Christian Forums

At an August 12th townhall meeting in San Jose California.  House Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told us that abortion would be covered in the socialized medicine bill proposed by Obama and Democrats.

QUESTION:  "[This is a ] health care plan that is covering
abortion, which we know that over 90% of abortions are
purely elective, not medically necessary.  Why is this being
covered when abortion is clearly not health care?"
(Applause).
REP. LOFGREN: "[This is a] basic benefit plan developed by,
um, health professionals...  Abortion will be covered as a
benefit by one or more of the health care plans available to
Americans, and I think it should be."

Funny how Obama supporters were telling us that it wouldn't be and saying that we were making stuff up saying it would be. Now, like clockwork, it's time to bait and switch...which means they'll start telling us why it should be in the healthcare bill funded by our tax dollars.



Also see http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF09H03.pdf

Chopping up babies is what liberals call health care.

 Death panels, I agree with Sarah Palin.

That's right folks, your tax dollars funding abortion. So it's no longer enough for liberals that abortion is legal in this country, now they've got to put the ultimate salt in the wounds of those of us to grieve over this issue, now they're going to take money that we work for to pay for abortions. That means that part of the time while we're working, we are actually working to pay for an abortion. Not working to put food on our tables but to stab babies in their heads and suck their brains out!

How in the world any Christian could support this man is beyond comprehension.

Quote from: Lou on Tue Aug 18, 2009 - 22:20:27
Chopping up babies is what liberals call health care.

Chopping up babies?  Obama will chop up infants, up to a year old, if you let him.

God, forgive this nation for electing this man.

In contrast to Lofgren's comment, the President doesn't seem eager to make a change regarding tax-payer funding of abortions (link):

QuoteKatie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.

and (link)

Quote...an amendment adopted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week extends the federal ban on government-funded abortions, except in the very rare cases in which it's already permitted. The amendment also prohibits the government from requiring abortion coverage as part of the basic benefits plan from health insurers participating in the health insurance exchange. Even in the public insurance option, government funds are not to be used for abortions, in accordance with the decades-old congressional ban on federally funded abortions, known as the Hyde amendment.

So it is not a foregone conclusion that Obamacare will fund abortions.  In the end, I don't think it will (especially not in an explicit "salt in the wounds" way).

Don't know whether or not it will help with leeford's comprehension issue, but I've given a few reasons why I've supported Obama here: link

Poor reasons in my opinion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbp2-Tm9z4

Quote from: jonmower on Wed Aug 19, 2009 - 10:59:35
In contrast to Lofgren's comment, the President doesn't seem eager to make a change regarding tax-payer funding of abortions (link):

QuoteKatie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.

and (link)

Quote...an amendment adopted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week extends the federal ban on government-funded abortions, except in the very rare cases in which it's already permitted. The amendment also prohibits the government from requiring abortion coverage as part of the basic benefits plan from health insurers participating in the health insurance exchange. Even in the public insurance option, government funds are not to be used for abortions, in accordance with the decades-old congressional ban on federally funded abortions, known as the Hyde amendment.

So it is not a foregone conclusion that Obamacare will fund abortions.  In the end, I don't think it will (especially not in an explicit "salt in the wounds" way).

Don't know whether or not it will help with leeford's comprehension issue, but I've given a few reasons why I've supported Obama here: link

Jon, You're seriously out of touch.  One of the first things Obama did when sworn in was to give federal money to abortionists.  He couldn't wait to kill the Mexico City Policy, a Republican policy to protect primarily foreign brown and black children from being murdered by abortionists with American money.  As soon as he took office he started paying people to kill these children.

Your moral argument is seriously flawed.  The parallel would be to support pro-slavery politicians who were ambigious about spending tax dollars to buy slaves for people.

Actually, he did wait on the Mexico City policy, but you're right that he did reverse it eventually.  However, that doesn't change the facts that the Hyde Amendment continues to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in the U.S. and that the Helms Amendment continues to prevent assistance funds from being used to pay for abortions or to motivate/coerce anyone to perform them.

Quote from: jonmower on Wed Aug 19, 2009 - 22:45:23
Actually, he did wait on the Mexico City policy, but you're right that he did reverse it eventually.  However, that doesn't change the facts that the Hyde Amendment continues to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in the U.S. and that the Helms Amendment continues to prevent assistance funds from being used to pay for abortions or to motivate/coerce anyone to perform them.

Eventually?  He killed the Mexico City Policy on January 23, three days after being sworn in.  He couldn't wait to do it.

