One term president.
The Dems are going to suffer at the mid-terms.
Th O-man will say and do anything to get what he wants which is to change the greatest country in the world. He campaigned on those terms. He has voted the most liberal record on abortion in the history of anyone in very short career before campaigning for President and getting elected. To imagine Obama as anything other than a raging liberal on abortion is to deny the reality that is demonstrably his voting record.
The O-man is pro-abortion all the way.
If you would like to see what is happening in regards to abortion, see
http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php?scope=U.S. specific
You can find who consumes abortions the most.
[i] Slightly edited. [/i]
Let’s review. This bill, if passed, will remove choice from every American. We will be required to buy an insurance policy blessed by the federal government; if we don’t, we’ll pay a fine or go to jail. On the other hand, the “abortion rights” lobby is insisting that every American female under 50 must be able to choose to have her baby killed. Because my tax and premium dollars will support the insurance exchange, I will be forced to help pay for women to choose to kill their babies. Why is one kind of choice sacred but another cancelable at the whim of Congress?
What a surprise!
#10, “Remove choices from Every American”? That’s pretty hyperbolic. Some can choose to get an MRI for a headache, costing others lots of money. Others can only choose to go to an emergency room. The Bill changes the choices, but it won’t eliminate them. It will put pressure on insurance companies, as well as doctors.
I would bet, however, that with mandatory health insurance, there will be fewer abortions. Single working mothers, who might decide they cannot afford the health care costs associated with bearing a child, will be more free to choose to have children.
Many women choose not to have children for economic reasons. Health care is a major expense in those cases. Eliminate that expense, and see what happens.
But the moral purity of the pro-life side doesn’t think like that. It’s all or nothing.
While I think the bill as currently passed is a mistake and will prove enormously costly, I support the Stupak amendment. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, I will comply.
However, if the Stupak amendment is stripped as President Obama favors, I will resist with all my might. I will go to federal prison before I participate in the federal abortion scheme.
The truth is, the Stupak amendment is the only part of this bill which is bipartisan and Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are determined to make everyone accomplices to their American holocaust.
7. francis wrote:
[blockquote]Sorry Scottie, W wasn’t any good with his budgeting, but you cannot blame this stuff on him. This is the blessed one’s deal all the way.[/blockquote]
Let’s see. When the bank “takeover” occurred George W. Bush was President. His appointees Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was Secretary of the Treasury; Ben S. Bernanke was Chairman of the Federal Reserve and C. Christopher Cox was Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission. Those three appointees plead with the Congress to pass a sweeping bailout bill that was far more radical than anything we have seen–essentially giving them over $700 billion with no limits on what they could do with it. How is this Obama’s fault?
Now if you wanted a radical change in the policies set by the previous administration I suppose we could let the banks, General Motors and Chrysler go under so we would have 25% unemployment, totally frozen international credit, even more repossessed homes and personal bankruptcies and a major depression like nothing ever seen before.
Hey, that would be Alan “I Was Wrong” Greenspan and Christopher “Self Regulation Didn’t Work” with their Ayn Rand inspired view of economics writ large. The Warning. See also Inside the Meltdown.
John Wilkins, you certainly have a rosy view of things! Patients do not fail to contracept because they cannot afford contraceptives given freely. They fail to contracept, period. I make that observation on the basis of 27 years of experience, the bulk of which has been spent providing care to Medicaid patients.
If you care to look at the Guttmacher Institute referenced page, I think you will find who aborts the most very enlightening.
JW, choice: You and I currently have the choice to buy or not to buy insurance. If we purchase, we have the choice to choose a generous policy or a stripped-down major-medical-only policy with high deductibles. We will lose that choice. Already in Massachusetts, with something similar to the proposed system, people are being fined big dollars for carrying low-cost high-deductible policies.
Septie, There’s no change from Bush to Obama. Obama was involved in these choices from the beginning. There is NO change. These monies have only bailed the unions. Unemployment will drive higher than it is today. I see no benefit from TARP. I feel no benefit from TARP.
12. [blockquote]Many women choose not to have children for economic reasons. Health care is a major expense in those cases. Eliminate that expense, and see what happens.[/blockquote]
You’ve got to be joking. Who could possibly think that this or any plan with “Eliminate that expense?” Obamacare will not in any way make medical expenses go away. Having this woman forced to pay for health insurance, say from the age of 18 to 24 at up to 15K per year when she might otherwise choose not to means that she may not be able to save as much before choosing to have a baby.
Any way you look at this thing, it’s going to cost more, not less…or we’ll go to jail.
Katherine #10 is exactly right. As I wrote at SF, in Barry World, you’ll end up waiting for minor procedures for months in agony while your daughter will be able to get in for an abortion within an hour, and with you legally barred from knowledge of or consent to it, to boot.
17. francis wrote:
[blockquote]Septie, There’s no change from Bush to Obama. Obama was involved in these choices from the beginning. There is NO change. These monies have only bailed the unions. Unemployment will drive higher than it is today. I see no benefit from TARP. I feel no benefit from TARP.[/blockquote]
Of course the “choices” were being made as far back as 1981, when Obama was an undergraduate student at Columbia University. I seriously doubt he was involved in those choices.
More recent choices that led to the crisis were being made when Obama was an Illinois legislator and early on when he was the junior Senator from Illinois. I seriously doubt that he was involved in those decisions.
The major decisions were made in Treasury, the Fed and SEC while Obama was on the campaign trail. Paulson, Bernanke and Cox went to the congressional leadership–not to Obama–appealing for the $700 billion unrestricted bailout money to prevent the collapse of both the American and international banking systems created in large measure by decisions made in the Fed, SEC, Treasury and Congress long before Obama was a major player. Obama did not become involved until after the appeal from Paulson, Bernanke and Cox when it was apparent that either he or McCain would be the next president and would be dealing with the fallout for years to come.
But before Obama ever became involved, Paulson, Bernanke and Cox forced the merger of Bear-Stearns and JPMorgan Chase (with huge government funding), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, etc.
Well if Obama wants to claim that he was too busy campaigning to do his job in Congress that’s ok with me.
All presidents have to pick up where their predecessors left off, the only exception was George Hanson our first president (November 5, 1781 – November 3, 1782) under the Confederation. But if Obama can continue to blame Bush in perpetuity for the things that go wrong and take the credit for the things that go right why not.
Whoever that congressman was who called Obama a liar in public, he was right. Obama promised the bishops of the Catholic Church that the health care bill would not fund abortion. All that verbiage in the bill supporting abortion was the doing of the House Democrats. Now that the bishops fought to get that removed, Obama wants to see it back in. He’s a liar and an advocate for infanticide.
Wow! And Bush let them do that?