Something strange has happened that I don’t quite understand. It seems the governor of Virginia has added an amendment to a bill approved by the General Assembly. How does this work? Why is the executive branch able to do legislative tasks? Here is what happened:
RICHMOND — Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell has added an amendment restricting insurance coverage for abortion into a bill approved by the General Assembly establishing a health insurance exchange as part of the federal health-care overhaul.
The health insurance exchange would be managed by the state and allow individuals and some small businesses to pool together to buy insurance at lower rates. Some who cannot afford insurance would receive government subsidies.
Under the federal law, states were given the option of creating their own exchanges or using ones operated by the federal government.
The bill approved by the General Assembly stated Virginia’s intent to create its own exchange, and directed state regulators to figure out how to run it.
After the bill reached McDonnell (R) for his signature, he added an amendment that would prohibit any insurance plan offered as part of the exchange from including coverage for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
The governor does not believe elective abortions should be covered through the exchange or with taxpayer dollars,” said McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin. “This is consistent with his pro-life position and policies passed with bipartisan backing at both the state and federal levels.”
Abortion opponents across the country have been working to get the health-care exchanges to exclude abortion coverage, and similar measures are pending in more than 20 states. They say a government-managed market should not allow dollars to be spent on the procedure.
The Pro-choice groups were not pleased. The Washington Post reported:
Advocates for abortion rights say the measures are part of a national drive by conservatives to restrict access to abortion.
Federal and state law prohibit using tax dollars for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. McDonnell’s amendment would extend such prohibitions to insurance plans purchased by individuals in exchanges
How can anyone tell private insurance plans what they can or cannot offer if it is a legal service? How can a governor all of a sudden become a legislator and start inserting amendments into a bill? Don’t all bills need to go before legislative bodies? Perhaps I fell asleep during Virginia history class or maybe that is when I lived in Georgia. Something sure seems out of wack to me.
NARAL Pro Choice Virginia sent out an emergency email response which included the following clarification:
Governor McDonnell’s amendment is so extreme, it even prohibits women in the new health system from using their own private dollars to purchase abortion coverage. It also prohibits private insurance companies from offering coverage!
This flies in the face of the governor’s conservative principles – free markets, limited government, and individual rights and liberty. Not to mention, privacy!
The more extreme Governor “Pat Robertson” McDonnell gets, the sooner he and his ilk will become a thing of the past. Unfortunately, they have to get a little worse before things get better. He also added close to a million dollars into abstinence programs. Did the GA cut funding to Planned Parenthood? I can’t even keep up with it any more.
The House and the Senate will vote on the governor’s amendment to HB 2434 next Wednesday. Here is the Naral Pro Choice form for your convenience:
If people sincerely want to reduce the incidence of abortion, then all sexually active people have to have easy access to safe, reliable contraception. Abstinence programs are just feel good programs that have proven over and over again to be ineffective. If some of the people promoting them had any clue what is really going on in many high schools they would hang their heads in shame for being so gullible. It’s time for a reality check.
what does protecting women’s health and safety have to do with it? cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk are specifically excluded. and suddenly we’re all concerned about what anyone can tell private insurance plans what they can or cannot offer if it is a legal service? what was obamacare all about if not that? forcing them to accept pre-existing conditions and children up to age 26?
Do you want the governor telling your insurance company what legal procedures can and cannot be covered? You don’t see that as over reaching? One person making all the decisions sounds a little non democratic to me.
It souunds like you don’t mind living in a theocracy. I do mind.
Is the Governor restricting vasectomies? No, he’s not. So, why not give all the men a snipping to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. 🙂 Heaven forbid should a man have take on the responsiblity of birth control.
This is complete and total BS.
this is not right. How can the Governor just add an amendment to a piece of legislation? Can he add an amendment to require all men to wear pink tutu’s on Saturdays?
regarding this amendment, what is the difference in this (adding an amendment to a piece of legislation) and legislating from the bench? The exchange allows two parties to connect and create a contract – the exchange does not make the contract,, or charge the fees.