Obama has frequently said that he will sign the Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA) which many believe will lift all restrictions on abortion such as the Hyde Amendment.

www.40daysforlife.com

Pray outside of your local Planned Parenthood, get up, get active and show the abortionists that we don't like what they are doing!! 

This 40-day prayerful campaign starts nationwide in September.  See if there is one in your area.

God Bless You,

Kristina

LOL this is not up for debate.

Seven Reasons Abortion Is In The Health Care Overhaul

1. The House bill specifically includes it. The Capps amendment explicitly allows abortion coverage in the public health plan and subsidizes health plans that cover abortion. (Passed 30-28 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 30)

2. Senate Democrats admit it. "[The health care bill] would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics.

Quote from: Lou on Wed Aug 19, 2009 - 23:42:57

Quote from: jonmower on Wed Aug 19, 2009 - 22:45:23
Actually, he did wait on the Mexico City policy, but you're right that he did reverse it eventually.  However, that doesn't change the facts that the Hyde Amendment continues to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in the U.S. and that the Helms Amendment continues to prevent assistance funds from being used to pay for abortions or to motivate/coerce anyone to perform them.

Eventually?  He killed the Mexico City Policy on January 23, three days after being sworn in.  He couldn't wait to do it.

Obama has frequently said that he will sign the Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA) which many believe will lift all restrictions on abortion such as the Hyde Amendment.

OH, he kept every evil agenda early on. The pen was in his hand burning hot.

Quote from: leeford on Thu Aug 20, 2009 - 21:05:53
LOL this is not up for debate.

Actually it is.  For example, from NewsBusters (link): "...there is reasonable debate over what exactly Democratic health care proposals before Congress would mean when it comes to financing abortion via the so-called public option."

Quote from: Lou on Wed Aug 19, 2009 - 23:42:57
Eventually?  He killed the Mexico City Policy on January 23, three days after being sworn in.  He couldn't wait to do it.

Normally it is reversed even sooner, but his microscopic additional delay was spun as not trying to rub it in.  I concede that it was an exceedingly weak gesture.

Quote from: jonmower on Thu Aug 20, 2009 - 21:42:55

Quote from: leeford on Thu Aug 20, 2009 - 21:05:53
LOL this is not up for debate.

Actually it is.  For example, from NewsBusters (link): "...there is reasonable debate over what exactly Democratic health care proposals before Congress would mean when it comes to financing abortion via the so-called public option."

Quote from: Lou on Wed Aug 19, 2009 - 23:42:57
Eventually?  He killed the Mexico City Policy on January 23, three days after being sworn in.  He couldn't wait to do it.

Normally it is reversed even sooner, but his microscopic additional delay was spun as not trying to rub it in.  I concede that it was an exceedingly weak gesture.

LOL, he should have done it January twentieth, but partying to hard.

Just wondering where Christian compassion has gone these days in the US.

Then again, perhaps it was never there to begin with.

Can you elaborate Wayseer?

Quote from: wayseer on Thu Aug 20, 2009 - 22:12:21
Just wondering where Christian compassion has gone these days in the US.

Then again, perhaps it was never there to begin with.

It is there, because we care about helpless infants.

You see Jaime, if you don't surrender your wallet to a socialist President to fund special interest groups and expand the role of government over everything imaginable then you don't have compassion.

Nothing quite like a President not wanting to talk about what's in the bill he's trying to get passed before too many people read it.

Quote from: admin on Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 14:32:17
Nothing quite like a President not wanting to talk about what's in the bill he's trying to get passed before too many people read it.

That should have show anyone with half a brain, Obamas motivation is not because he really cares if everyone has health insurance. The details do not matter to him, as long as the government has total control of every area of the our lives. Obama wants the United States to be a socialist country. I just do not get, why people cannot or will not see the destruction happening to our country. I always marveled, why the Jews, were so passive during the Holocaust. I never understood why they let it happen. The Jewish people, would line up against a wall, or naked over a ditch, and be murdered when told to do so. I thought long and hard about the sheep to slaughter attitude of the Jewish people. The men would let their women and children just be taken, killed, or raped. Women let their children be killed, without a fight.  I came to the conclusion, they felt defeated which is a mind control tactic used by evil men, and the devil. If someone can make you feel powerless, they have you. Can you not perceive the same tactics going on here?

   

Waldman tries to answer the question "Does Health Care Cover Abortion?" - link

Quote from: wayseer on Thu Aug 20, 2009 - 22:12:21
Just wondering where Christian compassion has gone these days in the US.

