Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 laxref41
Joined: 7/20/2008
Msg: 76
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percentPage 4 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
"Let's cut spending. I'm talking deep substantial cuts. Not just in our military but also in our social safety nets. "

I agree with that... it's just that our politicians... on both sides of the aisle... have an arrogant sense that they are so powerful they can resolve the economic, financial and employment issues... and they can't.
The GOP thinks that they're going to cut taxes and that's going to stimulate the economy... they couldn't be more wrong... there has never been a tax cut that paid for itself through economic growth. We simply end up more in debt so more and more of our taxes are spent paying the interest on the debt.
The democrats have similar issues but they also tend to overspend in giveaways thinking that they can force people to improve. Bottom line here is you give people equal opportunity and then stand back to let the chips fall where they may.

IMO... if the U.S. wants a strong vibrant country back again... the areas that require big federal spending are in the development of solar and geothermal power, and to a lesser extent wind... like the space program of the 60s, the development of these technologies will create more, new, long term jobs than you shake a stick at... it will make us clean energy independent, pay off our debt, lower our cost of living, and take the money out of the hands of terrorists thereby making us more secure...
Another area is support for early childhood education... research is clear, the earlier the education, the lower the crime rate, the more likely you graduate high school and go on... and the more educated the population, the more secure and prosperous...
Lastly, and unfortunately, we're going to need an overhaul of a lot of infrastructure... it's falling down around us and if we're going to have to do it to preserve our transportation and communications services...
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/19/2009 3:02:01 PM
It seems that wither or not your Pro Choice, or Pro Life,....the New Health Care Package will include Federal Funded Abortion.


I for one hope the obama plan fails ...now before everyone on the left goes apeshit..let me explain. I KNOW the health care system needs to be revamped. I know it will not be easy, but to send us as a nation trillions more in debt, we need to SLOW down and concentrate on fixing it, not just throwing more money at it.


Thats the Governments answer for everything,.....Just keep throwing Money at it.

Same as with Abortion,...Obama stated that Babies are Abuseing mothers,..or something like that,...Obama is "Anti Baby",..and "Pro Abortion",....and of course,...it got included in the "New Health care Bill",.....

even tho it has NO PLACE,...and NO RIGHT being in there.


On a controversial issue that threatened to derail the House-passed bill, Reid would allow the new government insurance plan to cover abortions and would let companies that receive federal funds offer insurance plans that include abortion coverage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul


A mother desiring an Abortion, should have to face the reality that if she cant keep her legs closed,..or at least use "Protection",..then its her responsibility to pay for an Abortion,..NOT the Governments.

I read this morning, that School Children, can, and do leave their schools,..to go get Abortions,..without their Parents knowledge,..or consent.......

Who do you think is behind that,..and who do you think Foots the Bill ???

Should the Taxpayers,.pay into a system,...so people can get Abortions,..that could of easily been prevented, and not be such a costly burden to our Health Care System ?

No wonder Taxpayers are disaproving this Health care Plan,....but I bet it passes.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 78
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/19/2009 4:13:55 PM
A mother desiring an Abortion, should have to face the reality that if she cant keep her legs closed,..or at least use "Protection",..then its her responsibility to pay for an Abortion,..NOT the Governments.


This is not the abortion thread, but once it's brought up, seems like it just devolves into the same old worn out arguments.

That said; the above quote is beyond disgusting and sexist.

Unless you--the writer of said quote--have never--not even one time--had sexual intercourse, then you have no foundation upon which to stand your sexist self.

I have been in sexual encounters that were unplanned yet consensual--meaning both the man and myself agreed upon the sexual act.
The man was half of the act.
Get it?
He was there--he dropped trou--WE had sex.

Let's rephrase your quote:
"Unless a man and a woman are prepared to accept that a pregnancy could be the result of their sexual encounter, they should keep their pants on." That, at least, adds the man into the sexual equation.

