News Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

[Haborix]

About fiscal practices:



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

I'm sorry, but to equate those timid budget cuts with an anarchist or a libertarian is complete hyperbole. This happens over 38 YEARS.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm sorry, but to equate those timid budget cuts with an anarchist or a libertarian is complete hyperbole. This happens over 38 YEARS.

I'll remove that sentence. I don't want to debate that... we can just look at the number and make our own judgments. In the same vein, you should probably expand on your use of the word "timid".

 

[Evo]

Based on how unpopular Ryan's proposed budgets cuts are, especially Medicare, It appears that Romney might regret his VP pick.

Paul Ryan plan unpopular, polls show

Paul Ryan's a numbers guy — and he's got some bad ones.

Last spring when Ryan unveiled his budget proposal, which proposed changing Medicare to a private program with government subsidies, pollsters jumped to see what Americans thought.

A flurry of polls showed a majority or at least a plurality of voters didn't like Ryan's idea. Among the elderly, it was wildly unpopular.

In June 2011 a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey found that 58 percent of American adults opposed the Medicare idea, while just 35 percent said they supported. Among the elderly, the disapproval rate soared to 74 percent. Even among conservative voters, 54 percent disapproved.

In the same month, a Pew Research Center poll found that 41 percent of Americans opposed turning Medicare into a voucher system, akin to Ryan’s plan, although 23 percent had no opinion. That poll also found that a majority of older Americans, 51 percent, opposed the idea. When Pew drilled down, it found that voters preferred Democrats handling of Medicare over Republicans by 10 points — 44 to 34 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79607.html#ixzz23SApxHCW

He's Catholic and has managed to gain the disaproval of the Catholic bishops.

 

[Haborix]

I'll remove that sentence. I don't want to debate that... we can just look at the number and make our own judgments. In the same vein, you should probably expand on your use of the word "timid".

It's timid because it doesn't even begin to address cuts to U.S. militarism. There is cognitive dissonance in both parties when it comes to militarism and the budget; they act as if they are unrelated. R's more so than D's. I want some Ron Paul style cuts to the DoD.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

 

[ThinkToday]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

I think all the things you listed are conservative values, and not limited to Fundamentalist values.

As for the first Vote you listed, I see no reason the federal government should be paying for optional after the fact birth control. I do support funding for rape, incest, and to save a mother’s life. I’m not a Fundamentalist, but I think someone that has willful unprotected/under-protected sex and gets pregnant just exercised their “Freedom of Choice” and should live with the choice, just like the man. As a guy, I look at this issue differently, and here’s why. If a woman gets pregnant she can decide to keep it or not. She ALSO gets to decide whether the man is going to be a parent or not. The man has no “Freedom of Choice’. Is it fair for the man to get stuck with support for a child he doesn’t want, when the woman has a right to make the decision for herself? Should the man also have “Freedom of Choice” and be able to tell the woman, if you want it, it’s all yours along with all the bills and all the responsibility? If you don’t think the man should have the same right to choose to be a parent, why not? Mine isn't a Fundamentalist point of view; it's about fairness.

As for the second and third Votes you listed, I don’t have a problem with stem cell research, but I don’t think Federal dollars need to go into what will ultimately be high profit private business lines. I do think it will ultimately lead to questions like how far do we develop and embryo before we harvest what we want? Do we let it develop organs and use the organs on patients? At what point will the unborn be a source of spare parts for the born? IMO, it has the potential to be an ugly future. Look at the Controversy section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood?bloodsPage=15 so see issues of who should be able to bank cord blood and why. Consider the following from an ethics publication from the University of Alberta http://www.uAlberta.ca/~pflaman/organtr.htm (FWIW, there are similar discussions for other circumstances.)


“[U]d) From Human Fetuses [/U]Is it ethical to transplant brain or other tissues from human fetuses to benefit others (e.g. those suffering from Parkinson's Disease)? If the fetus has died of natural causes, the ethical issues would be similar to other transplants from the deceased. When the fetus has died or will die as a result of procured abortion, however, other ethical issues arise. The Catholic Church considers direct abortion (the intentional killing of an innocent human being) to be gravely immoral. Some argue that to use tissues from a fetus killed by abortion could be done without approving direct abortion (cf. using tissues or organs from a murder victim). Such use, however, could "justify" abortion (i.e. to benefit others) for many women who otherwise are unsure about having an abortion. A good end though does not justify an evil means (see Rm 3:8). The timing of the abortion may be influenced as well. The widespread usage of electively aborted fetuses would establish an "institutional and economic bond between abortion centers and biomedical science..."(Post, 14; cf. CHAC, 15, re unethical cooperation)

