A simple question about Obamacare that needs an honest answer.

For the sake of a clean argument can you please back up your assertion that in the bill, "when in that bill is a clause for women "

Please print the "clause" in the bill, because I will not take your word for it.

First, abortion is a legally recognized medical procedure, do you really want the government telling you what is and is not a medical procedure? What would happen if ciallis or other drugs to make men able to have an erection were no longer coverable by insurance, and if it should be covered what criteria should be established, married men only? But here is my big question why are you so ignorant to believe that your morals should dictate the laws of nation? Keep your conservative homophobic lifestyle away from mine and stop trying to push conservative Christianity on the rest of us.

Yes, you must be "truly this ignorant" because there is no "clause" in the bill that provides funding for women to have unsafe sex!

I see you believe it is the women's responsibility when it comes to birth control!

More importantly, will you ever ask a question that could come close to your claimed centrist political position?

Instead of questions that consistently reflect the right-wing stance you have always taken.

Wow! I knew you liberals were ignorant, but this ignorant? The main reason your liberal pals in Washington are not backing Pelosi and Obamacare is over abortion! I can't believe you even argue this point! And how does abortion become the killing of a soon to be newborn child? By having unsafe sex (unprotected in this case) with a man she doesn't want to father her child. So what do these women do? Kill the kid and that is called abortion. And who pays for this under Obamacare? I do!!!

Your example has some assumptions that could be false. What if they used protection and it failed? And they were planning on getting married, but when she became pregnant he wanted nothing to do with her? I befriended a girl in the mid 80's who worked at a gas station where I fueled up at. Her boyfriend, who luuuuuuved her, accidentally got her pregnant. He gave her $200 to get it "taken care of", and kicked her to the curb. She was fearful of telling her parents because her dad was a "drill seargent" type. It broke my heart that a young woman would even be put in a position like this. A perfect example of men not being men, or needing to "man up"...but that's another subject.

Not to sidetrack, but your example has false assumptions.

Jim: You are just plain delusional! Tossing out made up scenarios about promiscuous women out for a good time and then getting abortions on your dime is a pure sophomoric wet dream. Provide the references that back up your claims and then we'll discuss the issue on a factual basis, until then keep your fantasies to yourself.

Or,for brevity's sake, in your first sentence after the word "have" you could have put "abortions" and eliminated from "unsafe" to the end of the sentence as excessive verbiage (or inflammatory hyperbole).

Just sayin'...

RT...What if? Ok. But how do you prove the “what if?" The fact is the "what if" is mainly a pipe dream and doesn't fit the majority of abortions. That's where the women has unprotected sex, doesn't want to marry the guy or have him involved with raising the child (remember that part of society and how kids can be raised to be good citizens with two parents involved?) and then decides to destroy the soon to be born child. That’s not a “what if” RT. That’s a fact.

In today’s society, no fault freedom is all too often taught by parents. In your example, shouldn’t the ones making that mistake have the baby an maybe give the child up for adoption? I know we can get insurance for those that make that mistake, as sad as that sounds. But for me to pay for any women regardless of why she wants an abortion is not moral or what this country stands behind. It’s why so many congressman ands senators are now against Obamacare.

Ref33...why don't you find out why woman have abortions in the first place. That vast majority don't need one for medical reasons. That I know you know is the truth. So why should you and I pay for the majority that don't need one mainly due to their own mistake.

Ref33...none of these reasons why women have abortions should be paid for by tax payers money:

Responses listed as primary reason%

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)

Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
Feels she can't afford baby 23%
Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
Interference with education/career plans 4%
Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

Jim - I don;t care about the reasons I want to see the CLAUSE in the healthcare overhaul bill the lets women do what you asserted ,"is a clause for women to have unsafe sex with men they have no intentions of marrying and then decide the father is worthless and aborts the child."

Pony it up!

Reff - it's obvious that women reproduce by parthenogenisis with no need for the male half of the chromosome to make a zygote! Duh!

Jacob...I don't care how you want to twist the truth. But you are a liberal intelligencia, so you claim. If so, why don't you look in the bill and find out how abortions are paid and by whom! I also proved that the vast majority of women who have abortions is because they didn't have the brains to have some sort of protected sex. This is one of the main holdups with Obamacare. But number one is the lies about the costs that Obama and the others you put there keeping shoving down our throats and why they are dropping like flies!

"in that bill is a clause for women to have unsafe sex with men they have no intentions of marrying " ....now there's lesgilation a divorced guy can live with.....

Carl...now that's funny!

Jim - Your an idiot.

You state that their is a clause in the bil that says this:

,"is a clause for women to have unsafe sex with men they have no intentions of marrying and then decide the father is worthless and aborts the child."

You fail to provide your readers with the clause from the bill: "is a clause for women to have unsafe sex ".


Take some responsibility for your actions Bub!

YOU ALSO IGNORE RESPONSIBILY THAT A MAN HAS IN THE ACT OF PROCREATION AND LAY IT ENTIRELY ON THAT OF THE WOMEN!

ALL YOU HAVE PROVED IS THAT YOU ARE TO STUPID TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTION FOR YOUR CLAIM OF A CLAUSE!

And this is the difference between you and AMY which makes her a much better blogger than you.

She at least tries to support her assertions with something to back it up.

In this case AMY would have done the homework and cut and pasted the clause from a source and I would think in this case she would have had a source that would link to the original documentation.

Basic English composition!

Edit your blog and back up the claim!

I think I found the clause:

‘‘(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services de-
scribed in this clause are abortions for
which sleazy, mindless women have as a result of eng-
aging in unsafe sex with men they have no in-
tentions of marrying and then decide the father
is worthless, for which the expenditure of Fe-
deral funds appropriated for the Department
of Health and Human Services is not permitted,
based on the law as in effect as of the date
that is 6 months before the beginning of the
plan year involved."

I took the liberty of slightly amending it in order to appease conservatives.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Jacob...are you saying that abortion paid for by Obamacre is not in the Obamacre bill?