And why stop at Abortion – why not limit the types of birth control, stem cell related therapies, and cosmetic surgery. About a year ago, the RNC stopped offering abortion coverage in their health insurance policy.
Oh trust me, they are working on it…..(maybe not the cosmetic surgery…)
@all, I have no doubt that they are working on curbing all those things.
We really have to not allow people’s religious beliefs to become policy. They have used our distain of ‘religious prejudice’ against us. Maybe I should just declare open warfare and be done with it.
I have always believed that until women had control of their own reproduction, they were second class citizens. Women simply did not have the same rights or earning potential as men.
When women are no longer in control of their own reproduction, they will lose.
This sickens me.
Pat, I don’t understand how a governor can produce legislation. I
don’t see how it is even legal. And Lafayette is right. Moderate Republican my ass! He is a values based cultural warrior.
But, this is no surprise. Anyone coming out of Pat Robertson’s academy could not help but be anything else.
I just read Bubba’s angry response on the Arizona thread. I got worked up myself. I decided what I had to say perhaps fit here better:
Roe is based on Griswold. If Roe is overturned, I think Griswold will have to go also and there goes the right to birth control. And I believe if that happens, there will be another civil war.
What voters have to be very careful of is defining when life begins. The choice of the words ‘fertilization’ and ‘conception’ are going to be paramount.
Sleaze bag Bob Marshall (and I use that adjective without apology) already tried to define that life begins at fertilization several years ago. The measure failed. The use of the word ‘fertilization’ would effectively make most birth control illegal.
Bob Marshall has strong roots in Judie Brown’s American Life League. That organization is opposed to contraception. Bob and his wife were involved with the forming of the organization. Make no mistake. He will set it up so contraception goes.
This is totally disgusting:
http://www.all.org/
Don’t forget–Side Show Bob tried to ban the morning after pill at JMU several years ago. Lafayette will be along to post the video of frat boys and luv canals.
Taa Daa! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6k4RrKNk7s
And to think this could soon be our delegate if the proposed map are approved.
“Some who cannot afford insurance would receive government subsidies.”
The devil is in the details. If taxpayers don’t pay into the exchanges (and under Obamacare, they can refuse, and just pay a piddly penalty when they need the care), then where does the money come from?
No one is going to overturn Roe v. Wade simply by keeping taxpayer dollars out of the abortion industry for all but extreme cases. But it sure gets the proletariat worked up every 2-4 years!
so here is the process – http://www.ppav.org/images/How_a_bill_becomes_a_law.pdf – I learned something today – the Governor can make an amendment to a proposed bill that has passed both legislative bodies. The added Amendment to the bill, then goes back to both bodies, and they both must approve of the amendment. So the Governor cannot just change the legislation.
Emma – I do not have a problem with subsidized plans not covering abortions, but I do have a problem with not allowing someone access to other, non subsidized plans, through the exchange.
Emma, I don’t think of myself as the proletariat. Perhaps it is my overly inflated ego. Perhaps it is the amount of time I have put into obtaining a knowledge base on this subject over the years. It hasn’t all been from in front of my TV.
I am not going to sit around and wait for Roe to be overturned. Roe is more in danger today than it has been in the 38 years since abortion rights were codified.
I think a governor jumping into the legislative ring is a fairly serious act. Isn’t the governor part of the executive branch of government? Why is he inserting legislation ? Is that his job? Didn’t think so. He was so excited to stomp out the ‘scourge of abortion,’ (to quote Corey Stewart) that he must have forgotten where his duties start and stop.
How dare he start determining what our private policies can provide us with! Isn’t that governmrnt intrustion? When does the state decide perhaps we don’t need to have contraception covered? or mental health counselling? Where does the government intrusion start and stop?
Abortion rights foes will always try to take the high road as Emma has and argue that propontents of choice are over blowing the danger and that all that is happening is removal of tax payer dollars. Bull puckey! The tax payer dollars thingie has been taken care of for thirty some years by the Hyde Amendment.