'Cuz, the woman...did not...become pregnant...all...by...herself...

From the Washington Post:
Since 1976, Congress has annually approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life. Some states, however, use state funds to pay for procedures in other cases for poor women...




 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/19/2009 4:40:49 PM

Yes they should, because the cost of raising an unwanted child cost the tax payer far more than an abortion.
First off, pro choice,secondly this is one of my main points on abortion,either pay for it at the abortion stage when its cheap or pay throughout the child's life,because if the persons cannot afford an abortion she or she and he ,has no money to have the baby,its not like she is going to become more employable if she decides to carry the baby to term and if its unwanted ,it becomes as so many babies and children waiting for adoption,we are paying for those also.

Almost everyone will argue this point here ,fine,its my opinion,In the time frame 12 to 20 months depending on the state,a woman can have an abortion ,I don't consider it a baby.I don't buy the murder issue at all,you have your opinion,fine !
 stnick1967
Joined: 12/15/2008
Msg: 80
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 6:56:17 AM

Almost everyone will argue this point here ,fine,its my opinion,In the time frame 12 to 20 months depending on the state,a woman can have an abortion ,I don't consider it a baby.I don't buy the murder issue at all,you have your opinion,fine !


Hey Smiley-

I'm pretty sure everyone would consider this murder.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 7:39:52 AM

I'm pretty sure everyone would consider this murder.
Actually it seems wordwide and the world seems to have our same opinion on abortion,2/3 support it,so what "Everyone "are you talking about.Well since I have not found a poll that was taken on "is abortion murder" then I have to go on the many polls of abortion in general from polled people here and the world,As far as Czech Republic ,Finland ,France ,Germany ,Italy ,sees it 62 % yes they favor the right to abort and 34% say no
Czech Republic ,Finland ,France ,Germany ,Italy ,sees it 62 % yes they favor the right to abort and 34% say no


Abortion Polls

For each of the following sentences, tell me if they are very much, a little, not really or not at all in line with what you think:

"If a woman doesn't want children, she should be able to have an abortion."
Czech Republic Finland France Germany Italy OVERALL
Very much 66 54 55 40 29 40
A little 15 20 23 24 24 22
Total yes 81 74 78 64 53 62
Not really 8 9 8 10 16 11
Not at all 10 13 13 24 25 23
Total no 18 22 21 34 41 34
Don't know 1 4 1 2 6 4

Source: The Brussels Connection

Quinnipiac University Poll
8/10/07
N=1545
In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion?
Choice %
Agree 62
Disagree 32
Unsure 6
Quinnipiac University Poll--Agree 62--Disagree 32



ABC News/Washington Post Poll
7/20/07
N=1125
The Supreme Court also recently upheld a federal restriction on the procedure known as partial birth abortion, banning the procedure except when a woman's life is at risk. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?
Choice %
Approve 55
Disapprove 43
Unsure 2
ABC News/Washington Post Poll-- Approve 55--Disapprove 43



ABC News/Washington Post Poll
7/20/07
N=1125
Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?
Choice %
Legal in All Cases 23
Legal in Most Cases 34
Illegal in Most Cases 28
Illegal in All Cases 14
Unsure 2


CBS News/New York Times Poll
7/13/07
N=1554
Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted.
Choice %
Generally Available 41
Stricter Limits 34
Not Permitted 22
Unsure 3


Next time maybe you could back up your personal opinion with facts,it sounded real dramatic though,but held no weight ,thats because facts always tell the truth !and opinion,well those are like what your friends in your church have
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 9:44:45 AM

I read this morning, that School Children, can, and do leave their schools,..to go get Abortions,..without their Parents knowledge,..or consent.......



Really , where did you read that at?

The do have a thing called a "Search Engine",...learn to use it.