Some argue that transplanting fetal brain tissue would require the fetus to be still alive, that is, the tissue would not be good for transplant purposes after the fetus has experienced total brain death.(cf. Duncan, 16-22) Some say that other means of treating such diseases as Parkinson's can and should be developed.(cf. Dailey)

Another issue involves consent. Anyone involved in procured abortion would not qualify as the fetus' guardian since they hardly have his/her best interests at heart. The Catholic Health Association of Canada (CHAC) concludes that, "Transplantations using organs and tissues from deliberately aborted fetuses are ethically objectionable." (45; cf. SCDF 1987, 16-18)”

IMO, looking at the date of this paper, the discussions of fetus and people as a source of spare parts is well under way. Slippery slope. Again, I'm not looking with a Fundamentalist view, but as a human that is seeing a decline in the value of one life over another.

Regarding the fourth Vote, from the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Given this country’s history and values at the founding of the country, I can see this going either way. Even people of good will can view the same circumstances with a different eye. We declared our right to be freedom from England evoking Nature's God and the Creator. We also wrote a Constitution that precludes the government from endorsing a religion, but also precludes the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. IMO, this is a tossup, and I can appreciate both sides, but support the inclusion in the pledge as written. When I was young (late 50s early 60s), it was common for some in school to omit the "one nation under god" when the pledge was said (I think it was a Catholic thing, but too long ago to be sure) because it was not considered appropriate for their beliefs. No one ever made an issue of who did or didn't say it.

Regarding the fifth and sixth VotesWe are each entitled to our beliefs, and so long as Rep. Ryan was reflecting the will of the people he represents, I support that decision. This is a representative form of government, so, IMO, he is bound to vote the will of those that he represents. If that happens to be his belief, I’m ok with that too.

Regard the seventh vote, I’d have to give the same answer as the one above. He is a Representative of his constituents, which are the people of his state and not DC, and he must vote accordingly. However, IMO, I don’t think this is a decision that should belong to Congress. IMO, child psychologists and more capable people trained in the field should make these determinations on a case by case basis. Congress should butt out here.

In my somewhat long explanation of your points supporting "His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists", I merely point out they maybe consistent with fundamentalist positions, but not exclusively the view of fundamentalists. As I see it, in this representative form of government, as long as he votes the will of the people that elected him, he's doing his job correctly as the founders intended.

 

[Evo]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

Wow, thanks for that Pyth. Seems obvious where he leans. I think his voting record is very clear that we'd be seeing more of his religious beliefs making his decisions. I'm afraid that this is going to be another election based primarily on religious beliefs on the Republican side*. Unfortunate, IMO.

He's voted against everything that I firmly believe in.

*Not saying that all Republicans are Christian Fundamentalists, just seems that's the party with the majority of them, IMO.

 

[ThinkToday]

About fiscal practices:



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Well, as a percent of any GDP under Obama, I'd have to agree. I suspect Ryan's planning on a much larger GDP by 2050. I think if Obama had not wasted some much time with ACA, bailouts, green energy, union favors, stopping US energy production, met more with business leaders about what it would take to grow our way out of this mess, and taken the time to meet with his own jobs council, maybe we'd be on our way out of this mess. Or, if Obama had taken the time to use the expert analysis of HIS http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/ maybe we'd be on the way to a better economy. However, no guts and no glory, so the Commission work hits the recycle bin... again. The Commission's work would have been a very hard pill for both Republicans and Democrats to take, but had the President made the effort, perhaps they could have convinced the country the choices were necessary. BTW, the report is here http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

IMO, this country needs a leader and someone like Romney with business experience and the knowledge to get business up and running again. It also needs leadership like Ryan to push for the hard choices, including defense spending, SSI, welfare, etc.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

He's voted against everything that I firmly believe in.

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

 

[lisab]

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

Why can't we have both ?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Why can't we have both ?

Because a moderate is unelectable :(

 

[Haborix]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

Let me add to this list:

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, including:
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/

So he's not much of a fiscal conservative either.

 

[ThinkToday]

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

I don't see that as an "or"

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't see that as an "or"

Are you saying Paul Ryan will vote for gay rights?

 

[Pythagorean]

Are you saying Paul Ryan will vote for gay rights?

Or that Obama's administration can get financial back on track...

 

[Pythagorean]

In my somewhat long explanation of your points supporting "His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists", I merely point out they maybe consistent with fundamentalist positions, but not exclusively the view of fundamentalists.