Don’t ever let anyone, anything, or any body convince you that you are being an alarmist if you are gravely concerned over the status of reproductive rights. If you think they are in danger, it is probably because they are.
Thanks to Pat.Herve for that link. This is not the first time a governor on either side of the political aisle has used this law to try to amend a bill passed by the legislature. Gilmore and Warner, among others, have used this device. The governor proposes and the legislature (both houses) disposes. The governor’s signature on such an amendment never makes it a done deal.
Agreed, Pat. Thanks for posting how that is done. I still think it is over-reaching. Perhaps we need to look at how things are done in Virginia. I had always read how any governor in Virginia is one of the most powerful elected positions in the country. Now I see why.
The Hyde Amendment already prevents abortions with taxpayer money. However, telling my private insurance company what cannot be a provision is just plain old WRONG and over-reaching.
Wolverine, what did Gilmore and Warner do specifically? Did they whittle away at people’s agreements with their private insurance companies? Did they take away anyone’s rights? Just asking. And I guess this is where I slide in a resounding so what? As my mother used to tell me, just because everyone else jumped off the cliff doesn’t mean you have to.
I knew it had to go back to the legislature but I didn’t know the process. I like having my legislative and executive branches separate.
Moon, just some quick research without too much detail. Governor Wilder had a number of amendments rejected in 1990-1991, involving, inter alia, a bill on abortion and another on transportation funding. In 1999, Gilmore had a dozen proposed amendments rejected in a single legislative session. Not sure what they were about, but some of it may have concerned the car tax issue. In 2004, Warner proposed amendments to a couple of bills, one his attempt to make a ban on civil unions less vulnerable to constitutional challenges and another to strengthen a law making it a crime to kill a fetus. Just some samples. I think that the procedure is open to just about any issue.
I don’t care for the entire practice. Governors are executive branch.
More specifically, I really don’t think McDonnell or the legislator has the right to remove a benefit from private policies.
In that case, all state power to determine content of insurance would be removed if that philosophy is followed. That could be good or bad. If the state does not have that power, then, how can Obama…I’m sorry, HCR, do it?
Cargo, we are talking about removal of personal benefits under private plans. There is no HCR equivalent.
Free market cherry picking be damned.
What if I bought a plan that included cosmetic surgery. Most plans don’t have that. Can the state come along and tell me no?
At what point do we get to a reality check?
I see banishing planned parenthood, sex ed, severely restricting abortion, giving people conscience clauses at corporate pharmacies to not fill birth control rx’s, and then I see all this bitching about medicaid costs.
People that don’t have access to birth control get pregnant. Some pregnancies end in abortion. Those that don’t often produce children. Children cost money. Not everyone can afford children. What part of this do some people not grasp?
If we consider Benjamin Franklin to be a founding father, (and he certainly was a father many times over in all varying degrees of martimony) we should give serious thought to his old adage about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.
McDonnell is a total fool. He puts nearly a million bucks into abstenence programs. Seriously, he is cannot think this is the silver bullet? I don’t think he is quite that stupid. I think he is probably just immorally using our tax money to play to his own base who lives in a dream world.
But is not every election a contest of values? The reward for winning is the right to attempt to have your values influence governance. Your ability to do that depends on two things (1) whether you have enough allies within the entire governing body to win out over the opposition; and (2) whether or not your values conflict with judicial interpretations of the basic governing documents. In my opinon, we do not have the right to demand that the winner of an election forego trying to have his values influence governance. We do have the right to use those constitutional tools available to us to try to counter those values with which we do not agree. And we always have the right to try to change the balance of power in subsequent elections. But, if you say the the winner of an election should not try to implement his own values, what would be the point of running for office at all?
I really hope that isn’t what every election is. Hypothetically, what if I were a muslim who felt that everyone should have one and only one child.
Do I get to enforce MY values during the time that my values won? I think there might be some mighty pissed off people and rightfully so. I think we ought to have American values. Abortion and contraception are legal entities.
