"Obamacare" does NOT pay for abortions, and it could LOWER the abortion rate

[Big_Ro]

Oh, and by the way, failing to adhere to a preference for the ppor is also an intrinsic evil as is racism. Our duty to provide for those in our community and failure to do so is an intrinsic evil. Is that too extreme for you?

 

[Simpleton]

Masturbation is also an intrinsic evil according to you paradigm. Why not a law against that? Extremeism galore. God Bless.

You should probably change your religion identifier from catholic to lapsed catholic.

 

[Big_Ro]

You should probably change your religion identifier from catholic to lapsed catholic.

Ha! I’m very comfortable with my Catholicism. Shame on you.

 

[Simpleton]

Ha! I’m very comfortable with my Catholicism. Shame on you.

Sorry if I offended you; I was just making an observation based on your posts.

 

[Corki]

Masturbation is also an intrinsic evil according to you paradigm. Why not a law against that? Extremeism galore. God Bless.

Red herring. The Church isn’t championing for a law against contraception either.

When we have the government dictating that religious organizations promote masturbation and pay for it, you might have a semi-valid comparison.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You got confused because there were two different issues, the one about the Affordable Care Act providing for abortions, and the separate one about the “$1 abortions” thing. There were separate links for both. I take it that you now accept the fact that the $1 abortion thing was a falsehood?

You can not have read what I wrote, I refuted the $1 PoltiFact article. $1 minimum abortion surcharge is correct.

 

[Nate13]

Masturbation is also an intrinsic evil according to you paradigm. Why not a law against that? Extremeism galore. God Bless.

This discussion is about a law to force me to help other’s sin. No one said anything about outlawing contraceptives. That was your leap. I really just don’t want to help pay for them, and when you directly force me to pay for them your infringing on my right of conscience. It’s that simple. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the Obama line that conservatives want to outlaw birth control, it just isn’t going to stick.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The whole premise of this thread is false. With the $1 surcharge on all healthcare plans going directly to abortion coverage, the myth that Obamacare doesn’t pay for abortions has really been put to rest. (not that any rational person believed it anyway)

Indeed, $1/month. However, if we assume that 1/3rd of women get this coverage, then that is all that is needed to fund the current rate of abortion. Your moral indignation is irrelevant to the economic reality.

Your complaint about the health care law seems to be “Yeah, well abortions are cheap!” That is the case, and has pretty much always been the case. It is not the health care law’s fault that abortions are a short, simple and relatively safe procedure.

 

[Corki]

Indeed, $1/month. However, if we assume that 1/3rd of women get this coverage, then that is all that is needed to fund the current rate of abortion. Your moral indignation is irrelevant to the economic reality.

Your complaint about the health care law seems to be “Yeah, well abortions are cheap!” That is the case, and has pretty much always been the case. It is not the health care law’s fault that abortions are a short, simple and relatively safe procedure.

How did you get any of that from what I said?

My point is simply that the surcharge is a dodge to funnel money into abortion coverage indirectly.

I said nothing about the cost of abortion nor is this thread about the economics of abortion.

 

[Tigg]

More info for you below. I suggest you read the whole article, written by a nun who is Executive Director of NEWORK: A Catholic Social Justice Lobby:
thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/96025-honest-debate-imperative-for-healthcare

Please don’t drink the kool-aid. Network, not NEWORK, is a notoriously progressive group not too concerned about anything authentically Catholic, whose main entertainment is challenging the bishops and who wholeheartedly embrace partisan politics. (Dated article, but still relevant as to their objectives…

Network wasn’t the only Catholic group to challenge the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,…A month later, the U.S. bishops and conference officials are still angry.

“In the past, we have worked with Network on immigration reform, and they attend some meetings of our coalition,” said Kevin Appleby, director of Migration Policy and Public Affairs at the bishops’ conference. “But working in a coalition requires trust. Network can’t have it both ways: It can’t benefit from the bishops’ advocacy and then undercut them at a strategic moment.”

The Times’ story suggested that Network was involved in securing both health-care reform and pro-life provisions and thus could be trusted as an unbiased organization. But Network’s website provides no evidence of pro-life work.

Asked to explain Network’s record on life issues, Sister Simone said the lobby historically addressed economic justice concerns in policy debates, including health-care reform.

ncregister.com/daily-news/a_catholic_social_justice_lobby/#ixzz1qEeZG3Z0

Theirs is purely a materialistic and humanistic approach, with no concern for the total human person, body and soul as authentic Catholic SJ teaching advocates.

From their own website:

Catholic leader in the global movement for justice and peace—
educates, organizes and lobbies for economic and social transformation.

Social transformation = social engineering.