Schools let students seek secret abortions
Parents not notified when 12-year-olds obtain 'confidential' medical procedures
November 18, 2009
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116315

SACRAMENTO – A 12-year-old girl is prohibited from bringing aspirin to California public schools without a note from her mother or father – but in many California districts she may sign herself out of classes, leave her junior-high campus without parental permission, secretly have an abortion and return to school before the end of the day – and her own family may be none the wiser.

Parents and educators across the state have been in heated debate over school policies allowing children to be excused during class time without parental notification for "confidential medical services" such as abortions, birth control, and drug and mental health services.


Yes,...if California leads the way,..other states will follow.

There's more to read,..I just posted a small clip.

Heres more from google, under the search title,....
Schools let students seek secret abortions

www.ednews.org/.../schools-let-students-seek-secret-abortions.html
www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/063381.html
www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10290
www.ifeminists.net/news.php?item.14729.3
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2389846/posts

THE PLAIN TRUTH
God's Hand Behind Today's News
www.plaintruth.com/.../schools-let-12-year-old-students-seek-secret-abortions.html


THE WOODWARD REPORT
http://www.thewoodwardreport.com/#/secret-school-abortions/4537001858

WND reported in 2004 when California Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued an opinion that said schools are required to enact confidentiality policies. But amid a grass-roots campaign organized by a traditional-family lobby group, Lockyer backed off his opinion.

McReynolds said many parents aren't aware of guidelines at their childrens' schools. But he said all parents should ask their own school administrators whether their children may be excused without consent, even families who live outside California.

"It's really important for every parent, whether their kids are in public or private school, to find out what the school policies are," he said. "You never know. See what kind of answers you get."


All these LINKS are bacicaly 100% the same thing,..the same Story, by the same Reporter.......anyone could find out this exact information, if they wanted to look it up.

Its a shame that people want to discredit someones post, without so much as looking it up themselves.....
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:06:09 AM
This is the only reason the State,...should provide Funds for an Abortion,..and seeing as how its already covered, there was no need for me to mention it.
(yet you attck me for not mentioning it)

The "State",..get it,....NOT the Government,..and certainly NOT the President.
The Government funds the State, and the State uses those Funds for what ever their needs may be.


Since 1976, Congress has annually approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life. Some states, however, use state funds to pay for procedures in other cases for poor women...


What I refer to, are people who do NOT deserve to have a Federal Funded Health Care Program, give them an Abortion, simply because they cant use common sense and use Protection, and be responsible human beings.

I know that's asking a lot,...huh ???

Yet Obama INSIST that his Health Care Reform Bill,....ALLOW, for Abortion,
in any case.......another waste of the Taxpayers Dollar.

Do you want to have to help pay for someones Abortion, when they decide they should have one,..after their carelessness ????

I doubt it.

I myself,...have always accepted the responsibility for my actions.....my Children has never had need, or want of anything, that I could not provide.

Abortion has NO PLACE in our Health Care Bill,..its NOT right, its NOT Moral,..its MURDER in the eyes of GOD, and in the eyes of any Decent, Moral, Human Being.

No wonder so many people disprove of this Heath Care Plan.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 84
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:14:48 AM

All these LINKS are bacicaly 100% the same thing,..the same Story, by the same Reporter.......anyone could find out this exact information, if they wanted to look it up.

Its a shame that people want to discredit someones post, without so much as looking it up themselves.....


Common courtesy in the forums is for the person posting information as facts to provide a searchable link.

Thanks for doing so in your second post.

Going from what I read, your post is a straw issue. There is no law in the state of California allowing students to dismiss themselves (without parental consent) from school to seek an abortion. That is not a state wide issue, but an initiative being discussed in some districts.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:44:37 AM

Do you want to have to help pay for someones Abortion, when they decide they should have one,..after their carelessness ????

I doubt it.
Absolutely I do ! either pay for it at the abortion stage when its cheap or pay throughout the child's life,because if the persons cannot afford an abortion she or she and he ,has no money to have the baby,its not like she is going to become more employable if she decides to carry the baby to term and if its unwanted ,it becomes as so many babies and children waiting for adoption,we are paying for those also.
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 2:35:36 PM
Oh Please,..dont pass up on the next Video......