I am really at the point of saying opposed to abortion? Don’t have one. No one is forcing anyone to have a procedure they don’t believe in.
At what point are these dudley do-rights going to tell us we cannot have invitro fertilization, hospice care, and anything having to do with stem cell medicine?
I just decided I have a little more to say on this score about the winner getting to beat the other person up with his values.
I don’t want to impose MY values on other people. All I am trying to do is keep someone else from imposing his on me. I have never insisted that anyone else have an abortion, nor would I. I just want it to be a safe legal procedure.
It will not be in Virginia. Make sure to thank a legislator the next time you hear of back alley abortion coming back to Virginia. You know that pig in Philadelphia who was caught with the deplorable abortion clinic? Access. He was there. Decent clean facilities that provided 2nd trimester abortion services were. that is an example of what desperate women do. Think about it.
I expect soon we will have to run an underground railroad like in the pre-Roe days.
In 1997, I had a “blighted ovum” at the 4th month of pregnancy. I was advised that I could wait a week or 10 days for a miscarriage to occur naturally or I could schedule a D&C — a surgical abortion. The way I read this amendment, McDonald wouldn’t allow my insurance to cover the D&C — I’d have to wait and go through a miscarriage. Sorry religous right, but it’s not your call, damnit.
I agree with you. It really is no one’s business but yours.
What I find totally amazing is that the very same people who whine, piss, bitch and moan about government over-reaching and less government interference want to intrude into the very most personal aspects of a person’s life.
At my age, with more than several grandchildren, and one on the way, I am feeling very militant.
Ahhh…the railroad is in progress/construction. :>) But we already have the illegal clinics (Kermit Gosnell) AND the illegal terminations – be they self-inflicted or induced by a quack. Be sure to thank a “pro-lifer” for that.
And if you think I am kidding, Planned Parenthood’s have gotten calls from Girls distant from clinics – or without parental consent – asking if they could swallow a whole bottle of asprin (or other meds) and miscarry. The documentary The Last Clinic in Mississippi shows this in detail.
You know – it is good you are feeling militant. I wish more would. If a person’s right to bodily autonomy is nullified then we have no freedom. If I cannot decide whether to gestate a fetus or not, have a tooth pulled, or refuse cancer treatment – despite cries of woe to the contrary – what freedom do I have? What freedom would ANY of us have?
Like it or not – this issue that was once considered a woman’s domain – has crossed gender lines and now concerns both men and women. If a woman does not have the right to decide if her body be used to gestate a fetus – then what right does any of us have regarding what we will/will not do with our bodies?
People often forget this simple truth – a state that can force you to gestate, can also force you to abort; for in neither state does the individual have the choice or free will to decide his/her fate of their body. A fetus may be a unique individual with its own DNA and heartbeat, but so is the person supporting it with their body systems and life. If no one has the right to choose how their bodily systems are used – we are all slaves.
The state exchanges will not be entirely private. They will still have some level of public funding, as not everyone can or will choose to participate. Hyde Amendment or not, there are many who see that as a back door for taxpayer funding of abortion for that very reason. When I step back and try to look at this more objectively, I’m still hearing a desire for the the government to stay out of women’s bodies, but a demand that it still foot the bill for those very personal choices, even if those choices have nothing to do with immediate danger to a woman’s life, health, or in cases of rape or incest. If private companies want to provide these services, fine. But the exchanges are not entirely private.
All I know is the Governor has no business restricting what is included in private coverage.
I don’t get a line item veto on many things I disapprove of.
I disapprove of the subsidies given to oil companies with their billion dolloar profits. No one asked my permission. I am not wild about what happened with Iraq. No line item veto for me. I had to suck it up just like the anti abortion people should have to do.
How about Christian Scientists, Emma? They don’t believe in modern medical interventions. Should they be excused from paying taxes because part of their taxes will go to provide modern medical care to the indigent? It may be God’s will that children die of appendicitis.
