Thread: There Will Be a Special Place in Hell for the Stupak 12

I know there aren't many pro lifers here but just think about what these guys did. They are "Pro-life" Democrats. THEY believe abortion is murder.

Believing abortion is murder, they traded their vote on this bill for the lives of hundreds of thousands of childrens lives. By THEIR definition, they voted for a holocaust.

Stupak got $750k for some airport repairs in his district and a promise from a "means justify the ends" Alinskyite who is the most pro abortion President in the history of the country.

Obama's executive order, if he signs it in the first place, can be rescinded at any point. In addition, an Executive order does not trump passed legislation. It is probably not even enforceble.

So now this bill will kill hundreds of thousands of kids? Huh? Seriously, lay off the Kool Aid and pull your head out of your ass.

Obama is coming to eat our kids!!! Run, run! And don't forget donate $ to your local evangelical, focus on hate "Church".

What a fucking partisan hack. Nice try.

Ok, what if the number were 10, 100, 1000, 10,000?

Would it matter?

How many pre-natal children will this bill SAVE? Do you know how many viable pregnancies fail due to lack of medical supervision?

How many people have to die in real life to prevent an unverifiable number of supposed public money funded abortions that might possibly happen in the future when the President's Executive Order runs out & isn't renewed?

You do know this bill will save on average 15k actual lives a year over the status quo, right? Do they have less right to life than a mass of fertilized cells?

Special place in hell?

Did the tooth fairy and santa claus tell you about this place?

And in other breaking news, the snow at Targhee saturday softened up nicely, and their 'trash can' drink with an entire can of red bull can defeat the most indefatigable hangover.

DBT you ever, like, ski and shit?

Originally Posted by Tippster

How many pre-natal children will this bill SAVE? Do you know how many viable pregnancies fail due to lack of medical supervision?

How many people have to die in real life to prevent an unverifiable number of supposed public money funded abortions that might possibly happen in the future when the President's Executive Order runs out & isn't renewed?

You do know this bill will save on average 15k actual lives a year over the status quo, right? Do they have less right to life than a mass of fertilized cells?

So it's a net gain? These are NOT masses of fertilized cells TO STUPAK. They are human lives. Stupak made the decision that it's ok to murder people because someone else somewhere may benefit?

...And it took Obama till the last hour to convince Stupak that he was actually saving lives by voting for abortion funding? Did Obama promise to hold the abortions under your theoretical 15,000 number so Stupak could sleep at night? That's a laugh.

Stupak may not be a murderer to you but he is to HIMSELF! How could he do that?

Originally Posted by Tye 1on

And in other breaking news, the snow at Targhee saturday softened up nicely, and their 'trash can' drink with an entire can of red bull can defeat the most indefatigable hangover.

DBT you ever, like, ski and shit?

Closed for the season here bro.

is this the part of the thread where Jer posts a picture of an aborted fetus?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

So it's a net gain? These are NOT masses of fertilized cells TO STUPAK. They are human lives. Stupak made the decision that it's ok to murder people because someone else somewhere may benefit?

...And it took Obama till the last hour to convince Stupak that he was actually saving lives by voting for abortion funding? Did Obama promise to hold the abortions under your theoretical 15,000 number so Stupak could sleep at night? That's a laugh.

Stupak may not be a murderer to you but he is to HIMSELF! How could he do that?

A few points:

-Abortion is perfectly, completely, and utterly LEGAL.
-A foetus is not a person and has no Constitutional protections whatsoever under current US law.
-Stupak got an Executive order from Obama that no Federal funds (read: Public Money) goes toward Abortions, despite them being perfectly legal. Imagine the same being done to keep any other cell removal procedure from getting funding... like liposuction.
-Therefore no Public Money will go towards funding abortions until the Order is rescinded or expires and isn't renewed.

If poor women on Government paid Health care want to get scraped when they get knocked up ? Good (ONE LESS) thing to support.

However for the Pro-Lifers. Some people are Deeply troubled by Abortion. And the one thing they have is that (MY MONEY) TAX Dollars will never go towards paying for an (Elective) abortion.

Seems we have other laws out there but ??

Does this new Helthcare bill actulaly pay for abortions?

I bothered to scan through my Blue Cross PPO and hey! elective abortions not in there Bunch of stuff about reproductive health and pap smears but I don't see where it says (pays for Abortion)? Is that just an in-network Primary care doctor visit ?

I just don't know?

Originally Posted by Tippster

A few points:

-Abortion is perfectly, completely, and utterly LEGAL.
-A foetus is not a person and has no Constitutional protections whatsoever under current US law.
-Stupak got an Executive order from Obama that no Federal funds (read: Public Money) goes toward Abortions, despite them being perfectly legal.
-Therefore no Public Money will go towards funding abortions until the Order is rescinded or expires and isn't renewed.

Yes to 1

Really, I seem to remember a murder trial in Ca. that was two counts of murder one for the mother and one for the unborn child....er fetus. So the fetus' rights seem to move a bit no ?

Note: I personally don't like abortion, but recognize that there are certainly times it's warranted (in my opinion).

Pres. Obama is a pretty staunch supporter of abortion. I'll wager he rescinds the exec. order if he's elected to a second term.

Originally Posted by MTT

However for the Pro-Lifers. Some people are Deeply troubled by Abortion. And the one thing they have is that (MY MONEY) TAX Dollars will never go towards paying for an (Elective) abortion.

I'm deeply troubled by a lot of things. Like war. Maybe I should throw a tantrum to make sure my tax dollars don't get put towards that.