Then again, perhaps it was never there to begin with.

Are you suggesting "Christian compassion" means government confiscation of the fruits of labor from productive people in order to pay for the slaughter of the most innocent?

Nonpartisan FactCheck Web Site: Obama Wrong, Abortion Funding in Health Care

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A nonpartisan web site that routinely serves as a watchdog for public officials, the media and political groups says President Barack Obama has it wrong. FactCheck.org says the current health care plans pending in Congress do authorize abortion funding, contrary to Obama's claims otherwise. "Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plan," the web site concludes. At issue are concerns from pro-life groups that the government-run health care plans would include abortion funding and coverage. Obama has said they don't and gone as far as accusing pro-life groups of lying about the legislation. The FactCheck web site, run by staff at the University of Pennsylvania, says "it's true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new 'public' insurance plan to cover abortions." The House bill does so "despite" the addition of the Capps amendment that pro-abortion lawmakers say prohibits abortion funding. "Obama has said in the past that 'reproductive services' would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that," FactCheck adds. Read Story

Other groups that confirms abortions paid for in ObamaCare: Time Magazine and the Associated Press.

So why is Obama lying?

From Waldman's column I linked above:

QuoteFactCheck.org  last week said President Barack Obama was misleading...PoliFact, on the other hand, earlier sided with the White House..."

What on earth is going on?

To understand requires us to take a journey into the legislative weeds, but here's my bottom line: Those who claim abortion clearly is covered, and those who say it clearly isn't, are both wrong...

The bottom line: The Capps amendment prohibits direct taxpayer subsidy of abortion in these plans, and allows indirect subsidy. That merely leads to the highly subjective question: Is it indirect enough?

My view: If the Capps amendment is off, it's by a matter of inches or feet, not miles. So when pro-life forces claim that, as a result of the "affordability credits," taxpayers are paying for abortion, they're being hyperbolic at best, deceptive at worst.

We often think of abortion as a black-and-white issue. But when it comes to the question of whether health care reform bills "cover" or provide "taxpayer support" for abortion, there are many shades of gray. As of now, neither side is entirely telling the whole truth about what the bills do. On some aspects, Obama and his allies have misled; on others, pro-lifers have. More important, some of this does not involve matters of "fact" or "truth" or "lies," but rather subjective judgment calls, a land where ideologues don't function well, but legislators must.

 Obama is lying, because he can, and knows he can.

Hang on everyone....its coming.....the reconciliation option to force healthcare through....its coming

Quote from: BAH-BLAH on Mon Aug 31, 2009 - 11:44:20
Hang on everyone....its coming.....the reconciliation option to force healthcare through....its coming

Not if we just stand against it.

To the left, that would be seditious violent revolt. 

Quote from: Jaime on Tue Sep 01, 2009 - 17:00:41
To the left, that would be seditious violent revolt. 

Do not care, they would follow Jim Jones if they could.

 
http://media.causes.com/483963?p_id=59638118&ref=nf     * Graphic news story*

Abortion is child abuse in the same sense.
Do you think the Lord will hold, anyone who sucks the brains out of a defenseless baby, any less accountable?

If you do not agree with abortions then please feel free not to have one. It is not the job of a government to legislate morality. It is the job of a government to govern for ALL citizens not just the ones with agendas or things they feel strongly about.

Quote from: kiwimac on Tue Sep 15, 2009 - 02:17:11
If you do not agree with abortions then please feel free not to have one. It is not the job of a government to legislate morality. It is the job of a government to govern for ALL citizens not just the ones with agendas or things they feel strongly about.

It is not about morality it is about killing babies and instilling in society a lack of respect for human life and God's creation.

An addition for kiwimac.......

QuoteFetocide
When termination takes place later in the pregnancy (e.g. after 24 weeks), almost always for severe fetal anomaly, there is an additional process called fetocide recommended so that the baby is not born alive.

In New Zealand this is done by giving the woman Fentanyl IV (a strong short-lasting narcotic sedative) and then injecting Fentanyl and lignocaine into the cord of the fetus under ultrasound guidance before delivery. This method ensures that the baby does not feel pain. Sometimes, as the Fentanyl given to the woman has been shown to cross the placenta and give the baby adequate pain relief, intra-cardiac injection of lignocaine alone or potassium chloride is used.

http://www.abortionservices.org.nz/procedures/surgical.html

Arncha glad kiwimac that the fetus (called baby here) has received pain relief while it is being killed?