Washington (CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) admitted Tuesday that there is dissension among House Democrats about whether the final health-care reform bill should include federal funding for abortions — so much so, that the issue is still under discussion in the Democratic Caucus.
So that’s how Obummer reduces the number of abortions, by making me and you pay for them. How many broken promises is that now President Obummer? Have you even kept one promise?
“Abortion must never become a mandated ‘health benefit’ in our country,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The President Obama-backed health care package is certain to result in a disturbing change that will make abortion part of the mandatory health care services to be covered by both government and private insurance plans.
Sometimes a majority of our Senators do get something right. In this case, it was by flushing a radically nutso resolution glorifying the abortion industry by three of the most kook-wacko pro-abortionists in that deliberative body. Notice from the excerpt the typical leftist tactic of trying to piggyback something that is completely unacceptable and irrational onto the back of something that is not, and then claiming that you’re evil and radically out of the mainstream and against the more benign portion of the proposal if you don’t go for it.
The Senate yesterday blocked a resolution praising the “crucial services” of abortionists and condemning violence against them in the wake of Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller’s murder last month.
The resolution, sponsored by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), decried violence against “providers of health care services to women” and asserted, “there is a history of violence against providers of reproductive health care, as health care employees have suffered threats and hostility in order to provide crucial services to patients.”
The resolution failed to gather adequate support after Shaheen refused requests by some of her colleagues to strike the language celebrating the abortion industry. Shaheen expressed frustration at the resolution’s demise.
“I realize that the issue of reproductive choice is divisive and that there are many heartfelt feelings on both sides of the aisle,” said Shaheen in a press release. “However, I was hopeful that, regardless of our differences of opinion on this sensitive issue, the Senate could come together and pass a resolution that rejects the use of violence against women’s health care providers.
“It is a sad day when the elected leaders of the greatest Democracy on earth can’t agree to protect those exercising their constitutional rights.”
You mean like the right to keep and bear arms, Senator Shaheen?
“The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)”
Swedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped, according to a report by Sveriges Television.
The Local reported in February that a woman from Eskilstuna in southern Sweden had twice had abortions after finding out the gender of the child.
The woman, who already had two daughters, requested an amniocentesis in order to allay concerns about possible chromosome abnormalities. At the same time, she also asked to know the foetus’s gender.
Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they “feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender” without having a medically compelling reason to do so.
The board has now responded that such requests and thus abortions can not be refused and that it is not possible to deny a woman an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, even if the foetus’s gender is the basis for the request.
Sweden is one of the countries that the United States is presently looking at for guidance on “universal healthcare”, and an example of a mix of socialist and capitalist economies. On more than one occasion, I have heard the radio hosts on “Air America” use Sweden as an model for where the U.S. should be heading. I have found them to be a good gauge as to where the Democrat party is going.
It is not my intent to over state this issue, but with the obsessive protectionism, and reckless expansion of laws regarding abortion that continue to take place, I would not be surprised at all if we one day soon saw the ruling in Sweden coming to our shores. As is typical, what is orignally accepted as a small personal choice and protection is thrown down a slippery slope and expanded to grant Rights not even originally contemplated.
How long is it really till the “Right to an abortion” is used to allow the woman the “choice” to abort the baby because she doesn’t like its future hair color, height, skin color, voice, arm length, etc? (ie Eugenics)
A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.
The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.
A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation “is among the congressman’s priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later.” FOCA, as the bill is known, would make federal law out of the abortion protections established in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade ruling.
A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation “is among the congressman’s priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later.”
FOCA, as the bill is known, would make federal law out of the abortion protections established in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade ruling.
The legislation has some Roman Catholic bishops threatening to shutter the country’s 624 Catholic hospitals — including 11 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis — rather than comply.
coldwarrior
Savage Contributors 1389AD
Bob in Breckenridge Bunk X
Carolina Girl
Eliana Flyovercountry
Huckfunn
Iron Fist
Lobo91 Macker
MightyConservative
Philip Daniel Urban Infidel
Submit link tips, suggestions or guest posts to: blogmocracy
@ comcast
dot net
ɪks
A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.
