Prove it. Either of you.

Tip: "Because I say say" is not proof.

Ive read through it before, it states what it shall provide as a requirement to qualify as, it does not list what it can not or should not provide in terms of services and subcontract services.

Directly. But, funding can be alocated to CHC's to be either built, funded, or for the purpose of providing services which as a part of what services are offered within the location as definied by section 330 of the HSA, in addition, can include abortion services, either directly or by 3rd party subcontracting. There is nothing restricting a CHC from providing either directly or through a contract basis, abortion services. In other words, a CHC can not specify that X funds are going towards abortions specifically, but, it can provide the service while receiving grants to fund their facilities on the basis of services provided as described in section 330 of the HSA, which can and will be the case as the CHC's are not restricted as to what they can not provide. Either way you look at it, federal funds will be going towards CHC's that can, and eventually will, be offering additional services which may, and most likely will include abortion, either within the CHC or contracted out for their patients convenience as part of their care. There is absolutely nothing restricting that. And that is what the pro abortion crowd is all jazzed about, including planned parenthood. What they can do as a result of the language in the bill not spewcifically specifying what they cant do.

These loopholes need to be closed in order to fully certify the statement that absolutely no federal funds will be provided for the use of abortion.

Thats what Im saying about what not being in the bill or legislation often having a bigger impact than what is in the bill on any given issue.

Um... you apparently have deluded that citing a Leftninny Spoonfeeding site is the same as QUOTING THE TEXT OF THE BILL you claim to have knowledge of.
You really need to work on critical assessment of your sources, if credibility here is what you seek.

__________________
"Freedom is messy." - Grokmaster, etal.

Oh, good grief. If that's a loophole, then every dollar sent to the CHC's since they were founded could have been used for abortion services.

If you want to close that "loophole", fine. But that's not the fault of the health-care bill. All the health-care bill does is use standard language that has been used for decades to provide funding for the CHCs. If you've got a problem, propose a bill that amends Title 42.

This is yet another example of opponents trying to hang things on the health-care bill that are not the fault or responsibility of the health-care bill.

__________________
Man up.

You siad subsidies cant be used to purchase insurance plans with abortion coverage provisions, I said they can, as there is no strict, specific language specifically restricting those who are using subsidies to purchase plans that do not have any type of abortion coverage.

You said CHC's cant offer abortion services, Ive given ways in which they can and will be able to with the funding theyve been given through this bills passing (if it passes).

If there are ways, there will be those who use them. Closing your eyes to what is obvious and apparent and making the blind statement of no federal funding is to be used to provide abortion services without actually going to the extent of making that statement completely valid doesnt solve the issue.

As I said, we can go back and forth and back and forth. The bottom line, the bill needs tougher and more precise language that goes further than the nelson language to completely legitimize the exclusion of federal funding for abortions. If you support the statement and idea of having absolutely no federal funding to be used for abortion services, than you should support the stupak language to be adopted by way of executive order. Theres no reason why you should appose it IMO if you are behind that statement. Unless of course, you see the same opportunities within the nelson language and within H.R. 3590 that ive pointed out and want the ability for those opportunities to be exercised and potentially expanded upon.

No, there's strict specific language requiring the abortion coverage to be paid for separately and explicitly. So the federal money cannot be considered to be subsidizing abortion.

They can't. The best you've suggested is they could contract out such services. Of course, they couldn't use federal money to *pay* for those contracted services even if they wanted to. Oh, and the CHCs themselves are created by Title 42, which is covered by the blanket funding restriction, so it's highly doubtful they could even contract out such services.

As noted, this "loophole" has existed since the CHC's were created, and yet somehow it has never been used.

Further, the health-care bill is not the appropriate platform for closing the loophole.

Then do a separate bill closing the loophole. There is zero reason to hold the health-care legislation hostage to the language, which is merely the same language used in every other CHC appropriation since the dawn of time, with the net result of zero abortions having been funded by CHCs.

__________________
Man up.

The idiocy of the abortion argument can be summed up in two short paragraphs:

1) Federal funding is used to print money. Therefore it is impossible to prevent federal funding from being used to pay for abortion services (barter excepted).

2) Abortion is not illegal. Therefore there is no legal reason while federal funding should be allowed other healthcare services but not abortion. Sooner or later the bible thumpers need to realize that we will not be going back to the Dark Ages, at least until Sarah Palin is elected president -- at witch time, let the stake burnings begin
.