Federal Funding Of Abortions Is Against The Law..............Or Not

[3rdnlng]

Abortion is a very touchy subject among the people of our nation and certainly has proven mega divisive. No matter where a person stands on this it has been overwhelmingly agreed by Congress with an amendment passed every year to prohibit federal funding of abortion. Well, due to the expansion of Medicaid and the federal subsidies taxpayers will be funding abortions. The dems are fighting against an amendment that has had bipartisan support for 37 consecutive years and Obama Executive Order 13535. In order to get the ACA through Congress Obama had to promise that there would be no federal funding of abortion. Looks like just another broken promise.

 

Is there any wonder that we conservatives don't trust him/them at all? I guess "Immigration Reform" is next on the agenda. Should we trust that they'll eventually do something about the borders if only the can get whatever amnesty they want this time? Obama has proven that he can't be trusted. What an awful position to be in.

 

 

http://www.conservative-daily.com/2014/02/24/democrats-refuse-to-stop-obamacare-funded-abortions/

 

By now, it is obvious that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion President in United States history. That fact is undeniable.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama supported the practice of partial-birth abortion, where a baby is murdered after being born alive. He also voted three times against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that would force doctors to care for infants born during botched abortion procedures.

Obama’s support for abortion is so extreme and barbaric that it is astonishing he was elected President twice. Now, Democrats are rallying around their President and pushing to make 2014 a year to “recommit” to the principles of Roe v. Wade. Under the premise of “protecting women,” Barack Obama and the Democrats plan to expand access to abortion nation-wide! They must be stopped!

In 2009, Barack Obama promised that the Affordable Care Act would not provide any federal subsidies to fund abortions. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment – named after former Congressman Henry Hyde – has been passed by Congress and signed by the President every single year. While the wording often changes, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federally funded abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.

This has been the law for almost 40 years and whenever it comes up for a vote, it receives overwhelming bipartisan support.

Recently, pro-life Congressmen have sought to make this provision permanent instead of having it voted on every year. The reasoning? Barack Obama lied when he promised that the Federal Government would not fund abortions through Obamacare.

Obama signed Executive Order 13535 in 2010 in an attempt to placate pro-life concerns that the Affordable Care Act would fund abortions. The Democrats refused to include this language in the bill. Why? Because the law is (theoretically) binding and executive orders are just words on a piece of paper.

The Lozier Institute – the research arm of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List – has come out and announced that as a result of Obamacare’s federal premium tax credits and Medicaid expansion, American taxpayers will subsidize 71,000-111,500 abortions every year!

In the wake of these findings, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This bill combines the Hyde Amendment and Obama’s Executive Order 13535 into one piece of legislation. Instead of waiting for the amendment to be voted on every year or hoping that the President honors his agreement, the House has codified these provisions into one law.

Now, however, the Democrats are coming out against the bill, claiming that it is redundant and not necessary. Why? Because they don’t want this codified in law! They want to be able to fund abortions. So, naturally, the Democrats will resist any attempt to stop taxpayer funded abortions!

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

The only social issue that is important to me is abortion. I am a dad so I have that perspective. Seeing a baby's heart rate in an ultrasound..feeling a baby kick and move in a womb....Seeing a baby being born... its a totally different perspective. To think of a helpless tiny human being being killed so barbaricly. I can never agree with it.

 

I am ALL for government provided sterilization to people who do not want children as a means of birth control or reduce abortions. There are great alternatives like adoption. That is a respectable choice.

 

The way you judge a society is how they care for their most helpless members.

[IDBillzFan]

The only social issue that is important to me is abortion. I am a dad so I have that perspective. Seeing a baby's heart rate in an ultrasound..feeling a baby kick and move in a womb....Seeing a baby being born... its a totally different perspective. To think of a helpless tiny human being being killed so barbaricly. I can never agree with it.

 

I am ALL for government provided sterilization to people who do not want children as a means of birth control or reduce abortions. There are great alternatives like adoption. That is a respectable choice.

 

The way you judge a society is how they care for their most helpless members.

 

Did you see the report last week that in NYC, black women had more abortions than actual births? Quick search story here. Over 31,000 abortions to 25,000 births. Absolutely mind-numbing.

