News Who Would Michele Bachmann Add to Mount Rushmore?

[turbo]

Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health.

How many of the 2.8% of those mothers would it be acceptable to deny abortions to, when their lives are at risk? It's easy to say "all life is sacred" while letting women with problematic pregnancies risk death, infertility, infection or debilitation, especially when quick intervention is called for and/or the woman is poor or uninsured?

 

[Evo]

Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health. Therefore, Pelosi's focus on women "dying on the floor" is outrageous, deceptive, and manipulative. Source: Table 2, "Underlying Reasons For Abortion," Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries, Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 24, Number 3, September 1998, Guttmacher Institute. Link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Bachman's bill isn't denying abortions. It's saying "if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself."

If you would like to contribute to abortions, Evo, you can always start or fund an institution which provides funding for it. It would be voluntary, and when supporting highly controversial issues, that's a tremendous improvement over making everyone pay, particularly when many have religious or moral objections to it.

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

Supporters of the H.R. 358 (Bachman) bill say its purpose is to free taxpayers from having to pay for abortions and to free hospitals from having to provide them against their will. But the Hyde amendment, which has been in place for 30 years, already prohibits the flow of taxpayer dollars to any kind of abortion service.

Public Law 111-8
H.R. 1105, Division F, Title V, General Provisions

SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

(c) The term `health benefits coverage' means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/qt/HydeAmendmentText.htm

 

[DoggerDan]

How many of the 2.8% of those mothers would it be acceptable to deny abortions to...

Not only did I not mention denying abortions (so why are you?), I specifically added a comment suggesting a more appropriate alternative for people desiring to fund them. I think that's very objective.

As for Pelosi: ""I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," Pelosi said. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation."

Pelosi obviously doesn't understand the bill. She's probably not even read the thing. To help ensure you don't make the same mistake, read on: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr358eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr358eh.pdf

The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment. It does NOT outlaw abortions, nor will it prevent a doctor for taking steps necessary to protect the life of the mother. The exceptions are explicitly stated in the bill:

‘‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or ‘‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical in-jury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Pelosi's comment about women "dying on the floor" is grossly untruthful, misleading, and totally contrary to the provisions contained in the bill. I really hate it when Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter, lies, twists, and distorts the truth for personal gain, or in her case, just because she's either being obstinent, or because she's opposing this merely because it was floated by the "other side." Of the 121 co-sponsors of the bill, 6 are Democrats.

Back on topic...

Did Bachman really say the President's primary responsibility was to be the Commander in Chief? Good! That's what the Constitution says: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

 

[Evo]

Not only did I not mention denying abortions (so why are you?), I specifically added a comment suggesting a more appropriate alternative for people desiring to fund them. I think that's very objective.

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

 

[DoggerDan]

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

Did you not read my post? Middle of the section beginning with "The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment."

 

[Evo]

Did you not read my post? Middle of the section beginning with "The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment."

Yeah, I see you edited it.

There is no reason for this bill, it's created by and for a bunch of paranoid people that need to feel that they have control over other people and make them do what fits in with their beliefs, religious or otherwise. It's wrong and these people need to be stopped. IMO to all.

H.R. 358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), denies federal funding to all health insurance plans that cover abortion. It would be the first law to restrict what kind of coverage women with private health insurance plans can purchase.

 

[WhoWee]

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

Just for clarity - I chose that article because it was the one that tried hardest (IMO) to explain the Pelosi viewpoint - tried to be fair. I just think Pelosi was a little too dramatic - but not necessarily more dramatic than Bachmann in the other direction. They are a good opponents - again IMO.

 

[DoggerDan]

Yeah, I see you edited it.

Not that sentence.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/michele-bachmann-mount-rushmore_n_1081742.html

"When asked who she would add to the South Dakota monument, she proposed Reagan. She then mentioned James Garfield, who was president for just over seven months before being assassinated. She reportedly said she chose him because he is the only person to become president from the House of Representatives. (Bachmann could be the second if she is elected president.) She then said Calvin Coolidge would be a good candidate for the monument, since he "got the country's budget back on track.""

my bold