__________________

Well, we really don't know what will be in the final bill...It's not in the Senate version which may be passed into law by virtue of voting on a rule...then once passed in law...which will not really be law because the House never voted on it...but anyone once they convince everyone to vote on the rule which passes the bill...now it goes to reconciliation and who's to say what will be in that final fiasco...Abortion previsions could very well pop up in reconciliation and all those Senators who are pro life who voted for the rule to pass the bill will have been duped...

It is simply accounting gimmicks to achieve their goal of providing abortions. The legislation calls for insurance plans that would receive federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace to strictly separate public funds from private dollars that would be used to pay for abortion. So, people who want that coverage will have to pay their premiums with separate checks---one for abortion coverage and one for health care services.

These insurance plans will receive federal subsidies and will offer abortions. I don't see how anyone claims that the federal gov't does NOT have their hand in providing abortions.

__________________
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional." Gov.Brewer, Arizona

Tell it to Bart Stupak.

__________________
One Big Assed Mistake America - Advancing statism’s death grip on American dynamism.

Undermine our allies. Embolden our enemies. Diminish our country. Barack Who's Vain? Obama Doctrine 2009

Descartes' proof of existence, "I think therefore I am" will not work for a majority of voters in the last election.

While I will agree that within the bill it does mention several times that federal funding can not be used to DIRECTLY fund abortion, as in the federal givernment paying the abortion provider directly, it does nothing to exclude the two following provisions in which federal funding can and will be used towards abortions or abortion services if this bill becomes law:

In the bill, there is 11 billion alocated for community health centers which do not fall under or abide the restrictions of the hyde act. Community health centers can and do provide abortion assistance to its patients.

Subsidies from the federal government CAN be used, again, CAN be used, to purchase insurance plans that cover abortions.

These are not lies sir, these are the scenarios created by the bill, and they are the reasons pro life Dem's, bishops and many other pro life organizations have been in opposition to the bill.

And it puzzles me why the left assumes us conservatives will actually believe what we are told. Ive yet to meet a conservative who isnt completely informed by way of their own research knowledge and understanding. Our conclusions are based on what we actually seek and find through aour own research with regards to each piece of legislation we stand behind or oppose. Were not leftards, we require more than the word of a politician in order to shape our opinions, hence the reason why we all tend to do our own research on the issues. The whole fake memo circulation and believe it to the death crap only works with and applies to you leftards.

Hence, their bogus CBO score enlight of the truth of the costs and means of payment being uncovered by the GOP and confirmed by the CBO. Yet you sheep still believe the lies you are being told about the cost of the legislation.

No wonder their party mascot is a donkey, youd have to be a jackass to support the crap they pedal.

The act authorizing the community centers *itself* explicitly references the Hyde amendment; all the Senate bill does is provide additional funding under the authority of that act.

Never mind that the health centers in question do not provide abortions, have never provided abortions, do not *want* to provide abortions, and everyone from Obama on down has said they will not be allowed to provide abortions even if they suddenly wanted to.

Actually, abortion services would have to be broken out as a separate rider so that people could pay for it separately if they wanted. Never mind that what the subsidies would be paying for is the minimum required coverage mandated by the law. So claiming that federal dollars would be subsidizing abortions requires some severe mental gymnastics. It's like saying my mortage deduction subsidizes abortions, because some people who pay mortgage interest (and thus receive federal subsidies in the form of a tax deduction) have insurance that covers abortion services.

Actually, abortion-related opposition is pretty much down to the extreme conservatives: the bishops and National Right to Life. The nuns, Catholic hospitals and more moderate pro-life groups support the bill.

__________________
Man up.

There is no language that restricts federal funds in the manner you have described. If it does not specifically state in the bill, to the exact, non broadly interpreted language, but rather precise and specific restriction, there is no way to even consider what you are claiming to be a part of the legislation. That is and was a huge point in Stupaks argument, as well as the argument against the funding of the CHC's to the tune of 11 billion.

In regards to the CHC's, there is nothing, and I mean nothing, that is written in this bill that requires these centers to act under the restriction of the hyde ammendment. Further, there is nothing specifying which CHC's are being alocated funds. They did this specifically because this is the back door route to moving abortion access into CHC's. There are absolutely no restrictions or provisions to restrict the providing of abortion services by FQCHC's within the FDQHC authorizing statue. CHC's can also, under no restriction, provide 3rd party access, or by contracting out, through there centers and with their federal funding grants, provide an extension service for all and any services they themselves do not provide within their locations.

Again, all these issues were addressed by Tupak and his supporters. His ammendment addresses all of this and more. There is a reason all the pro choice croud supported the current language and opposed the adoption of the stupak ammendment. Its because the current language is weak and provides a long list of side steps to the watered down restrictions within the bill as well as provides a stepping stone into a broader access off abortion services through federally funded programs and subsidies.

We can go back and forth until were both blue in the face, the point is, the current language doesnt go far enough. And if Obama, Pelosi, Reid and everyone else was really ok with absolutely no funding, any way ppossible, going towards the use of abortion services, the stupak language would have been adopted by executive order or by separate legislation. Pro abortion members in the caucus threatened to walk if they did so. And that is for the reasons Ive just laid out.

A lot of the time its more of whats not in the legislation that loosens up the definition of what is actually in the legislation. And the particular language within this piece of legislation is about as loose on this issue as one can get.

mahablog? That's real reliable information.

The hahablog surely knows more than the legislators themselves and they're just wasting their time.

__________________

"I may make you feel, but I can't make you think." - Jethro Tull

Yes there is: the law that authorized the creating of the CHC's in the first place.

The CHC's are chartered under Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, otherwise known as "Title 42":
http://energycommerce.house.gov/imag...109_health.pdf

(Section 330 starts on page 175 of the pdf)

Section 1008 (found on page 839 of the linked pdf) reads as follows: "None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."

Thus, no funding provided to Section 330 Community Health Centers can be used for abortion services.

Here's the text of the Senate bill:
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

The CHC funding is authorized in Section 10503 (page 2355 in the pdf of the full bill). You'll note that the funding is explicitly for Section 330 organizations. Thus, there is *no* chance the Senate funding can be used for abortion.

Your anti-abortion sources are either ignorant or lying.

Why would there be? CHC's are awarded funds as part of standard grant-making procedures. You don't specify the recipients in the legislation; you specify the criteria.

No, the reason to oppose Stupak has nothing to do with abortion. The reason to oppose it is because it's an obnoxiously intrusive governmental power grab, in which anyone receiving federal subsidies to help afford health insurance can't buy abortion coverage *even with their own money.*

Take the word "abortion" out and replace it with any subject of your choice to see how obnoxious it is. For instance, what if we use "cancer" instead? As in, "Anyone who receives federal subsidies to help afford health insurance can't buy cancer coverage *even with their own money*."

The Senate bill, by contrast, does a fine job of making sure there are no federal subsidies of abortion, without the governmental power grab.

__________________
Man up.