You should all see this,..its got the "Seal of Approval", by your beloved President,....
Barack Obama,.....

Obama has said all along he is for "Partial Birth Abortions",....

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

Im sure YOU will be too after watching such a wonderful demonstration of a Partial Birth Abortion at,....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi6SEW98ocw&feature=related

Your TAX Dollars hard at work, providing population control.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/20/2009 3:08:50 PM

Strange to hear Liberals advocate for abortion using costs as a reason
Maybe because there is no standard liberal,first off its pro choice secondly I don't see it as murder in the first trimester.Baby hasn't even been born yet,if it was born that would be different,but 12 to 13 weeks what is there,first off in first trimester ,week seven size of a coffee bean.Week 10,size of a grape.Week 12, half oz.,size of a pacifier. Week 13 ,half to one oz. size of a small chicken egg.
so because someone is careless a baby loses its right to be born because it may cost the system some money if it were allowed to live?
sure if you want to take to view that pregnancy only happens from carelessness.Sure at 13 she and he were probably careless,or poor and 31, but if violently raped, careless doesn't apply,this argument does not fit into one sized square box.
there are many people willing to adopt
Correct but,there are many reasons good parents slip through the cracks and are not able to adopt a baby.My sisters and now ex husband,good mormons,$400 to $500,000 a year income,3 other healthy kids,but inability to have more.Unable to adopt a baby because of there age in their mid 50s unless they were willing to adopt only older kids,whole point was little brother for 5 year old Joshua,Russia,Mexico,Guatemala was there only choice,2 years later,and $50,000 of run around by overseas adoption agencies corrupt judges,attorneys,all they got was a loss of their $50,000 and no recourse.

If adoption was so easy then orphanages would not be over flowing and if the system was so easy some parents would not be buying babies under the radar.
procedure needs to be made easier and less expensive....
this is the only point we agree on,it does need a total overhaul,but no one is working on it,so its like wishing for a real Santa,besides only some situations would be able to carry the baby to term and up for adoption,I can think of many situations that's not plausible.

Money? of course,when the situation happens to be the type ,as an example,3rd generation welfare family,and has a meth problem or even mental issues,absolutely pay for an abortion if she wants one.I don't want to pay decades for this accident kid,like anyone dreams to adopt a meth baby.Besides who ever said birth control is 100% and at that,even ladies told its impossible to have a baby,has had a baby,not a 100% there either.

You can't place a liberal into a one sized box,besides I'm not just liberal,I'm an optimistic pessimist.I'm conservative on some aspects.I'm new age and also extremely traditional,I view all issues differently,some things fit nicely inside the box and others need to have a box created for them,I only agree with others if there it mutual agreement there,I'm not here for fans or enemies,its not a game of winners and losers .Each issue is unique,so each issue might have very different ways to deal with it,that's what analytical people do.
 NYCman530
Joined: 7/6/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/27/2009 8:02:28 PM
Obama promised to lower health care costs sometime this year. Result: My HMO deductables are increasing from $50 a paycheck to $75 a paycheck starting January, obviously as an anticipation of this universal healthcare bill. It never went up more than 5 or 10 dollars before. He also assured us that the stimulus checks and bailouts will trigger job growth. Didn't happen. It's obvious that the working class people are going to pay for the healthcare of those who don't work as well as illegals. I'm all for helping the needy, but I resent having my money go to helping illegals and lazy deadbeats who refuse to work. Clinton and Bush didn't tighten the borders like they should have, neither will Obama. It's costing us over 300 billion a year. Obama's an empty suit making empty promises, not to mention his moral stances leave a lot to be desired. Next year we need to vote out clowns like Pelosi and Reid, who were warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even Bush warned them to do a federal investigation which did not happen, then the market plunged. Romney/Huckabee in 2012.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/27/2009 9:22:31 PM