That's exactly why I chose the language I did. To align with something is not to be the thing.

 

[Evo]

I wonder though, if he is good with finance, which is more important; for gays to get equal rights or for the US to get on financial track?

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

 

[lisab]

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

Remarkable to me, and troubling, that Ryan proposes no taxes on capital gains, interest, or dividends:

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan

Ah...I see what Romney sees in the guy .

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As for the first Vote you listed, I see no reason the federal government should be paying for optional after the fact birth control.

How about a recognition that sex is a normal and healthy part of human life and that time and time again expectation of abstinence has been shown to be unreasonable? Given this wouldn't it be in the public interest to ensure people (especially young people) can engage in safe sex?

I do support funding for rape, incest, and to save a mother’s life. I’m not a Fundamentalist, but I think someone that has willful unprotected/under-protected sex and gets pregnant just exercised their “Freedom of Choice” and should live with the choice, just like the man.

Men do not have to live with the choice, sure they have to pay support but that's hardly the same as a woman having to grow another human being. Your thinking seems very male centric and has undertones of anti-female sexuality.

if you don’t think the man should have the same right to choose to be a parent, why not? Mine isn't a Fundamentalist point of view; it's about fairness.

Simple: the man isn't the one going through the pregnancy. Not his body, not his say.

As for the second and third Votes you listed, I don’t have a problem with stem cell research, but I don’t think Federal dollars need to go into what will ultimately be high profit private business lines.

Tapdancing past the issue of profitability in medicine and the quagmire of patents for such therapies isn't the role of government to fund things that are in the public interest and aren't being satisfied by the market? Stem cell therapies have not and will not get to the stage of
commercial products without government funding of some sort or another. The intial R&D of stem cell biology is just too high and the risk too great to rely purely on the market.

As for the bioethics debate there is no reason why this could not occur whilst funding said research considering the initial level it is at now. Indeed said funding could remove the possibility/desirability of controversial methods e.g. research into ESC differentiation could lead to controlled differentiation of ASCs.

Regarding the fourth Vote, from the Declaration of Independence

I don't think the inclusion of religious words in these texts is a justification for requiring oaths under god in a legal system.

 

[Pythagorean]

Thank you Ryan_m_b; that was a time investment I was dreading.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thank you Ryan; that was a time investment I was dreading.

No problem though we should probably use my full username to avoid confusion with the very different Ryan being discussed in this thread

 

[Pythagorean]

No problem though we should probably use my full username to avoid confusion with the very different Ryan being discussed in this thread

Done.

 

[russ_watters]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Or a less extreme characterization would be to say his political actions are aligned with his party. [shrug]

 

[russ_watters]

About fiscal practices:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Also from the linked link:

Ryan's plan was also useful in part because it prompted President Obama to show some cards of his own. Obama's big deficit speech last week was a meaningful step in the direction of liberalfiscal honesty and represented a breakthrough for him in two big ways. It was the first time the president has seriously confronted our long-term fiscal problem with meaningful specifics. And it was the first time he has put forth a coherent vision of government's role.

So basically, that's a liberal saying that before Ryan put forth his plan, Obama wasn't being fiscally honest.

 

[russ_watters]

He's Catholic and has managed to gain the disaproval of the Catholic bishops.

I feel like you are wanting to imply that's a bad thing... I thought you were saying before that he's heavily religion-driven?

Based on how unpopular Ryan's proposed budgets cuts are, especially Medicare, It appears that Romney might regret his VP pick.

To all, RE the [un]popularity of the Ryan Budget:
The problem with budget talk is this: For several generations, we've been feeding the economy with debt. Giving people free money is very popular, regardless of how bad of an idea it is. To correct that, not only do you need to stop giving people free money, but you need to get younger people to pay back the money given to people who are now retired or dead. So people would much rather just pretend there aren't any problems or hope they die before the check comes due than make any attempt to right the ship. As we've seen in Europe, people prefer to stubbornly fly their economic plane straight into the ground than try to pull up.

That was Obama's plan. Stimulus makes people happy, so let's do more. Taxing the rich makes the 99% happy even if it doesn't do much for the budget, so let's try to do that. But for God's sake, don't talk about SS and Medicare or mention the rapidly growing debt.

Then Ryan comes along and starts making budgets that actually address some of the core problems, which then forces Obama to respond. Ryan put issues on the table people (Obama) would rather not touch with a 10-foot pole. Were they well developed or workable in the form he submitted? Popular? Perhaps not, but I'd much rather have someone in office who would engage the issues than ignore them.

