Nelson’s Stupak Amendment Fails

If we lose health care reform over this abortion issue, there is no hope for your party.Let’s put some perspective into this, since you guys dion’t seem to understand it.Two percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 have abortions every year. You guys are grenading the bill over language that affects not even one percent of the entire population every year.Makes sense.yup.

@PPP: Jews are only 1.7% of the American population. Does that make it okay to, say, pass anti-Semitic language in a bill?

Nice, Bob. Weren’t you the one who hates false equivalencies?

So, if people don’t use their constitutional rights, we should jettison the rights?Please tell me that you understand that this amendment was a way to limit womens’ access to abortions.

Nope, I understood it as a way to limit Federal funding for abortions. I also understand it as not being an abortion bill.

Good. Then let’s stop talking about abortions. Women can purchase insurance and sometimes get federal subsidies. Done.

@PPPThis “abortion isn’t important” shtick is getting old. Federal funding for abortion is already restricted by the Hyde Amendment; the Stupak amendment goes far beyond that, as some of “us guys” have been trying to get you to understand for weeks now. Do try to keep up.Besides which, Snowe and Lieberman and Nelson and the rest will only move on to some other portion of the proposal that they find objectionable. They don’t want a health-care reform bill to pass, full stop. They’re the ones “grenading” the thing.

I agree alopecia, the 45 who voted for this don’t want health care to pass anyway. screw em

Here’s the votehttp://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00369Poop – Do you realize that insurance companies would be forced to drop any abortion coverage or not be allowed to be part of any exchange? That low-income people, male & female, would not get federal subsidies or tax credits to help pay their premiums if the plan that their employers offer has abortion coverage?Would you also restrict insurance covering contraception? Are you aware that much of the birth control currently used by American women is thought by a number of right-wingers to be abortion? Far fetched? Nope. Did you know that HHS under BushCO got far enough in 2008 to allow, under the conscience clause re: abortion, to put forth a policy which would allow a clerk at a pharmacy to refuse to ring up a purchase for birth control pills because s/he thinks they constitute a form of abortion?Abortion is a safe, legal procedure and no one has the right to restrict it and that is exactly what the proponents of the Stupak & Stupak-like amendments are trying to do. It is safer than owning a gun, and people scream when anyone talks about controlling access to gun ownership.

On the contrary, I believe Snowe and Nelson DO want a bill to pass.You guys are falling prey to the same republican tricks you always fall for. It’s page one of their manual on how to beat Democrats even when Democrats hold the majority.It’s simple. Republicans focus away from the main issue, and find an issue that will divide democrats. Then, they get democrats fighting amongst themselves, and voi-fucking-la! Repub win.

Meant to include – how about an amendment to not provide federal funding for injuries caused by guns? Or for alcohol related diseases? Maybe guns & alcohol offends my religious beliefs? Does the federal gov’t have the right to impose those beliefs on YOU?

Meant to include – how about an amendment to not provide federal funding for injuries caused by guns? Or for alcohol related diseases? Maybe guns & alcohol offends my religious beliefs? Does the federal gov’t have the right to impose those beliefs on YOU?

In the sense of restricting funding for those, yes Congress has the power. You wanna start a PAC and agitate for it? Go right ahead. Politically it won’t happen, but there’s nothing unconstitutional on the face of it. The Federal government can decide for itself how Federal monies are to be spent.Here’s the thing – Congress isn’t imposing beliefs. Nowhere in the bill does it say “in order to qualify for funding, the patient and health care provider must accept Jesus as lord and savior” Look up Blue Laws across the country, they’re pretty sharp about getting around that.

Yes he was bluffing. Probably with leadership approval. It was all show for his voters.Here is reasonable use of a statistic for you PPP. 50% of the US population is female. So 50% of the population could need an abortion at some point in their life. Say for an ectopic pregnancy.It is illogical to use the number of procedures done in ONE year to determine the importance of medical coverage for that procedure. If we weigh the importance of a medical procedure on the percentage of the population needing it in any ONE year then we can do away with prostate cancer treatment.

YEAH! Suck on that you banana nosed, box headed piece of shit! Don’t you worry about me and my Vagina! We’re doing just fine without you input. Input? EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEU!

By the way, abortion is legal no matter how many women do or do not take advantage of it. That’s the point! Personally, I find guns to be extremely offensive but, we have that right as well. I don’t know how many people own guns and I don’t care.As long as they’re not breaking the law, or shooting at me, I don’t really give a shit. These Viagra sucking, geezers have no right to tell any woman what she can or can’t do with her reporductive choices. It’s just no one’s business but hers!

Oh, Poopers, is there any issue you can’t get on the wrong side of?