[BuffaloBill]

So people that want little government involvement in people's lives and finances hold the position that they should judge on the issue of abortion. So what if I say it is wrong why should I get to impose my beliefs on you? What if I were a staunch Muslim and I believed that I should get to say what religion you practice? Is this not the situation in most Islamic countries?

 

The bottom line is the consequences of our moral choices should be evaluated by a power higher than ourselves. Individuals can choose to believe there are consequences to their choices or not.

 

Come forward with the holier than thou arguments now.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

This thread is using abortion funding as an example of the left's duplicity. I specifically used abortion because of its ability to arouse passions, thus discussion. Obama made a promise, now he and his minions are finding a backdoor way of abandoning that promise. We can debate abortion till the end of time and there will still be a 50/50 split. I personally am against abortion but don't presume to make that call for other people. BuffaloBill is right that a higher power should judge, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about a president that can't be trusted, and doesn't even give a schit about it.

[BuffaloBill]

This thread is using abortion funding as an example of the left's duplicity. I specifically used abortion because of its ability to arouse passions, thus discussion. Obama made a promise, now he and his minions are finding a backdoor way of abandoning that promise. We can debate abortion till the end of time and there will still be a 50/50 split. I personally am against abortion but don't presume to make that call for other people. BuffaloBill is right that a higher power should judge, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about a president that can't be trusted, and doesn't even give a schit about it.

 

 

Time to call bull carp on your tactics. You claim to be fiscally conservative but not so on the abortion front. So be it as in our system you are entitled to your views. My stance Is that it is disgustingly dubious to mix a narrow fiscal agenda with an even narrower social agenda. Decide your priority and act accordingly.

[3rdnlng]

Time to call bull carp on your tactics. You claim to be fiscally conservative but not so on the abortion front. So be it as in our system you are entitled to your views. My stance Is that it is disgustingly dubious to mix a narrow fiscal agenda with an even narrower social agenda. Decide your priority and act accordingly.

 

How am I not a fiscally conservative person because I call out a president for lying? I clearly stated that this thread was started to point out Obama's lies and the abortion issue was used to do that. Just because I'm fiscally conservative doesn't mean I have to go to the next fire and brimstone southern baptist tent event and rail against dancing in public.

 

You know, we probably agree on 98% of things but there is certainly something being lost in translation here.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

So people that want little government involvement in people's lives and finances hold the position that they should judge on the issue of abortion. So what if I say it is wrong why should I get to impose my beliefs on you? What if I were a staunch Muslim and I believed that I should get to say what religion you practice? Is this not the situation in most Islamic countries?

 

The bottom line is the consequences of our moral choices should be evaluated by a power higher than ourselves. Individuals can choose to believe there are consequences to their choices or not.

 

Come forward with the holier than thou arguments now.

 

Yes. Its not government telling others what to do....its the government stepping in to protect unborn children who can not speak up for themselves. Are those unborn children not entitled to freedom and a chance at life?

 

I do not want my tax money spent by the government to fund the killing of our most vulnerable members of society. Where is your compassion. I am consistent in my freedom loving viewpoints. And part if that is speaking up for the babies to be able to live and enjoy the freedom. I dont give a **** what the mom does with her life its not my business. If she does not want the child put it up for adoption.

[Gary M]

Obama lied - babies died!!!

[IDBillzFan]

If she does not want the child put it up for adoption.

The problem is that she doesn't put the child up for adoption because in many cases, that extra mouth to feed is the little check mark they need to get more government handouts to feed the children she shouldn't be having in the first place. We need to eliminate the Have Another Baby Incentive Program we give to poor, single moms first. And that's only one in about two dozen things that need to happen.

[DC Tom]

Yes. Its not government telling others what to do....its the government stepping in to protect unborn children embryos who can not speak up for themselves. Are those unborn children embryos not entitled to freedom and a chance at life?

 

I do not want my tax money spent by the government to fund the killing of our most vulnerable members of society. Where is your compassion. I am consistent in my freedom loving viewpoints. And part if that is speaking up for the babies embryos to be able to live and enjoy the freedom. I dont give a **** what the mom does with her life its not my business. If she does not want the child put it up for adoption.

 

Fixed for accuracy.

 

"Unborn child." There's no such thing. A child is a fetus that's been born.