 

[Tigg]

someone should let the Bishops know,this will be a big relief to them.

 

[KevinAK]

Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that Obamacare is UNCONSTUTIONAL and needs to be thrown out. Obama and the rest of the libs must have been upset abou Dick Cheney’s heart transplant. Obamacare would have let him die.

 

[hurtandhealing]

It is not the health care law’s fault that abortions are a short, simple and relatively safe procedure.

Off topic, but I hate this phrase. Any other procedure where HALF of the people involved die, would never be considered “safe.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Indeed, $1/month. However, if we assume that 1/3rd of women get this coverage, then that is all that is needed to fund the current rate of abortion. Your moral indignation is irrelevant to the economic reality.

Your complaint about the health care law seems to be “Yeah, well abortions are cheap!” That is the case, and has pretty much always been the case. It is not the health care law’s fault that abortions are a short, simple and relatively safe procedure.

Just wanted to highlight that statement. A short, simple and relatively safe procedure. For whom, exactly? The baby dies EACH AND EVERY TIME, and the mother is left with physical consequences, mental and spiritual despair and distress, or all of those.

I don’t call that “safe.”

 

[Tigg]

Just wanted to highlight that statement. A short, simple and relatively safe procedure. For whom, exactly? The baby dies EACH AND EVERY TIME, and the mother is left with physical consequences, mental and spiritual despair and distress, or all of those.

I don’t call that “safe.”

Too true and I would just mention that we mustn’t forget the recent closings of some abortion facilities and the non-compliance with basic medical safety measures…or the Philadelphia abortion doctor who was charged with 8 counts of murder.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Indeed, $1/month. However, if we assume that 1/3rd of women get this coverage, then that is all that is needed to fund the current rate of abortion. Your moral indignation is irrelevant to the economic reality.

Your complaint about the health care law seems to be “Yeah, well abortions are cheap!” That is the case, and has pretty much always been the case. It is not the health care law’s fault that abortions are a short, simple and relatively safe procedure.

… That kills a baby and put a mother’s future health in jeopardy. The physical and mental problems that can come from abortion have been studied.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

No, your statements speak for yourself. The fact that a legitimate legal institution was founded by a person of faith, immediately disqualifies it based upon your prejudices - yeah, i was right the first time, disingenuous liberal - forget the facts - I am the only source - listen to me or shut up.

Sorry, but facts and legitimate sources of knowledge do exist, no matter what you think; Pat Robertson is not credible and neither is the ACLJ. Robertson has discredited himself constantly for decades and the ACLJ is just a fake organization that will do anything to push a right wing agenda. If you really care about human rights, go to Amnesty International. If you care about civil rights, check out the group the ACLJ is trying to imitate, the ACLU, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or some reputable organization like that. Otherwise you’re just being made a fool of.

 

[Nate13]

Sorry, but facts and legitimate sources of knowledge do exist, no matter what you think; Pat Robertson is not credible and neither is the ACLJ. Robertson has discredited himself constantly for decades and the ACLJ is just a fake organization that will do anything to push a right wing agenda. If you really care about human rights, go to Amnesty International. If you care about civil rights, check out the group the ACLJ is trying to imitate, the ACLU, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or some reputable organization like that. Otherwise you’re just being made a fool of.

ACLU…and reputable…in the same sentence…

 

[Julian0404]

No, not at all. Pat Robertson is not considered a scholar or even a reputable person. Do you want a list of the reasons why, his sad history of irresponsible, ridiculous and totally false statements?

Pat Robertson is not the ACLJ, and that is another liberal tactic of character assassination when you cannot defend against the oppossing position.

 

[JimG]

Sorry, but facts and legitimate sources of knowledge do exist, no matter what you think; Pat Robertson is not credible and neither is the ACLJ. Robertson has discredited himself constantly for decades and the ACLJ is just a fake organization that will do anything to push a right wing agenda. If you really care about human rights, go to Amnesty International. If you care about civil rights, check out the group the ACLJ is trying to imitate, the ACLU, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or some reputable organization like that. Otherwise you’re just being made a fool of.

So far, some 30 lawsuits have been filed against the health care act.

In addition, numerous lawsuits have been filed specifically against the HHS mandate which limits religious liberty. That mandate was opposed in separate statements by every Catholic bishop in the United States and by many Protestant clergy. Lawsuits against the mandate have been filed by EWTN, Belmont College, Colorado Christian University, Ave Maria University, and some private employers have filed suit challenging the HHS mandate.

I suppose all these people have their facts wrong?

Or perhaps a great many people don’t like it when the Federal government attempts to overturn conscience protection and freedom to practice one’s religion.