My God opposes the home mortgage deduction because He feels it’s wrong for the government to subsidise 3,000 sq ft houses and vacation homes while some people are homeless. Can I get the governor to insert a budget amendment eliminating the home mortgage deduction in Virginia?
My God doesn’t believe in all of your Gods and doesn’t believe in property, sales, and income tax deductions for religious institutions for your false religions. I insist that the Governor propose a budget amendment to eliminate these tax deductions. After all, freedom of religion also includes not having to pay for your religion.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in government recognition or saluting the flag. They think doing so elevates government above God. They aren’t excused from paying taxes are they?
People have to do all sorts of things they don’t believe in. Render unto Caesar….
Get over it. Is that what this is? Tax payer funded birth control with planned parenthood? How about medicaid? I cannot believe that I am having a birth control conversation in 2011.
YOu know I find it amazing that the forced birthers have such a stance and bitch/moan on how their tax monies are spent – and expect their bitching and moaning to be heard and accomodated.
Things I LOATHE about where my tax $$$ goes (the short list)
“Crisis” pregnancy centers
Innacurate sex-education…”Abstinence only”
Office of Faith-Based Initiatives
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Annual “Aid” given to Israel while they keep on making “settlements” (3 Bil scheduled for 2011)
Prison funding for private companies that run prisons on the state’s behalf
The war on drugs – specifically marijuana enforcement/prosecution
Corporate subsidies
My list is a lot longer, but what effing right do these sanctimonious “save de baybeez” a-holes have to bitch and moan about the possibility that *some* state money go to funding a life-saving abortion, or maybe even one not exactly “life saving”?
You would think that they would be all up in arms about all the miscarriages and “babies” lost in Iraq and Afghanistan – including the LIVES of born children and their parents. But no, THEIR lives do not make the cut. Apparantly “the right to life” occurs in a vacuum whereby it is only fetal life that is worthy of protection in this nation.
But see – since the HYDE ammendment no federal money goes to fund abortions unless – the pregnant woman is DYING from her condition and her fetus is too early in gestation to survive outside the womb. They don’t abort late-term fetuses when viability is established. EARLY DELIVERY is induced to preserve the life of the woman and her fetus!
But that FACT is not enough for the forced-birthers – NO, nononononononononono……Any money that goes towards programs of family planning and birth control MUST be really diverting the cash to pay for the abortions of women who obviously had wanton sex without the forced birthers’ permission. They don’t want to see their tax $$$ go towards paying for the irresponsibility of the woman in question. But yet they don’t complain about tax money going to help medicare/medicaid patients medical care for lung cancer for smoking….diabetes care for the obese….liver transplants for chronic alcoholics….sadly, again, those lives don’t make the cut. Maybe those lives aren’t “innocent” enough…tho they do have their own unique DNA and a heartbeat. *perplexed*
And yes, Moon, you’re having a conversation about BC in 2011 because the forced-birth MOSTLY CHURCH DRIVEN and FUNDED (and there is wonder why I have such a low opinion of churches?) “save da baybeeez” movement is against all birth control.
FACT: Not ONE national “right to life” organization is in favor of birth control. NOT ONE. The ONLY contraception they advocate is abstinence – for EVERYONE. Pro-choice has known about their desire to also end access to BC since the early 00’s.
Yeah, so the forced-birthers are in a tizzy because there is a miniscule window where “THEIR” tax $$$ might go towards an abortion meanwhile the rest of their tax money is spent on Iraq/Afghanistan where people are killed regularily. But somehow this doesn’t bother them. The fact that a woman decides she does not wish to remain pregnant makes it to the top of thier “moral compass”
They are a mysogynistic group who care very little for women – despite all the free diapers, used baby clothes and cash rewards they give women in exchange for “keeping their baybeez” Once that kid is born they’re not there to help pay bills, work a job, put food on the table or get up with that baby at night when it is sick or scared or needs to be fed. They’ve “done their job” and are on to the next fetus that they will not have any part in upbringing.