Obama promised to lower health care costs sometime this year. Result: My HMO deductables are increasing from $50 a paycheck to $75 a paycheck starting January, obviously as an anticipation of this universal healthcare bill.
He's been trying for months but the republicans have built a brick wall of resistance,there is your delay.Obama has nothing to do with your rise,the bill is only in a proposal stage awaiting debate.Your healthcare rise is why we always have had problems with the system,without government intervention the non government companies have little interest in your actual welfare,for them its all about reducing the list of ailments covered and maximizing the profits for them.

How can you say Obamas all empty promises he has already done ;
* Promise Kept 55

* Compromise 14

* Promise Broken 7

* Stalled 17

* In the Works 160

* Not yet rated 262,

and as for 2012,I forgot,hey, your talking about Obamas reelection win.Romney ,what a joke right after he said he'll fight till the end and he can afford to pay his way to the end,he backs out a few days later,what a quitter,He reminds me of the old fashioned politician that only has the look ,and only says what he thinks you want to hear !He got blown away in the election debates.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 90
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 6:12:26 AM
at NYC


Obama promised to lower health care costs sometime this year. Result: My HMO deductables are increasing from $50 a paycheck to $75 a paycheck starting January,


it isn't just your deductibles, Pal....why don't you ask your employer (or who ever pays for your plan) how much the rates have gone up!



He also assured us that the stimulus checks and bailouts will trigger job growth. Didn't happen.


nobody ever said that "bail outs" would cause job growth...all bail-outs have done is to keep us from plunging into a big depression.......job growth comes from companies re-structuring and reviving themselves, but this will take time!........and 1 of the ways it will happen is if there is a better healthcare alternative that won't cost employers an arm and a leg...this has been 1 of the reasons why businesses go off-shore....they don't have to pay health benefits to their employees.


It's obvious that the working class people are going to pay for the healthcare of those who don't work


this has been going on for the past 40+ years....maybe you've heard of Medicaid!


but I resent having my money go to helping illegals and lazy deadbeats who refuse to work.


this is also in place...as has been in effect for quite a long time...ever hear of "Welfare".


Clinton and Bush didn't tighten the borders like they should have, neither will Obama. It's costing us over 300 billion a year.


why don't you ask the Feds how much money illegals are putting into the Reserve!...when you have a job with a bogus SS#, money is withheld by the Feds but no benefits are ever paid out...........and most of these illegals are doing work that legals don't care to do!........also, why don't you ask the Republicans, how much money they've taken from businesses who lobby them to keep the system the way it is!


Obama's an empty suit making empty promises


and like......GWB, was any different?....and anybody before that?....at least Obama is not a hore to big-business...like Romney is!


Even Bush warned them to do a federal investigation which did not happen,


GWB...delegated nearly everything to Hank Paulson....and Paulson handled such matters and was aware of the situation with Mae & Mac......Bush's call for an investigation was a smoke screen to cover any fall-out in the event of a melt-down...which eventually happened.......Bush could have mandated if he wanted to but didn't wanna expose anybody from his camp!
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 7:38:52 AM

this has been 1 of the reasons why businesses go off-shore....they don't have to pay health benefits to their employees.

Businesses don't have to pay health benefits to their employees here. It is provided as a perk or incentive to work for the business. Businesses go offshore to cut expenses in order to retain profitability and remain competitive.
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 9:26:14 AM
Its scares me to death, to see people come back with a reply like this,...


get your facts RIGHT
scare tactic man...

Obama said-
that health care is a right, not a privilege AND that the nation must trust women to make their own decisions about partial-birth abortion


Anyone, who does the least ammount of Research, can look up Obamas personal Voting Record,...and his stance on Partial Birth Abortions,...

As far as the proposed Health care Reform Bill,..it was NOT supposed to allow for
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS,...but an ammendment was made specificly to allow such a IMMORAL CRIME against an Innocent Baby.


