House Republicans To Redefine Rape To Limit Coverage For Abortions

Remove all ads!

Your statement is correct - but I have to point out that you used the word "opinion". You have the right to hold such an opinion. But I never said you couldn't. I said that just because you oppose something doesn't give you the right to expect that the government cannot tax you to help pay for it.

Now I'm confused. You don't want to unilaterally opt out, but you'd like a change in tax laws that would allow you to um... opt out?

In the first case, the government wouldn't be paying for it, because she wasn't raped.

It doesn't become rape just because she says it was. If she never was at the bar (highly likely given that she's underage), never went to the police the night it happened, and no one present at the bar that night remembers anyone fitting the alleged rapist's and Tina's description, it doesn't magically become rape. Yes, it is possible for women to lie, but it is not possible for women to conjure up non-existent evidence out of thin air.

What loophole? In order to get a taxpayer funded abortion because you were raped, there has to be some reasonable expectation that you were actually raped, which requires at least a shred of evidence.

Indeed - although a rather ironic statement given the example you used.

 

What I am saying is that the loophole is that a woman needn't supply much data for her assertion that it was a rape. Maybe I'm wrong, but the bill seems to me to be an effort to ensure that those getting federal funding because of a rape were, in fact raped. Aldeth himself said that there must be "a shred of evidence."

Drew, you'll notice I said she never named the man. You think my example is out there, fair enough, but I don't see it as unfeasible or unrealistic at all. People like all the time to get access to government $. That isn't apocryphical. People who really want an abortion have resorted to letting high school dropouts go at them with a hangar (Ragusa mentioned this earlier, IIRC) so is it too much of a stretch to say that those same people would possibly lie to get that abortion?

Aldeth, kids get into the bars all the time with fake IDs and bribes to the doorman and such. It's not that rare.

As for the taxes, my digression was that it would be really nice if we could earmark our tax dollars, but it'd also be nice if I could fly around powered by nothing but my mind. Never happen, unrealistic, but a nice dream nonetheless.

But you do have a right to expect that they respond to your concerns regarding the allocation of the money. Also, in legal terms, if they money they are collecting is not being used according to the law of the land, then you can expect them to not be able to spend it in that way. Now, from the legal opinions expressed here, that is not the case, but I'm sure that lawyers will be hammering out the truth of that in courtrooms for the next few months or years.

 

You're making my arguement for me. Let's examine this for a minute: Don't you think the police would ask her how she got in? If she used a fake ID, they'd want to see it. If she bribed the doorman, they would ask her what he looked like. And then check at the bar that there was a bouncer working security that night that fit that description. And I sure hope she didn't pick a bar that has a security camera posted at the entrance (many bars do - for reasons exactly like this, because they don't want to be held liable). Like I said - you need a shred of evidence. In your partiuclar example, she couldn't even prove she was AT THE BAR, which would seem to be the first step in establishing you were raped.

You'd probably get a letter back from your local representative. Unfortunately, the repsonse may basically amount to, "Sorry, LKD". They do not have to necessarily change the way they do things.

 

That last part I already know.

For the first part, my point is that if such steps were NOT being taken, then it might explain why some are saying that the definition of rape needs to be narrowed in order to ensure those steps you mentioned ARE being taken.

As for legal niceties, what I was referring to was the legal concept of consent. If a 14 year old is not capable of generating consent, then even if she has sex with her 14 year old boyfriend, it's stat rape on both parts in that neither was able to generate consent. Now, it seems to me that while we are looking at legal definitions, we are also dealing with the fact that 14 year olds should, God willing, know SOMETHING about what they are doing, and the law should recognize the difference between a teen who has sex because (s)he wants it and one who is forced into it. But it appears to me that under some laws, if we say (s)he cannot consent at all, then any and all sexual activity (s)he engages in is rape. There should not be an either / or definition switch -- the possibility of a grey area should be built into laws.

 

First of all, they wouldn't have to lie to get an abortion since abortions are still legal. They'd just be lying to get the Federal government to fund it through the medicaid program. To pull this off, the woman would first need to be covered by medicaid. She'd also need to file a false police report, risking as much as a year in jail and a $500 fine. They can also be held liable for the cost of the police investigation and open themselves up to lawsuits from anyone detained during that investigation. The penalties for trying to game the system are already severe enough to discourage the practice.