If they’re so concerned with the lives of “baybeez” they should instead switch their focus to pregnancy prevention programs, federally funded BC, and fundraising for research into miscarriage prevention, funding for childrens’ hospitals, funding for THE HOMELESS CHILDREN (other than grilling burgers from Costco for that lone kid passing by), hell funding for St. Jude’s for the kids whose lives really are in peril.
But as I have said over and over – it isn’t about the babies. It never has been and never will be.
@Bubba, I don’t really think it is about babies either. Otherwise more would be done for the born.
One local organization used to lure patients in and get private information from them. Then the calls home and ‘please don’t kill your baby’ calls would start.
So I agree with you about ‘crisis’ pregnancy centers. I have less problem with those who say who they are up front. The one who pretend to be an abortion clinic so they can prey on the patients should be shut down and their lying leaders jailed.
I don’t care if people are anti birth control AND anti abortion–FOR THEMSELVES.
I have zero respect for anyone who is anti contraception and anti abortion for others. If a person is truly anti abortion then they seriously need to make certain contraception is available and plentiful.
I realize that some churches espouse this thinking. I just that kind of thinking is immortal. If limited to their own parishoners, have at it but one religion’s beliefs should not become policy nor should they have a thing to say to any politician.
I try not to be offensive to various religions. It is important to me to never ridicule anyone else’s religion. When I get the anti birth control gobbledeegoop, it makes it real hard.
On the other hand, since you reference Emma’s Costco burgers, I respect that she does that. We all can’t start orphanages but if each of us did a little for someone less fortunate, the world would be a better place. Gotta defend Emma there. Let’s cut her a break. I know she is devout. As long as she asks me to give a hungry kid a burger and doesn’t tell me not to use birth control, we are good.
@Not Me, Bubba I guess if you spew any more of your venomous bile, you might just win me over, right? How does that generally work for you?
Who in the hell do you think you are, defining me? You don’t even know me. I have never once come on this board condemning contraception. I believe in safe and effective birth control. I have never passed judgment on women who have abortions–not ever. As a nurse, I have spent an entire career caring for people of all ages, so you can stuff your ideas about how narrow-minded I am just because my conscience doesn’t allow me to think of unborn babies as nothing more than medical waste.
What about you? Are you able to have the global impact you seem to expect me to have because of my beliefs?
Where do you stand on the death penalty? Are you making popcorn awaiting a politician’s refusal of a stay of execution? Do you wish you could be there to flip the switch? Do you believe that said politician, judges and juries are so infallible as never mistakenly condemn person to death? Do you believe criminals are nothing but irredeemable garbage? I think I know the answer to that, but in fairness, I will allow you to answer for it.
I am sorry it gets you so upset that some people consider a fetus to be precious human life, that they at least want that to be a part of the equation. I imagine that you are emboldened by the fact that Moon and others share your pro-choice views, so you merrily throw acid on me and on entire groups of people because of their beliefs. Why don’t we meet sometime? I’d be interested to see if you would be willing to give it to me so undeservedly to my face.
Do you want to try to put me into some kind of evangelical box, because you hate organized religion so much? Let’s see, among other things I’m:
Pro-life
Pro contraception
Anti-death penalty
Pro gay marriage (MARRIAGE, not just civil union)
Pro universal healthcare (more on that another time)
Since you’re such an expert on organized religion, maybe you’ve already found the perfect box for me. Good luck with that.
@Emma, and this is a good reason to not broad-brush.
And what is difficult for many people to believe is that Emma and I may or may not have very similar personal feelings about abortion. My political feelings are different. And I certainly not pro abortion. I just want it legal for the reasons I have shared many times on this blog. That doesn’t mean that anyone ever has to use it.
NMB, Emma is sort of difficult to pigeon-hole. I understand some of your rage but I don’t think we can tar and feather people who personally oppose abortion. There’s a lot more to the question that just abortion.
Now….some of these politicians who want to shut down PP, shut off contraception to the masses and outlaw abortion, I will militantly help you light the fire to melt the tar…but I don’t want to dunk Emma.