1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion

In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008


Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live.
He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008


Talk about someone speeking from both corners of their mouth in an attempt to cover his own behind and create confusion.

The Issiue is a clear one,......Abortion, Kills,....if a person, desires an Abortion,...and it must be done,..it must be dont in the earliest stage as possiable,......NOT IN A LATE TERM STATE,...THATS MURDER !


GovWatch: Obama’s “present” votes were a requested strategy

“In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted ‘present” instead of “no’ on five horrendous anti-choice bills.”


--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama’s record on abortion issues.

The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama’s record on abortion, citing his “present” votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a ‘present’ vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote ‘present’ as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting ‘present,’ saying “They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes.” Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.

Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008


Voted against banning partial birth abortion

Obama’s record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting “present” is the equivalent of voting “no” because a majority of “yes” votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the “present” vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting “no.” During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama’s “present” vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, “He ducked!”.


And How,..Obama has always voted for PARTIAL B IRTH ABORTIONS,.....KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IT IS KILLING A LIVING BEING.


In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn’t include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007


Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Obama scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life.


For some one who supposedly went to Church for the past 20 years,...Obama sure hant learned from the experience, because all the Churchs I've attended taught that,..
THO SHALL NOT KILL"

Partial Birth Abortion,....has NO place in a Health Care Bill,..

Any Emergency Room,..and Doctor, knows full well what to do if its a case of "Life or Death" for mother and Child,..it should be their call, if it should ever come to that.

Any Abortion,....should always been done at the earliest possiably moment,.....
NOT when the Baby is already formed, alive, and has a chance to survive.

This is NOT the kind of thing that should even be in a Health Care Bill,....
and a Person who is acting as President of our United States should NOT be allowing this kind of thing to happen.

Its Immoral,...Indecent, and an act against everything we consider Good and Humane.

ONLY a MONSTER would even think of allowing such a Horriable Crime to be committed against an innocent baby.

Scare Tactics,...?????

I DONT Think so,...

Why didnt you come up with something better than just "Pointing Your Finger" and trying to Discredit something as important as this .

All you have to do is a little research on your part,..and you will find tons of info concerning Obama and his Pro Voting record on Partial Birth Abortions.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 93
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:10:22 AM

Businesses don't have to pay health benefits to their employees here.


sure, pal!.....go to any large business, especially one that has unionized employees and see how much of an incentive healthcare benefits have worked to improve productivity.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 12:18:30 PM
Partial birth abortion is a brand new term for me.I think its all too late in the process at that point ,that is if it is full term as a utube movie showed,still I have no idea why this isn't a state to state issue,just as some states don't do the death penalty,only 36 states do,I'm all for the death penalty but not for a full term baby death penalty,and if the one utube movie I saw of partial birth was accurate then I am not at all for partial birth but most certainly am for abortion in general, in the first trimester absolutely since at week ten your the size of a grape,there is nothing there to murder.I have no idea why a president chooses,I had no idea why Bush was allowed to stop all stem cell research either.Anyways if Obama is for it then I am against his position on this,that said I still think he's an amazing president,so we differ on one topic,well two topics,I want full Canada/France national style medical plans ! Can't always get what you want !

First off the proposals on the bill are still to be debated so I'm not about to argue this like its a bill,its not,its one of the proposals,and I'm not sure if partial birth is part of the final drafts anyways.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 95
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 1:08:18 PM
Personally I actually would not want to take part in (as in pay for, or encourage any woman to have) an abortion, because really I don't personally like the idea. However politically I'm definitely pro-choice. Partial-births, IMO, should ideally only be used when medically necessary in those rare instances when it's determined by two or more doctors (who are unaffiliated with the abortion doctor) that the woman's health is seriously on the line if she continues to carry the baby to term, or if the baby has perhaps developed a severe defect that could only be detected later in the term and the mother therefore decides to end it.

