Bart Stupak won't run for reelection.

[Hauldren Collider]

The vote totals don't make that statement as clear as you wish it to be.

So, it's possible I'm wrong, but Ben still totally failed to read what I said, hence my anger.

[Darius871]

It doesn't particularly change the law; it simply indicates where funding will go. The executive has the power of enforcement of the law, and by how it decides to enforce whatever law is passed can make changes. Administrations in the past have thwarted Congresses of different parties by refusing to fully fund certain programs.

This seems a facile way of putting it... suppose Ron Paul gets elected President but there's still a status-quo Congress - could he permissibly "refus[e] to fully fund" certain farm subsidies for instance? The farmers or businesses statutorily entitled to that money would inevitably seek mandamus or other declaratory relief and I fail to see a compelling counterargument. Wouldn't the same go for Stairwell Annie arguing that "XX U.S.C. XXXX entitles me to a $X subsidy to buy Y insurance plan which opts to disburse for abortion procedures so long as its enrollees pay a purely symbolic $1 per month into a separate account, as is the case here; thus, compel HHS to pay me $X"? But for the reform, she either A) couldn't have afforded the abortion or B) would have had to pay for it with private premiums or cash, but now she's statutorily entitled to taxpayer dollars with which to buy an abortion-providing plan, even if an EO says to disregard the statute insofar as she's concerned. I'm not sure that the Mexico City Policy is apposite when USAID appropriations afford relatively broad executive discretion, and Youngstown-wise there isn't Congressional "silence" but rather a statute entitling Stairwell Annie to $X, putting executive power at what Jackson called its "lowest ebb."

Anyway, you're right that this is all a moot point since even Stupak conceded that the Hyde "Amendment" applies to the Senate bill. Though only an HHS appropriation rider that has to be renewed annually, I don't think anyone's suggesting the Dems have the balls to leave it out next year or any year.

[Kidlicious]

The subsidy money by law (in the bill even before Stupak's grandstanding) could not be used at all to subsidize abortion coverage. People had to pay for that out of their own pocket. If you want to claim a subsidy in one place subsidizes another then you can use that argument against just about EVERY tax credit and subsidy in any industry in the country. The fact that the law says no Federal money can be spent on those items should be good enough but if people want to spend their own money then they can. It's very simple really.

What kind of person would pay extra for abortion insurance?

[Dinner]

Someone who wants to be covered for reproductive health? Really it should be included as part of EVERY health plan. The government should specify a certain minimum coverage and then require all health insurance companies to meet the requirements. Don't like it? Tough, do it or go out of business.

[Kidlicious]

Someone who wants to be covered for reproductive health? Really it should be included as part of EVERYTHING health plan. The government should specify a certain minimum coverage and then require all health insurance companies to meet the requirements. Don't like it? Tough, do it or go out of business.

Oh and then mandate insurance purchase? How is that essentially different from raising taxes and government funding abortion? It does the same thing.

[Patroklos]

Probably but I can see a golden lining for the Democrats. Dems will be less likely to grandstand and more likely to toe the line. That should be good for party discipline and party discipline has always been something the Democrats were bad at but the Republicans good at

Are you retarded? The coming electoral slaughter for the Democrats is because so many toed the line.

[Dinner]

Naw, there will be no slaughter. The Dems will lose seats but they will mostly be red seats Dems captured i 2006 and 2008 which will revert back to their usual red status now that people's anger about Bush has faded. Repugs will probably even pick up a few swing seats as people tend to vote against the President's party in off year elections but most of the seats are so gerrymandered they won't be lost. I predict Democrats still maintain control of both houses as there just aren't enough competitive districts up for election.

[Hauldren Collider]

Someone who wants to be covered for reproductive health? Really it should be included as part of EVERY health plan. The government should specify a certain minimum coverage and then require all health insurance companies to meet the requirements. Don't like it? Tough, do it or go out of business.

There is a perfectly legitimate ethical argument for abortion being murder. I don't necessarily agree with it, in fact I'm unopinionated (although Roe v. Wade is an obviously retarded decision), so going around saying that everyone should be covered for abortions is akin, to around half the country, to saying everyone should get insured murder. Just something to consider. And a one-size-fits-all plan is retarded. You seem to be suggesting that MEN be covered for abortion.

[giblets]

You seem to be suggesting that MEN be covered for abortion.

If men and women buy the same coverage, then men pay part of the cost, right? Makes sense seeing how men help create the reason for abortions.

edit: oh and since everyone shares the burden of paying for the iraq war, I don't see why people shouldn't be forced to share the burden of paying for abortions, if the majority agrees to that.

[Hauldren Collider]

Not everyone who gets an abortion is married, gribbler. And some people aren't keen on paying for what they see to be murder.

[giblets]

I know they're not keen on it. That's why taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for the murder of Iraqi civilians.

[Ecofarm]

We'll revoke Roe before we revoke Hyde because we have the nads to fight for what's right even if the economics hurt.


Try to appreciate the multiple allusions there.

[Ben Kenobi]

If men and women buy the same coverage, then men pay part of the cost, right? Makes sense seeing how men help create the reason for abortions.

Maybe some men do. Why would I pay for other people to kill their children? Makes no sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know they're not keen on it. That's why taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for the murder of Iraqi civilians

40 million American children since 72. Your ball, sir. It would be amazing if the 'bleeding hearts' actually gave a **** about people.