Pro-Life Dems Warn Pelosi: No Support Unless Reform "Explicitly Excludes" Abortion Funding

U.S. News & World Reports:

The Family Research Council isn't usually in the business of praising Democrats. But it's giving props to 19 House Dems for writing to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say that healthcare reform must avoid ushering in government-funded abortion.

Read the whole story: U.S. News & World Reports

Comments

[beherenow54]

I guess these are the "blue dog" democrats. 19 democrats in the house may not make a difference as there could already be a clear majority, I'm not sure. Being Democrat doesn't automatically make one pro-choice, particularly coming from the states they represent. The best defense against this is a good offense--help fund the challengers when their term is up.

My belief in the separation of church and state leaves no ambiguity in that abortion is a personal issue that women must be free to deal with themselves, based on their own beliefs, and state or federal government has no mandate to intervene in that. Why? pro-life is based solely on religion, and one religious group/belief cannot control the minds and actions of other religious/­non-religi­ous groups or beliefs. This is one of the very core values/mandates of the founding fathers, who had already seen enough religious persecution for generations.

Therefore, pregnancy terminations need to be included in health insurance plans unless they are willing to commit religious discrimina­tion/perse­cution. Maybe it's time to sue on those grounds. I know that many private insurance companies no longer cover it.

[Egalitare]

This has the potential to sink the ship.

[davyd56]

Christians=Fascists !!!

[Scriobhaim]

While, by contrast, "davyd56" = tolerance, expansiveness, reasoned discourse, highly nuanced analysis.... and a predilection for exclamation marks.

[Stanley]

I think that the 19 Dems are right and are pre-empting the battle over healthcare as it boils down to political footballs. Choice means lack of government intervention, but doesn't mean government subsidizing abortion. Then pro-choice will be pro-abortion. If the other Dems don't see this as a big tent issue then they will polarize themselves just like the Repugs have already done. Healthcare should not boil down to wedge issues and exempting abortion is not only the right of the 19 Dems to hold on to their values but is actually smart politics if we really want to get healthcare through Congress.

[doctordoubt]

What it is about choice that has them so up in arms? Since when is choice something only old white men get? A previous poster mentioned that if men had babies, it would be an unquestionable right. Same with birth control and a whole host of other things. Freedom of choice. Period. It goes to all people, not just white men. Get a figgenclue already. What part of 'all' don't you get?

[wilsonveteran]

You do have freedom of choice and the freedom to pay for it yourself. Don't look for another handout.

[Tommygun264]

I guess this means you're all for revoking the tax-exempt status of churches then. It's just another form of government handout.

[Caliwoman]

I pay my taxes, I have my constitutional rights to medical care as determined by myself and my physician. I have a right to safe and legal abortion services to be covered by my insurance. Women have uteruses and women control them, like it or not for all the mysogynistic men out there. We determine the fate of our own bodies. We are not chattle, we are not your property, you cannot rape us, you cannot beat us, you have to pay us equal wages for equal work, and you cannot force us to continue a pregnancy that we are not willing to carry. Birth control, the morning after pill, and aborrtion services all MUST be included in the new health plan. Get over it, women have the power of the uterus and the power to control it. You don't. Tough.

[LHoney]

Why would anyone want a baby to be born to a mother that doesn't want him or her? And I love seeing grey haired old men discussing whether or not women should be able to have abortions. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be an inalienable right!!

[wilsonveteran]

Thats right a baby is an inconvience so lets just kill it. By the way those pesky elderly are an inconvience too so lets kill them also. I guess adoption is out of the question because then you would be inconvienced in carrying that darn baby for 9 months. We would not want to do anything to inconvience anyone.

[been2there]

Sometimes adoption is out of the question, and many adopted chiildren feel rejected. I can see people believing that adoption is the worse option for the baby.

[Tommygun264]

It amazes me how many people who rail against any form of nationalized health care because it will supposedly put bureaucrats between patient and doctor have no problem getting in between a woman and her doctor when it comes to making medical decisions. You're so quick to assume every aborted fetus would have made it to term. The fact is that every case is unique, with specific medical details involved. But acknowledging that humanizes women and blows your arguments out of the water, so facts be damned.