These "dilation-and-extraction" procedures (what are commonly called "partial-births") are actually relatively rare; I believe there are only a handful of clinics around the country that will even perform abortions at the 20+ weeks stage of pregnancy.

One of the doctors who did so (Dr.George Tiller) was recently murdered by a radical Christian fundamentalist. Shot in the eye while ushering at his local church actually.

As far as it being any kind of issue in the health care bill, for me it's a non-issue. I'm far more interested in seeing something effective pass, something that will curb the private insurers (prevent the "cherry-picking" and coverage denials, prevent them from jacking rates), and also provide a robust gov't-run public option to compete with the private companies -- basically like Medicare or the VA (except one doesn't have to be retired or in the military to get on it if need be).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163

" Where does the term "partial-birth" abortion come from?

The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.

After a physician presented a paper at a conference of the National Abortion Federation describing the new procedure, the NRLC commissioned drawings to illustrate it and published them in booklet form, as well as placing them as paid advertisements in newspapers to build public opposition. In an interview with The New Republic magazine in 1996, the NRLC's Douglas Johnson explained that the term was thought up in hopes that "as the public learns what a 'partial-birth abortion' is, they might also learn something about other abortion methods, and that this would foster a growing opposition to abortion."

In 1995, Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL) included the term as part of a bill he proposed that would make it a federal crime to perform a "partial-birth" abortion. (That year, the Ohio state legislature also passed the first state ban, but it was struck down by a federal district court; the Supreme Court later refused to hear an appeal.)

-- If this procedure is so controversial, then why was it developed in the first place?

The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated -- and the more controversial -- the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future.

Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.

Haskell has said that he devised his D&X procedure because he wanted to find a way to perform second-trimester abortions without an overnight hospital stay, because local hospitals did not permit most abortions after 18 weeks.

-- How often is the D&X procedure performed?

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year. And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.




 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 5:24:42 PM

Question for those of you citing the number of Partial Birth abortions as being insignificant, How many live babies is it Ok to KILL?
That question made me immediately wonder about other things that kill people,how many of our boys and girls is it ok to die in Afghanistan or Iraq,how many are ok to die because they are not allowed medical care because of pre conditions or being able to have affordable health plans and a system for them being planned ,being protested at every turn.It was a very good question and it also raises a lot of questions,because there are a lot of ways to kill a human life.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 97
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 7:07:54 PM
Once a baby is delivered successfully, it is obviously murder (and a heinous murder at that ) to kill ANY of them. But many D & X's ("partial-births") are NOT performed on fetuses that are viable outside the mother yet.

Don't get me wrong; I don't LIKE the D & X procedure. I'm not a fan. But I am politically pro-choice for various other reasons. To speak to the question about the numbers of them actually performed, I'd have to requote part of the article I quoted above (and note the part in bold which speaks to "live babies"), '... about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year. And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal. '

To reiterate then, most of these D & X's ("partial-births"), which were only .2 percent of the overall abortions performed in this study from 2000, were NOT done during the third trimester in any case, or after the fetus was viable to live on its own. Therefore it was only living through the mother, who also had the capacity to legally end it even at the 20-24 wks time period (or thereabouts) if she for instance found out at that relatively later stage that full term would affect her own health or the baby had some severe deformity or defect which she did not wish to give birth to.

Certainly better than having her go to a back-alley butcher as in the old days, or in countries where it was not (or remains not) legal. It could be argued as an important issue to be covered in this health care bill because in a lot of cases it has to do with the health of either the mother or the fetus; IMO it should be something she CAN get insurance coverage for, if it's found to be medically necessary at least (even if she's on any pending public options programs).

This would not turn it into a free-for-all however for promiscuous young girls who don't even know enough to know that they're pregnant until the second trimester, because certain stringent requirements would have to be met before it was covered under her publicly provided insurance (such as two or more doctors unaffiliated with the abortion doctor verifying that her health was in danger if she carried full-term).