My fear is that telling people they can no longer have free money will always be so unpopular we'll fly our economy into the ground right next to Europe's. My hope is that people [still] embrace the ideals of true fiscal conservativism and give Ryan and Romney a chance to reinstate them.

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

Equally easy to just say let's slash the military's budget. Harder to admit that either way, we just don't have the money anymore to keep giving so much of it away.

 

[Pythagorean]

Or a less extreme characterization would be to say his political actions are aligned with his party.

There's no reason to deny any two stable consenting adults the right to marriage or adoption besides religious conviction, especially based on sex discrimination. This is a fundamentalist position.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue. Romney and Ryan (and their voters) are going to be left behind when Obama is re-elected.

 

[Evo]

I feel like you are wanting to imply that's a bad thing... I thought you were saying before that he's heavily religion-driven?

He is, that's why it's funny, or sad, depending on how you feel about it, that he managed to unintentionally upset his own church. Oooops, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

There's no reason to deny any two stable consenting adults the right to marriage or adoption besides religious conviction, especially based on sex discrimination. This is a fundamentalist position.

I'm not sure that first part is true, but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

All your comment above does is take away the division you were trying to create (in post #28) between fundamentalists and other conservatives. You were trying to say he was only fiscally conservative, but he also holds the bizarre and unreasonable social fundamentalist positions. Now you're saying all conservatives do.

Again, your propaganda characterization isn't helpful here. Just because you don't agree with a view doesn't make it "bizarre" unless you are simply unable to comprehend views that differ from your own.

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

See, when Obama was running and it was pointed out that his voting record was the most liberal in the House, people in this forum scoffed that it was meaningless -- he was just following the party mainstream. But once in office, he loaded-up a heavily liberal legislative agenda. But while Ryan's voting record is solidly conservative, he strikes me as mostly a one-trick pony: economics only. It is the only thing he's made a name for himself doing. Which I very much like. I think if Ryan doesn't shill for the Christian Right during the campaign, Democrats will have a tough time making the claim that he's a shill for the Christian Right stick, regardless of his voting record.

He will not help Romney, the US has progressed past this issue.

Er, if we're past this issue, then that means it won't even come up in the election, which means it couldn't hurt them.

 

[Pythagorean]

but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

That was actually my argument about your characterization of Ryan. Your argument is essentially calling everyone in the mainstream republican party a "fundamentalist", by extension. The only unfalsifiable arguments used to protest homosexuality are fundamentalist ones. Social and scientific arguments have shown repeatedly that gays make just as fit of parents as straight parents (in some domains, they actually are shown to have slightly better outcomes).

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

See, when Obama was running and it was pointed out that his voting record was the most liberal in the House, people in this forum scoffed that it was meaningless -- he was just following the party mainstream. But once in office, he loaded-up a heavily liberal legislative agenda. But while Ryan's voting record is solidly conservative, he strikes me as mostly a one-trick pony: economics only. It is the only thing he's made a name for himself doing. Which I very much like. I think if Ryan doesn't shill for the Christian Right during the campaign, Democrats will have a tough time making the claim that he's a shill for the Christian Right stick, regardless of his voting record.

Saying what you don't like about John and Jane to make Joe look better is a persuasive tactic, not a reasonable argument. It's particularly disturbing that you want to accuse others of propaganda in the same post that you demonstrate this behavior.

Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

I don't know what any of the candidates will do once they're on the other side of the vote. They're all liars, and with increasing frequency near election time.

 

[lisab]

I'm not sure that first part is true, but again you are essentially calling everyone in the mainstream of the Republican party "fundamentalist". That's pretty strong.

Maybe not everyone, but how many does it take to make a difference? I agree that ~20 years ago, Pythagorean's sentiment would be absurd. But consider a question you asked in that post:

What I'm simply saying is this:
Once in office, is Ryan more or less likely than, say, Palin to try to put a Defense of Marriage Act or stem cell research ban in the legislative agenda? Or is he more likely to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy?

The very fact that someone like Palin made it as far as she did is astounding to me, and it indicates that the fundamentalists have penetrated the mainstream Republican ranks far further than I imagined was possible.

While I see the point you're making, and I don't fully disagree with it, I just don't trust the Republican party of 2012. It makes me nervous that so many seem to want to use political means to further a fundamentalist agenda, and that they can get so close to doing it.

 

[mheslep]

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)

Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?

the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these [PPACA] bills. ...