[Jim in Anchorage]

So people that want little government involvement in people's lives and finances hold the position that they should judge on the issue of abortion. So what if I say it is wrong why should I get to impose my beliefs on you? What if I were a staunch Muslim and I believed that I should get to say what religion you practice? Is this not the situation in most Islamic countries?

 

The bottom line is the consequences of our moral choices should be evaluated by a power higher than ourselves. Individuals can choose to believe there are consequences to their choices or not.

 

Come forward with the holier than thou arguments now.

I have thought that for years. How a can a proponent of less government approve of government telling a woman she must carry a fetus to term? It's her body not the US governments. This thread is getting way off track how ever and I agree with the OP that Obama just broke one more of many promises.

[B-Man]

I have thought that for years. How a can a proponent of less government approve of government telling a woman she must carry a fetus to term?

 

It's her body not the US governments. This thread is getting way off track how ever and I agree with the OP that Obama just broke one more of many promises.

 

I agree that the thread is off-track, but there is a very direct answer to Jim's question.

 

If you are one of the millions who believe that the termination of the pregnancy murders the baby (or fetus, or whatever term you want) then of course you want the government to stop it.

 

Its not a matter of limited government.

 

 

If you don't consider it murder, then there is understandably a debate about how and when this medical procedure should take place, and who pays.

 

 

.

Edited February 25, 2014 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

My personal thoughts about abortion aside, the standard for medical procedure vs. murder 1 should be based in science.

 

The best science we have is based on fetal viability.

 

The point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, given the medical science of the day, it should be granted legal personhood. Before that point it should be based on the rights of the mother.

 

As an addendum, as long as the rights of the mother can legally be dismissive of the rights of the father, the father should be absolved of all legal responsibility to care for any child he does not wish to, at the time of viability.

Edited February 25, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

I have thought that for years. How a can a proponent of less government approve of government telling a woman she must carry a fetus to term? It's her body not the US governments. This thread is getting way off track how ever and I agree with the OP that Obama just broke one more of many promises.

 

Exactly what B-Man said. If you believe it's murder, then you believe it falls under the government's responsibility in preventing crime and enforcing the law.

 

The gray area is the question of 'When does life begin?" Idiotically, some believe it begins at conception. Equally idiotically, some believe it begins at birth. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and the real objection to government determination of the legality of abortion is that the determination of where life begins is an entirely ambiguous moral decision based on the beliefs of the individual, and as such it should not be subject to some government determination of what a woman must think about when life begins.

 

Why is that so !@#$ing hard for people to understand? You don't have all the answers. That is why other people have a choice.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I agree that the thread is off-track, but there is a very direct answer to Jim's question.

 

If you are one of the millions who believe that the termination of the pregnancy murders the baby (or fetus, or whatever term you want) then of course you want the government to stop it.

 

Its not a matter of limited government.

 

 

If you don't consider it murder, then there is understandably a debate about how and when this medical procedure should take place, and who pays.

 

 

.

I definitely don't like federal funding. I said the government should not interfere with abortion and the same thing goes' to encouraging it by picking up the check.

[3rdnlng]

How does everyone feel about their tax money funding abortions?

[DC Tom]

How does everyone feel about their tax money funding abortions?

 

Ambivalent. While in principle I don't like it, in practice we're talking about people who I probably wouldn't want to see procreating anyway.

 

And mildly amused, since the Democrats are only cutting into their future base of supporters.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Ambivalent. While in principle I don't like it, in practice we're talking about people who I probably wouldn't want to see procreating anyway.

 

And mildly amused, since the Democrats are only cutting into their future base of supporters.

And to think I can't say "fag" without getting banned. What kind of juice you got here?

Edited February 25, 2014 by Jim in Anchorage

[TakeYouToTasker]

How does everyone feel about their tax money funding abortions?

That's largely going to depend on what they believe the proper purview of the federal government to be.

 

Those who feel it's a just expense, will point out that we all have to pay tax dollars to fund the military, even if we don't agree with war. They will ignore that the primary purpose of government is the defense of it's people, the definition of defense and various Presidential Doctrines surrounding pre-emptive force aside.

 

Those who do not feel it to be a just expense will, equally predictably, state that coverage for invididual medical procedures is outside of the federal government's just purview; or will build an argument butressed by religious liberties.

 

We already know who will fall where.