Please, will all you theocrats move to Iran where government by religion seems to be the accepted gig? We do not need you people in the United States - you know that crazy country with the Constitutionally mandated separation between church and state. Really.

One of my major objections to the whole thing is that the theocrats had such significant and inappropriate influence in the process. Obama should never have agreed to that despicable signing order. Instead, if anything, he should have done the moral thing & indicated he'd issue a signing order stating that in keeping with the Constitution, the administration will ensure access to all legitimate medical procedures, including abortion, to the greatest extent allowed by law - and that the new bill would be interpreted as enabling that as much as possible.

And don't get me started about the logic challenged "pro-life" retards who seem to think marching off to a new war every year or two is a brilliant idea.

You aren't getting my point. I'm not debating the merits of abortion. I'm asking how people who THEMSELVES believe that abortion is murder can put ANY price on their vote? They are IN THEIR OWN MINDS voting to pay federal dollars for murders.

-Stupak got an Executive order from Obama that no Federal funds (read: Public Money) goes toward Abortions, despite them being perfectly legal.

1. There is no exec order yet.
2. That order can be cancelled at any time by Obama.
3. That order, even if not cancelled, can not legally trump the language that is already in the bill. Legislation trumps Exec orders.

If you DID believe abortion was murder, would you trust the word of Obama, who

1. obviously will say anything to pass his bill,
2. obviously puts ZERO value on a bunch of cells
3. has no way of enforcing his own order?

to

1. sign the exec order in the first place, which he has not done yet,
2. never rescind it,
3. enforce the unenforcible?

The only explaination is that these "Pro-life" Dems lied to get votes and were never pro life in the first place.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

The only explaination is that these "Pro-life" Dems lied to get votes and were never pro life in the first place.

Well, they're alive aren't they?



Methinks you're confused.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

You aren't getting my point. I'm not debating the merits of abortion. I'm asking how people who THEMSELVES believe that abortion is murder can put ANY price on their vote? They are IN THEIR OWN MINDS voting to pay federal dollars for murders.

-Stupak got an Executive order from Obama that no Federal funds (read: Public Money) goes toward Abortions, despite them being perfectly legal.

1. There is no exec order yet.
2. That order can be cancelled at any time by Obama.
3. That order, even if not cancelled, can not legally trump the language that is already in the bill. Legislation trumps Exec orders.

If you DID believe abortion was murder, would you trust the word of Obama, who

1. obviously will say anything to pass his bill,
2. obviously puts ZERO value on a bunch of cells
3. has no way of enforcing his own order?

to

1. sign the exec order in the first place, which he has not done yet,
2. never rescind it,
3. enforce the unenforcible?

The only explaination is that these "Pro-life" Dems lied to get votes and were never pro life in the first place.

In our form of government, Representatives are hired to represent the constituents in their district, not cast votes according to their personal religious beliefs.

I have no idea what the citizens of the First Congressional District of Michigan* wanted, but I would not be surprised if more of them would rather have access to health insurance despite preexisting conditions than would sacrifice that coverage to insure that .000001% of their tax dollars would not go to funding an abortion.


*

Originally Posted by Hutch

In our form of government, Representatives are hired to represent the constituents in their district, not cast votes according to their personal religious beliefs.

I have no idea what the citizens of the First Congressional District of Michigan* wanted, but I would not be surprised if more of them would rather have access to health insurance despite preexisting conditions than would sacrifice that coverage to insure that .000001% of their tax dollars would not go to funding an abortion.


*

That's all true. It still doesn't answer the question though. STUPAK said he could not vote for the bill on moral grounds. He didn't say he changed his mind because the folks back home told him to, or that he didn't want to impose his morality on the decision. The only reason he gave was that he got the presidents word to sign an exec order.

There is no way that could have been enough given the nature of Obamas exec order. Bottom line has to be that Stupak and the Stupak 12 were fraudulently portraying themselves as anti-abortion to win votes in conservative districts.

One of the principal reasons given by women who have abortion is that they couldn't afford health care for themselves and for a baby. Having a baby is extremely expensive if you don't have health insurance. By some estimates, the health care reform bill may cause a dramatic decrease in abortions.

Originally Posted by nutcase

By some estimates, the health care reform bill may cause a dramatic decrease in abortions.

And then DBT will bitch about that, too.

Here's the text of the executive order:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ¬¬__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/...rtion-funding/

Originally Posted by nutcase

One of the principal reasons given by women who have abortion is that they couldn't afford health care for themselves and for a baby. Having a baby is extremely expensive if you don't have health insurance. By some estimates, the health care reform bill may cause a dramatic decrease in abortions.

I understand the reasoning you are representing.

But one big reason it will almost certainly cause a dramatic decrease in abortions is that the segregation of funds restrictions will make abortions, already limited in availability, even more limited in availability.

are conservatives against the implanting of only a small number of the viable embryos in IVF? like 3/12 or so??? Isn't that largely the same or similar to "aborting" 9 "lives"???

Abortion is a no win situation. Horrible procedure that may actually keep unwanted children from becoming punching bags in abusive families that never wanted the child in the first place.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Abortion is a no win situation. Horrible procedure that may actually keep unwanted children from becoming punching bags in abusive families that never wanted the child in the first place.

Why is it a horrible procedure? It's fast and painless according to an ex-girfriend.

I've got 1.667 kids and I agree with Osecs - it is horrible in that I've seen what the mass of cells is up to during those 9 months. That said, I do not agree with denying women the choice to terminate an unwanted preg. for whatever reason.