Rachel Maddow: The Healthcare Bill Contains a Poison Pill for Progressives »
Posted By capj71 2 weeks ago in Political News
Rachel Maddow was on Meet The Press today talking about the healthcare bill that the House recently passed. Maddow said that language restricting access to abortion in the bill is a poison pill for liberals and progressives that could end up costing Democratic candidates votes with pro-choice women. Maddow called it the biggest restriction on abortion in a generation.
Read Full Story at politicususa.com »
260 Views Share Story 17 Comments Report
Submitted By:
capj71
Hi I am Capj71, but my friends call me Jason. I love politics. I am a liberal, and proud of it. I share and prop ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 17 (view all)
-
100%
truthiness2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I couldn;t get this link to come up, but I scanned through the bill and I don;t see any limitations on abortion.
Reply
it says none of the private companies can be forced to cover abortion as part of the minimum plan
it says neither insurance providers nor states can be discriminated against for their abortion policies (by this bill)
it says, explicitly, no abortion laws are changed by this bill.. state or federal
basically the only thing it says about abortion is that nothing changes with this bill.. and it uses alot of words to do so. -
-
-
100%
Beau78902 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a proscription against the minimum benefits package (to which all health plans will be equired to conform) on p. 109. That doesn't mean other packages can't pay for abortions--it just won't be part of the minimum coverage.
Reply
At the same time, affordability credits may only be used to pay for a basic plan with the essential minimum coverage (p.245), and basic plans won't cover abortions. An individual who receives affordability credits is, however, allowed to purchase a plan that covers more than the basic plan, provided he or she pays the difference him- or herself (p. 246). There is a proscription on the same page against affordability credits being used to pay for abortions.
I believe that just reiterates what the previously mentioned two subparagraphs say: that the basic plan won't cover abortions, and that affordability credits may only be used to pay for the basic plan. However, no one will be barred from purchasing a plan that covers more than the basic plan with his or her own money.
So I think you're right that the bill changes no federal abortion laws, and that plans must adhere to state laws regarding abortion--in other words, no less funding for abortions than currently exists. -
-
-
33%
lloydm652 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think they tighten the screw just a tad.You'll know when planned parenthood figures out the details.They will tell Nancy to shove her party,if we can't dispose of our fetuses the way we want to,then why belong to such such a crummy party.
Reply -
40%
coolfl332 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why does Rachel care about abortions. I didn't think Male Lesbians got pregnant.
Reply
HEY RACHEL, IF YOU WANT TO FUND ABORTIONS THEN I SUGGEST YOU AND YOUR RACIST NETWORK HOLD A BAKE SALE OR A CAR WASH. MAYBE EVEN ADD THEM TO YOU PLAN SO YOU WILL BE PAYING FOR THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT BABIES.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION AND I WILL BE DAMNED IF MY TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO FUND THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT BABIES.
If you want to see what Rachel and the baby killers want to use your tax dollars for please visit the following website http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosasso...
Rachael, you may have the right to kill a baby but you don't have the right to use my money to do it. -
25%
coolfl332 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its funny because just the other day "God" Obama was calling Cardinal Rigali, a Bearer of false witness because Cardinal stated the bill did not prevent federal money being used for abortions. Obama said it was in his bill, and since he has no bill then who is the false witness Barrak?
Reply
He doesn't even know what the Bill says but he's going to sign it anyway. I think he should hold one of his tv specials and sit down and explain to the dumb American people what the 1900 page bill he is wanting to sign and force down our throats covers. He can't because he probably hasn't even read one page of it. How many times have you been told not to sign something without reading it? Seems God didn't ever get that lesson.
Well if it was all a lie to prevent "God" Obama from parting the waters on health care then why did the Bitch Nancy let the amendment go to the floor for a vote.
If you saw Waxman yesterday, he stated that the amendment probably won't even be in the final bill.
Who do these people think they are?
They give our money to terrorist, to lying pathetic unproven causes like Al Gore, Billions and Billions to the Obama friends network but we the American people get nothing but a speech from the President who thinks the world revolves around him and his big head.
Hey Dumocrats, what have they done for you lately? Did anyone read about the March on Washington yesterday by 200 AFrican-Americans, who called "God" Obama, White Power in Black Face. I knew it wouldn't take long before they would be calling in their chips for getting the Black Man elected President. -
25%
coolfl332 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excuse me but doesn't Planned Parent Hood already get tax payer money for birth control for the poor?
Reply
But because some stupid bitch can't keep her legs shut, or take the birth control she is getting for free I should have to pay for her to kill a baby? Are you joking me?
I'm sure the DNC can raise enough money for all of the baby killers out there that want to kill their babies.
I also don't think a woman should be able to kill a baby without the consent of the babies's Daddy. That child belongs to that father just as much. Its funny because a woman can force a man to become a father but a man can't force a woman to become a mother. Does that make sense to anyone?
In one case the woman wanted an abortion and the man found out that she was planning on getting an abortion without even telling him she was pregnant with his child. He took her to court and got an injunction from the court preventing her from getting an abortion. Well guess what, when the baby was born, despite the fact that the bitch wanted to kill the baby, she got custody of the baby and left without a word to the father.
Does that sound fair to you. A woman that doesn't even want the child to begin with and the only reason she had the child was because the father demanded his rights as the babies father but she ends up with the child and taking it away from the only person that wanted the child to begin with. Sound fair to you?
More News
Politics Daily
South Carolina's Sanford Charged with 37 Counts of Ethics Violations
Never Misunderestimate Harry Reid
Gillibrand Still Struggling to Make Her Name Known Across New York
Video: Palin Book-Signing Crowds Fuzzy On Her Policy Positions
Lou Dobbs Considering Presidential Run, Says Wife Will Make Final Call
The Huffington Post
Arianna Huffington: Will The Unemployment Disaster Be Obama's Katrina?
Peggy Drexler: Adopting A New Attitude
Nora Ephron: Top 10 Thanksgiving Recipes You're Cooking This Year That You Didn't Cook Last Year
Leon T. Hadar: Obama, the Teabaggers and Foreign Policy
Dean Baker: The Budget Deficit Crisis: The Blame Is Bipartisan
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.