D & X abortions, overall relatively rare as they are, should not cause our health care reform and public option insurance possibility to be derailed in any way shape or form; it is simply a hot-button partisan political issue like illegal immigration. Health care reform and public option insurance competing with private companies is IMO a necessity, not a mere partisan football like the other issues in question. I feel 45 million (and climbing) uninsured (fully-formed fully living) human beings in this country is simply a more important crisis than the 10 or 15,000+ pregnancies per year which a mother decides during the second trimester period to terminate (when the fetuses are not even truly viable yet outside of her).

Not every egg gets fertilized successfully, not every successfully fertilized ones make it, not every pregnancy makes it full-term; that's just the way things are. Taken to its completely furthest conclusions, this IMO excessive "pro-life" concern could mean that every time a woman uses a diaphragm, or a man a condom, or a man simply masturbates and throws it away, they are deliberately destroying potential human lives.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 8:04:37 PM

are NOT performed on fetuses that are viable outside the mother yet.


This is a loophole used by those who advocate killing fully formed babies
The partial birth stuff is new to me ,the first I ever heard of it was on here ! so its interesting what you point out about those that it is performed on that there are other reasons for it and for the rebuttal to that its in interesting too,but I find they need exclusions then,because it was the wording of the law that that allowed those never intended to get the 3 strikes your out penalty a life sentence,since the laws use words quite literally,so if there is an area that you call a loophole then the loophole items need to be covered and the others changed.To me it does not have to be all or nothing,same with abortion,if it were ever made illegal it would have to still include rape,incest and those in medical need for it.

Obama once said all these things need to be gone over with a scalpel,I always thought that was how he meant that statement,and that's probably how he looks at partial birth abortion,quite frankly I don't know how he feels,whether anything he or she said was taken out of context or he talked more in depth somewhere else about it,I only read those that oppose him make a judgment on what he or his wife said.I'm still in the learning curve on this one !I'm still investigating .
 oluvlyme
Joined: 10/25/2009
Msg: 99
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:37:35 PM

IMHO I think that no abortions should be covered by Insurance unless their is a consensus by no less than 3 doctors that the mothers life is in Danger if she were to give birth....If women want abortions they should have to pay out of pocket...it should be treated as elective......and no Federal dollars should go to aborting babies except in instances of rape,incest or giving birth is potentially life threatening to the mother....


I agree. I am pro-life and I believe that the termination of a pregnancy during any trimester is murder. Although a fully functional human being is not yet developed, that process is underway and would be achieved if not disrupted by an abortion. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, that is the beginning of a new life. Anything that ends life, is murder.

As far as federal dollars being used for abortions...that's just wrong. Maybe in extreme circumstances, as mentioned earlier, when the mother's life is in danger. But for me, it's more of a religious issue than a money issue. I do not want my tax dollars supporting what in my eyes is murder. It's immoral and displeases God. If the mother wants an abortion, she needs to find a way to pay for it. This should not even be an issue up for debate.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 100
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 11/30/2009 7:16:03 AM
^^ But then if one's religion for instance is against war or forbids taking up arms against anyone, under any circumstances, then shouldn't that person be tax-exempt as well, because federal dollars being used for wars forces every taxpayer into a position of being complicit in what anti-war people believe to be murder, unjust invasion and occupation, and so forth. Many have a religious base to that as well. And not just extreme sects either. For example, technically speaking, no registered Catholic American should have to pay taxes then, because the RCC is officially against not only abortion, but also capital punishment, the ongoing occupation in Iraq (and Rome took a position against the Iraq war from the very start back in '03 in fact). Somehow I doubt the fed'l gov't would buy this however, when it comes to not getting their money. Either that or if in some remote scenario where they did buy it, the ranks of the Catholic Church would finally swell to include many Americans who previously would never have thought of converting and America would quickly become a Catholic majority country.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent