You cannot be serious?

[Gob]

No person with an IQ greater than their shoe size would support this?

The second measure working its way through Congress, sponsored by Mr Smith, is an attempt to bar the federal government from providing any funds for abortion.

It stems from a 1976 provision known as the Hyde amendment.

Named after its sponsor, Representative Henry Hyde, the amendment prevents the health department from using taxpayer dollars to cover abortion for Medicaid recipients - which is one of the few ways federal government money could have been used to pay for abortions.

But the Hyde amendment is an annual provision, meaning that it must be renewed every year.

Proponents of Mr Smith's bill argue that it is simply codifying the intent of the Hyde amendment.

Pro-choice advocates see it differently: they say it goes much further.

Mr Smith's bill would stop the government from providing tax credits or subsidies to women who choose health insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the woman pays for abortion cover herself.

Similarly, employers whose health insurance plans include abortion would be denied tax credits.

Exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is in danger have traditionally been accepted by anti-abortion groups.

But until last week, the language in Mr Smith's bill was "forcible rape", meaning the rape of drugged, unconscious or handicapped women for example might not be covered.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12369712

[Sue U]

Serious as a heart attack. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4) is in the next district over from mine; he's as close to a single-issue (anti-abortion) congressional representative as you can get. But he's been in office for decades in what has become a pretty secure seat for him.

[rubato]

Rather a typical example of Republican leadership.



yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

Smith's views on abortion are far more extreme than those of most of his constituents, but with the exception of Trenton, his district is largely wealthy white suburbanites who consistently vote Republican for the party's pro-business/low tax approach (his district was one of three -- out of 13 -- in NJ that went for McCain in '08). Smith's political roots are in the anti-choice movement (he was a leader of New Jersey Right-to-Life) so he has a highly motivated and organized base that ensures his reelection.

[Gob]

Serious as a heart attack. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4) is in the next district over from mine; he's as close to a single-issue (anti-abortion) congressional representative as you can get. But he's been in office for decades in what has become a pretty secure seat for him.

I cannot believe that any decent person would vote for such a man. Shoot him yes, but vote for him?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Serious as a heart attack. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4) is in the next district over from mine; he's as close to a single-issue (anti-abortion) congressional representative as you can get. But he's been in office for decades in what has become a pretty secure seat for him.

I cannot believe that any decent person would vote for such a man. Shoot him yes, but vote for him?

What do you expect, it's New Jersey.

sorry SueU and BigRR, it was just too easy

[Big RR]

And true; look at our governor.

[Sue U]

But don't look him in the eye, he will eat you.

[dgs49]

Let’s take inventory here. There is a school of thought (supported by…I don’t know…a couple thousand years of Judeo-Christian scripture and tradition, along with Islamic, Buddhist, and other analogous traditions in other cultures) that a human fetus is a PERSON, not to be killed in the womb, and that even if it is not a person, abortion is objectionable because it is not ascertainable for certain whether that fetus is, in fact a person.

There is another school of thought that puts forth the notion that “unintended pregnancy…[is]…the number two sexually transmitted disease” in the United States. A disease. Well. I don’t know of many other diseases that are characterized by women going to clinics and paying a lot of money to contract it.

It is fairly well established that abortion is, in addition to being “harmful” to the fetus, harmful to the woman whose fetus is aborted, and potentially harmful to subsequently-born children. Rep. Smith cited 102 separate studies showing significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in women who have had abortions. And at least 113 studies show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births and low birth weight – a leading cause of infant deaths. These risks increase significantly among children of mothers with more than one abortion.

According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 67% of Americans oppose publicly-funded abortions.

So, if Americans don’t want their tax (or government-borrowed) dollars going to pay for abortions, then clearly they don’t want abortions paid for directly by the government. But if Government gives a tax credit or a tax exemption to a person or entity for the cost of abortions, is that not Government, in effect, “paying for” abortions?

The idea has been advanced (speciously, for sure) that we Americans have a “Constitutional right” to an abortion. But even if that were true, it would not follow that Government would have an obligation to pay for it. Indeed, we have a Constitutional right to vote, but Government does not pay our transportation costs to the polls, or even offer a tax deduction for the cab fare.

Planned Parenthood boasts that it aborted over 324,000 fetuses in calendar year 2008, while benefitting from approximately $1 BILLION in fees, and local, state, and federal government subsidies.

If the American people have made a policy decision, through their elected representatives, that they do not want to pay for abortions, then what is wrong with the Government taking appropriate measures to see that the taxpayers do not have to pay for abortions – directly or indirectly?

H.R. 3. A logical extension of the public’s wishes.

[Big RR]

OK, a quick straw poll; does ANYONE here who supports abortion rights think an unintended pregnancy is "the number 2 sexually transmitted disease in the US", or a sexually transmitted disease at all? somehow I doubt it, except for the last poster.

And does anyone think this "disease" is somehow "characterized [caused] by women going to clinics and paying a lot of money to contract it"? And where are these clinics that cause unintended pregnancies [dgs, feel free to answer]? I'm all for closing them; indeed, I would think most women to "contract" unintended pregnancies for free.

And while we're at it dgs, show us the couple of thousand years old scripture that establishes a fetus as a person.

[Scooter]

All of the bullshit science aside (live births are far more dangerous to women than abortions), Dave's point might have merit IF the sole impact of H.R. 3 were to avoid paying indirectly for abortions, through tax credits. But the effects go way beyond that. If I, as an employer, go looking for the best deal on health insurance I can find, and that insurance plan covers abortion, I will be probited from deducting the entire cost of that insurance plan for tax purposes, even if NONE of my employees EVER has an abortion If I, as an employee, belong to an employer-sponsored insurance plan that covers abortion, I will be prohibited from deducting ANY of my out-of-pocket medical expenses for tax purposes, even if I never have an abortion or if no other employee in the plan ever has an abortion.

If the intent were to avoid indirect government subsidy for abortion, the solution would be simple: deny tax credits to employers in proportion the amount actually spent by insurance plans on abortions, and deny tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses incurred on abortions. But clearly the intent goes far beyond that. The intent is to induce PRIVATE insurance plans to stop covering abortions, by making it completely unaffordable for employers to get coverage under plans that include abortion coverage, by denying them tax relief for the WHOLE amount of their insurance costs, whether abortion services are actually paid for under their plans or not.

[dgs49]

(1) Luke 1:41 - "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost..."

Does not say: fetus, tissue, STD. Hence, the NT (more than 2k years old) avers that a pre-born human is a "babe."

(2) Sorry, I do not accept the distinction between an "intended" pregnancy and an "unintended" pregnancy. A baby is a baby, in either case.

(3) Presumably, if this bill were to pass (HIGHLY unlikely), insurance carriers would revise their coverages to adapt. No employer or insurer would permit the desirable tax consequences to be nullified over the head of abortion coverage.

(4) The reference to unintended pregnancy being the number two sexually transmitted disease comes from a CDC paper, mentioned and quoted on the Congressman's website.

[Big RR]

(1) Luke 1:41 - "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost..."

Does not say: fetus, tissue, STD. Hence, the NT (more than 2k years old) avers that a pre-born human is a "babe."

No, it says that the "babe" however that is defined, of an unspecified term, leapt. what this has to do with being a person or abortion is beyond me.

As for "unintended pregnancies, your choice of words, not mine, as was characterizing it as a sexually transmitted disease (no one else is saying it).

Scooter--I agree, but then are there other medical procedures which are treated the way you propose? I can't think of any. I would bet a lot of people would also say they don't want tax deductions for the proportion of the policy that pays for AIDS treatment, or STDs, or obesity related complications or whatever. It's silly to allow public opinion to state what medical procedures should be covered by an insurance policy, even if the premiums are tax deductible.

[Scooter]

I'm not suggesting that it would be desirable, I am saying that is the way it would have been done if the purpose were to be limited to avoiding government "subsidy" of abortion. Even Dave has now admitted, however, that the purpose is to intrapose massive government interference into the private insurance market.

It's hysterically funny to watch the hypocrisy of Republicans and their supporters, however. In any other context, they would be jumping down your throat if you attempted to characterize a tax savings as a "cost" to the government or as a "subsidy" to the individual or business realizing that savings. But yet that is precisely the language they use for the deductibility of the out-of-pocket costs or insurance premiums of abortion services. And those who were the most vociferous about the federal gov't rewriting the rules governing private insurance in order to bring about health care reform, now have absolutely no compunction about doing exactly the same thing in order to coerce private insurers into stopping the coverage of abortions.

And, being Republicans, they are too stupid to realize it.

[Sue U]

Let’s take inventory here. There is a school of thought (supported by…I don’t know…a couple thousand years of Judeo-Christian scripture and tradition, along with Islamic, Buddhist, and other analogous traditions in other cultures) that a human fetus is a PERSON, not to be killed in the womb, and that even if it is not a person, abortion is objectionable because it is not ascertainable for certain whether that fetus is, in fact a person.

Please leave the Jews out of your fantasies of "Judeo-Christian scripture and tradition." Even for Orthodox Jews, a fetus is not and has never been considered fully a "person," and abortion is actually MANDATORY where the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. In fact, Talmudic law does not consider a fetus a person until birth is well underway (the head or most of the body must be out). The Conservative/Masorti, Reform and Reconstructionist denominations are all pro-choice.

Islam has varyng schools of thought on abortion, but I don't believe any of them provide for an outright ban; it is broadly considered permissible up to four months gestation.

[rubato]

(1) Luke 1:41 - "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost..."

Does not say: fetus, tissue, STD. Hence, the NT (more than 2k years old) avers that a pre-born human is a "babe."

(2) Sorry, I do not accept the distinction between an "intended" pregnancy and an "unintended" pregnancy. A baby is a baby, in either case.

(3) Presumably, if this bill were to pass (HIGHLY unlikely), insurance carriers would revise their coverages to adapt. No employer or insurer would permit the desirable tax consequences to be nullified over the head of abortion coverage.

(4) The reference to unintended pregnancy being the number two sexually transmitted disease comes from a CDC paper, mentioned and quoted on the Congressman's website.

"quickening" when the fetus begins to move in the uterus happens at the end of the 2nd trimester. When abortion is now restricted.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Rube, you would be correct if Roe v. Wade were still the law of the land. But alas, about the only abortions that are causing legal distress these days are the ones where the baby is born alive, then killed. The third trimester thing died many years ago.

Witness the coverage of this butcher in Philadelphia. He has been performing third trimester abortions for many years, and the only ones that are getting his teat in a wringer now are the living babies he killed.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Personally there should be no third trimester abortions. Adoption, not abortion.

But, there was never a dearth of doctors/practioners ready, willing and (somewhat) able to perform abortions when it was illegal. So I expect nothing less now.

Personally, I don't think abortion should be a form of birth control, but I would not force a woman to have/not have an abortion and let it be her choice. I would hope it is life for the baby, but.......

[Gob]

I cannot believe that in this day and age, an allegedly first world country like the USA is so backward when it comes to teh topic of abortion, that people are willing to kill doctors for performing them.

[oldr_n_wsr]

There are nuts everywhere. That we have more nuts is because we have a greater population than most countries. Percentage wise I have no clue.