[valkyrie607]

Being pregnant for 9 months is a hell of a lot more than an "inconvenience." Pregnancy has severe impacts on a woman's health, from blood pressure to dental health, and it carries the risk of death. It's a small risk, but it's there--and if I'm not mistaken, that risk is higher in the US, thanks to our ridiculous boondoggle of a health care system.

Your callousness does little to convince that your true concern is for "life."

[jhamm1]

Try being born into the world as a perpetual inconvenience whereby you are incessantly abused and neglected, and your superficial analysis might change in a real hurry.

[valkyrie607]

Are these same Democrats going to also insist on full government funding for paid maternity leave, free pre-school programs for all children, and increased funding for WIC, food stamps, and other programs that support families and children?

If not, their claim that they "believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families" is a lie.

And if their stated motivation is a lie, then we can only speculate about their true motivation; my guess is that they really believe that they have the right to impose their anti-woman religious beliefs on the rest of the country.

[JackND]

Yep...that's how I see it too.

If we start allowing individual people to start declaring what their taxes can't fund, the nation would be ungovernable.

Pacifist taxes can't go towards defense...socialist tax dollars can't go towards bailouts...white tax dollars can't go towards affirmative action....wealthy tax dollars can;t go towards redistribution of wealth...where the hell would it end?

These 19 Democrats can go @#$%^& themselves.

[jdkjdk]

Uhm, with Government really for the Common Good? What would be wrong with that.
How soon we forget Ron Dellums, people's budget proposal.

A good analogy is flag burning. Flag burning is protected by 1st amendment (no question about that - court has ruled), but is it unreasonable to say that I don't want the government to pay for my matches and flag.

The government shall make no laws abridging the freedom of press, but does that mean that it must bailout a (or every) failing newspaper.

[been2there]

We are going to try.

[valkyrie607]

Uh huh.

When?

[jimfl]

Scew the pro life Dems if they don't like the party switch

[chriss0114]

I'm against war; can I withhold my tax dollars from the pentagon and war spending?

can 19 reps withhold funding for certain spending for "normal" legal authorizations?

[jdkjdk]

Why not. Why can't we have a people's budget. If I can check off whether I want to fund presidential elections, why shouldn't I be able to check off no to war!

Flag burning is constitutionally protected. Do we have to pay for the matches and the flag for someone who to express themselves that way?

A right that is constitutionally protected does not require that it be funded or subsidized. Must we bailout failing newspapers?

Let's say, we figure out a way to do a single payer option but there isn't enough money to cover Michael Jackson's cosmetic surgery. What's more important to you single payer that can cover almost everything or single payer that covers everything including elective procedures (all legal). How about procedures that don't actually work but are still legal? How about laser surgery for the eye when glasses work just as well? How about drugs that are not FDA approved?

[planetjeffy]

17 men and 2 women signed the letter. F'em. The Dems have enough to pass it without them.

Oh and please make sure none of their family members take advantage of any treatments that come out of stem cell research.

[been2there]

Anti-choice is also anti-family and anti-child. Unwanted children suffer terribly and no one should force a baby into the world.

[wizedollars]

What? Anti-life is eugenics!

[johnr49]

Eugenics is essentially selective breeding. I don't get your point.

[JackNasty]

I would support a complete ban on spending any public moneys religion and religious activity in health care facilities supported by federal funds.

[regellner]

This is foolish, as ALL healthcare must be covered. There cannot be a case where legal procedures are excluded or else healthcare reform will fail.

Following is an article on healthcare reform:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m6d18-Healthcare-reform-is-critical-for-economic-stability-and-competitiveness-of-the-United-States


Raymond Gellner – National Liberal Examiner at Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­________

[Jaybot]

The 19 know this, they're nothing but saboteurs.

[jdkjdk]

The saboteurs are those who think that paying for all abortions is more important than a single-payer plan that covers most things.

Which side are you on?

[JackNasty]

Huff-Po's censoring software/staff continue to delete reasonable posts. Does the software arbitrarily delete post containing certain words?

There is no appeal. No one to contact.

At the very least Huff Po needs to post a list of its arbitrarily banned words and phrases.

Something is seriously wrong with this system..

[IzzyIdol]

Yep. Stupid censorship that is ruining discourse on this site.

[Hermione1973]

Then to make things equal, count me out of funding Viagra, too.