The federal government funded 191 abortions for rape victims last year. How many of those 191 abortions do you think were funded by the federal government based on a false allegation? Do you believe drugged, underage or mentally handicapped young women currently able to get abortion funding in the event of rape are gaming the current system? Your entire scenario indicates to me that you haven't really looked at the law, its current implementation, or the very real consequences of fraudulently reporting a violent felony very closely.

 

@LKD, very good post, even though it flies in the face of the purpose of this thread (which is to make Republicans seem like *******s).

I still haven't figured out why the federal government pays for any abortions or why if it is the result of a crime that should make it O.K. If someone gets mugged walking down the street, the federal government doesn't pay the "emergency room" bill.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 12 seconds later... ----------

We have a three page thread about something that impacted 191 people last year. This is even less of an issue than I thought it was. Kind of makes me wonder who are the bigger pains in the asses (The republicans for trying to pass the legislation or the opposition for trying to make it such a big deal).

 

*sigh* And you know this, because you know this, and you can't possibly be wrong, right? Depsite the previously mentioned evidence that you're wrong?

Remember that my argument isn't that I don't like it. My argument is that it may not be constitutionally justified. Me not liking it is only my motive.

Funny how you only want to play 'beat the strawman'. I NEVER SAID IT WAS OK. I never said it was right. I only said there may well be other reasons for it. Maybe it was a political comprimise, that often lands things in places no one expected or wanted them. Maybe it was a bargaining maneuver (we'll start with something ridiculous and work to something reasonable). Or, maybe it was a mistake (which is the most likely since the term used isn't even a legal term).

Actually, no you didn't. You precluded the possibility of there being any other interpretation with:

However, if you're now willing to listen to other explanations, listen to this one.

Spoiler

"The use of the term 'forcible' was not intended to change the meaning of the time-tested protections and exceptions currently contained in the Hyde amendment," he said in a written statement. "To avoid any confusion and to expedite the effort to permanently prevent taxpayers from being complicit in abortion and abortion coverage, we are restoring the text to reflect the exceptions for rape and incest included in the Hyde amendment."

 

OK, I can understand that you want to make sure everyone is taking the proper steps - but what makes you think they aren't? I imgaine in just about every police station, if a 14 year old girl comes in and says she was raped, and has a description of the person and a location where it happened, and furthermore that the victim and the perpetrator were together in a public place beforehand, it would take the most rudimentary police work to go to the scene, and question the people who worked there that night and ask if they saw them. My proposal of the initial investigation isn't some high-tech CSI stuff - it's more like Police Investigations 101.

And I don't think the police would just shrug it off as no big deal. And there are a whole bunch of other factors that your example brings up - How did she get in and get served? Does the bar routinely sell alcohol to minors, and if so are they culpable for the crime, in part? Is there not even a mitigating factor at play here in that the imaginary rapist could have assumed that since she was being served alcohol that she was of legal drinking age? (19 in Canada IIRC).

Generally speaking if two people below the age of consent engage in sex, neither one is charged with anything. Where one is not of the age of consent and the other is (say, 14 and 17), then the 17 year old needs to use better judgement, even if it's technically legal. And if we are talking about a situation where the older one is outside the "Romeo and Juliet" window, then that person needs to find someone closer to their age to screw.

So which scenario are you talking about? I think the first and last ones are non-issues. The first no one is typically charged, and in the last one, I think there is general agreement that the older person should know better. And the middle situation seems to be the gray area you're talking about, and that seems to be covered by the "Romeo and Juliet" provisions. I'm assuming you are talking about situations where both people willingly engage in sex, as if one is unwilling, then it is rape irrespective of age. Can you be more precise in what you want to see changed?

They do if they are on Medicaid... which is a qualifying condition of getting a federally-funded abortion.

On that point we agree. I didn't realize the number was that small either. I agree that it isn't even worth discussing in Congress.

OK - I had mistakenly thought that the 10th amendment reasoning for not being Constitutionally justified had been thoroughly debunked.

 

NOG,

In their work lawyers are careful and conservative people. Legal texts are notoriously dull reads because of the extensive use of time-tested language on which everybody agrees and that has clearly defined meanings.

When lawyers write laws or papers, and abandon time-tested language, they are either being sloppy or up to something, or both.