The real issue here is denying women the freedom to choose their insurance based on their needs. If Emma want to spend her tax dollars ensuring that no part of any government dollar pays for an insurance company that provides abortion, by my guest. If those women who get federal dollars want to pay for that additional coverage with their own money, I have no problem with that, but I am wondering, how in the heck are you gonna verify that??!!!! What convaluted system are you gonna create to make sure that someone in the insurance exchange pays for that particlar coverage with their own money. It’s simpy impossible. It isn’t like we are talking about Medicaid recipients here, this is the public exchange to buy private insurance.
TWO word for how I feel about this religious zealotry invading my private life….SHARIA LAW.
what’s your objection to sharia law? you’re merely substituting your reliance and dependence on an earthly omnipotent all-powerful deity sitting in washington and state capitols to an extraterrestrial omnipotent deity who is concerned with our daily welfare and well-being. besides, sharia is opposed to usury, so that will eliminate those evil bankers and fat cats on wall street
It’s funny, I never actually brought my own religion in any meaningful way into this discussion–only defended the good works that our area churches do in the face of such vicious hatred by another poster here. I’ve never actually stood up and called for repeal of Roe. I just don’t want to see obvious workarounds to the Hyde Amendment. And I’m a religious zealot? Sharia law? Wow! Demonize much?
(thank you, Moon)
You are welcome, Emma. No tar and feathers for you.
I do think once people sit down and talk about what is personally acceptable, they are much closer than they realize.
Where the rub comes is the politics. Who decides? The government second guessing the citizens or the people, making their own decisions. That’s where we all fight actually.
e,
Unlike you, I have actually been critical of Obama. That you actually believe the drivel Faux news puts out that people who supported Obama worship him like he is a diety is personally insulting to me. You know me, you have, on more than one occasion, commeting on my “wisdom” when in our private conversations. I don’t worship any false idol, not a golden calf or a president. My political views are different from yours, that doesn’t make me a worshiper of false idols.
I strongly believe that a woman has a right to have dominion over her body, and given some recent events in your life, you, of all people, should understand how important it is that a woman be able to control her choice to be a mother or not to be a mother.
Emma,
I did not intend to include you in the realm of religious zealots, it was a global statement about how I feel. However, the reality is that denying EVERYONE in a public insurance exchange the choice of insurance, that could include abortion coverage, is simply over the top.
No government entity, a real Democracy, based on capitalism I might add, should have the omnipotent power to deny its citizens full insurance coverage. You want to spend your financial resources to determine what part of a dollar that a private citizens uses to buy insurance is govt. or private, be my guest, just leave me out that quagmire.
So, we’re all agreed that government should get out of deciding what should be included in any health insurance plans, right? And no tax money should go to covering such, because that would be reducing the freedom of people to control what happens with their bodies, right?
Ok, then.
Welcome to libertarianism.
That is not what I said. I said it should tell tell private citizens paying for their own plan that something cannot be on the plan.
Big difference.
@Not Me, Bubba
Not related to abortion, but I saw your brief list and that you are against the aid to Israel. Are you also against the aid to Palestine while they commit terrorism, like cutting the throats of babies? And are you against the aid to Egypt? They get the same amount as Israel. That was part of the treaty deal. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood wants a modesty police that will probably beat and kill women, you’ll want that changed too, right?
Isreal receives twice as much as Palestine in foreign aid. It receives at least 3 billion annually and has since the mid 80’s. Most is military aid but not all. Egypt gets about 2 billion.
I would have to think long and hard about cutting off foreign aid. However, if we are cutting it off to Americans, it does make us question why we are sending billions out of country. A thousand billons makes a trillion …not good.
We are pouring big bucks into the area, that’s for sure.
I am uncomfortable saying that Palestine cuts the throats of babies. That is far too much of a broad brush for me. The politics of that area are very complex. No one should view it in a good/bad light. It is far too complex to become a binary problem.