I think they were up to something, and it got spotted and caused a backlash, so they now back-pedal to the time-tested language, naturally, 'to avoid confusion'. Clearly, nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that a bunch of anti-abortion mavericks and mama-grizzlies might have had the intention to advance one step further the cause of permanently preventing taxpayers from being complicit in abortion and abortion coverage*. Perish the thought!

Spoiler

* You said it yourself, that the old compromise was just that, an old compromise.

---------- Added 0 hours, 18 minutes and 29 seconds later... ----------

The old persecution complex? To wit: Sometimes people seem like *******s because they are.

 

I never said you did, but since the republican language as written clearly limited abortion funding access only to those who were victims of "forcible" rape, proving that it is in some way OK is a pre-condition for proving that employing such language does not make one appear to be misogynistic.

Ah. Clearly any time a person states emphatically that no sensible explanation for something exists, the case is automatically closed and no further debate is even possible. I did conclude that no other reasonable explanation exists and I still have yet to see one, but that doesn't mean I can't be proven wrong. It, uh, happens all the time.

Pure spin. If that actually were the case, why were they so ardent in seeking to have the language changed? After they were called on it and the situation blew up in their faces, what would you expect them to say? "We, uh, didn't realize there would be such a backlash to trying to move our nation one step closer to allowing no federal funding of any kind to go to abortion by limiting the types of rape eligible for funding, so to cover our own asses and move away from this toxic issue as rapidly as humanly possible, we are restoring the text to reflect the exceptions for rape and incest included in the Hyde amendment?" Didn't think so. Like most things in politics, what one says to the public and what one is actually trying to accomplish are rarely the same thing.

There is real and legitimate logic to what the republicans were trying to accomplish, and it was no different than what the hard left was trying to accomplish when they tried to fight a very sensible measure to ban blatantly immoral and medically unnecessary partial birth abortions. Each side has its battle line, and each side also has a vested interest in keeping the fight away from their line -- that's how they avoid losing ground. As a result, we get democrats trying to defend medically unnecessary and blatantly immoral procedures without looking at the facts and republicans trying to limit the types of rape eligible for abortion funding without looking at the consequences. Both sides are just trying to keep the fight away from the real and legitimate battle line where the tough decisions need to be made. In this particular instance, the republican efforts backfired, and they should have seen it coming.

 

Yes, actually that person can if he qualifies for government assistance. This has been covered. Because the government protects the health and rights of its citizens. When women, who qualify for Medicaid, are victims of this type of crime they can get this type of medical assistance from the government. It's pretty basic.

Yes, and they really don't need much help from us.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would they need to redefine what is rape, rather than require more evidence as you suggest? BTW, how does this work in Canada, where you live?

 

I've been gone for a few days and don't really have the time to read through the entire thread. But I'll say something I've said before -- I am pro-choice for many reasons but the main one is that I simply do not trust the government to adequately or compassionately provide oversight to any abortion program. I have used the following questions as an example:

If illegal, when would abortion be justified?

- Often the answer is "in cases of rape or incest."

How does a person validate the need for an abortion if pregnant?

- This becomes a sticking point. The right simply cannot take the woman's word for it, she could simply lie to get the abortion. Therefore there must be some official record ... a police report being the most obvious.

What if the woman does not wish to go to the police?

- This is very common for rape cases - only one in seven is reported. The number is even lower for cases of incest.

What about the possibility of a false accusation to get the abortion?

- Now this sends us down a very slipperly slope and one that just gets stupid.

Does anyone really believe a large government agency can apply compassion and fairness to such a terrible situation?

- This bill says "no".

 

I agree. And the fact that the non-time-tested language was also legally meaningless language (and thus bad law on a gramatical level) tells me they were sloppy. You may assume there was something else, but don't present it as established fact. Just say you think so, you suspect them, etc. Outright accusing them and presenting any other explanation as ridiculous or spin is going beyond an 'I think' level to an 'I know' level.

Aond other times it's because someone has taken facts out of context and presented them with a severe bias. Did you also miss the part where this whole thing was about only a small sub-section of the bill, not the main thrust of it?

Then why on Earth did you ask me to explain how it was? It'd be about like me asking you to explain how the mass-murder of the Jews under Hitler was acceptable. If you ask someone to explain why something is 'ok', you automatically imply that they think it is. You did just that.

Ok, I think I got the thrust of what you were saying there. There's one thing catestrophically wrong with your reasoning, though. The language wasn't clearly written. What is 'forcible' rape? Does only physical force count? What about the threat of force? What about social pressure, or economic? What about 'force' of drugs? Do those count? Since there is no legal definition for 'forcible rape', no one knows. They may as well have made the condition 'duvichial' rape.

Well, I'm glad you can admit that. In most of my experience, though, when someone says 'X can't exist', they need to be beaten over the head with absolute proof of X to even think that it may exist. Now, I understand you doubting the words of the Rep that I quoted. It is possible that he may just be covering his own behind. It is also quite possible, considering the general FUBAR appearance of what was originally written, that he's being perfectly honest.

Here is my problem with both you and Ragusa, and this is exactly what I was talking about in the paragraph above: you have already decided the Reps are guilty in your own mind. I could probably link to an audio tape of the original discussion for the bill where someone says, 'Forcible rape? Yeah, I think that's what's in the Hyde amendment', and you'd still think it was all a cover-up. You've already found them guilty.

And, btw, who said they 'tried ardently'? Were there long-running debates on the House floor where one of the legislators defended this wording? From what I've seen, they moved to change the wording as soon as this was pointed out to them. That's not 'being ardent'. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

 

NOG, there's nothing wrong, catastrophic or otherwise, with my reasoning. In my initial post, I referred to how the language made the republicans look. That the language was abruptly killed only bears this out. If the language were defensible, it would either still be there or the republicans would be defending it. Given that our representatives are intelligent, educated, and predominantly lawyers, I find the idea that they could have somehow put the language into the bill accidentally more than just a little absurd. The language was put in there to move us a step closer to the goal of no federal funding of any kind going to abortion of any kind unless the mother will die without one. It is literally and figuratively no different than the decision John Kerry and others within the democratic party made to oppose the partial birth abortion ban.

The democrats voting against the bill said they opposed the bill because it lacked a "life of the mother" clause. The problem with their reasoning -- a problem of which I'm sure they were well aware -- is that it is never medically necessary to conduct a partial birth abortion. Like the republican retreat we're seeing now, The democratic justification for their "no" vote was just a cover to make the defense of a pro-choice battle line seem more palatable to the voting public. Hell, more than half the party voted with the republicans, anyway. The half that didn't probably had upcoming elections and couldn't afford to piss off the pro-choice movement. They would never come out and say that since voters don't like to hear that their representatives are beholden to various special interests, so good politicians rarely admit it. That doesn't make it any less true.

NOG, the same actors have been trying to tighten, remove, or outright repeal the Hyde amendment, which was passed at the behest of Jimmy Carter over the objections of his own party, for years. You are ignoring quite years of context. There weren't any debates on the house floor because, as I predicted, the language was redacted before the bill even got to the floor....and if you honestly believe that the bill's authors and its 176 pro-life co-sponsors were not only unaware of the tried, true, and accepted language of the Hyde amendment but somehow blissfully unaware of the difference in meaning between "rape" and "forcible rape"...I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

It is, to make the point, simply correct.

Have they been taken out of context? I don't think so at all. The explanation of what they were [obviously] up to is as straightforward as it gets: They wanted to improve [in their view] on the Hyde Amendment by further restricting federal funding for abortions [and failed].

Why I do think so? Representative Henry Hyde himself told colleagues during a congressional debate over Medicaid funding in 1977 about his Amendment and about his reasoning for adding it to the appropriations bill, so we don't need to guess:

i.e. limiting access to abortion by restricting funding is the very point about the Hyde Amendment of 1976, and the very point of it having been added ever since, and since it is unlikely that Republican and anti-abortion lawmakers in general as a group collectively got amnesia about their ideas and strategies behind legislation on abortion, you can expect them to know that. It is just improbably naive to assume anything else.

 

Ok, then, let me respond this way: they look that way only if you're [looking[/i] for it. For example, I completely agree that the original law was horribly written and not defendable in any way, but not misogynistic, either.

... Are you serious? Really? Need I remind you of the Guam incident? Representatives make stupid mistakes all the time. They're usually called gaffes.

And so far your sum total evidence for the claim that this is how it happened is your claim that 'that's the kind of people they are'. Which doesn't make it any more true.

No, I'm just not assuming it explains everything.

So, then, it wasn't very ardently defended, was it?

How about with a rational examination of what it means that, legally, they used a nonsense term in the law? Or how about just remembering that most of our law makers don't actually read the laws they vote on? I understand your desire to pin these guys down as vile, dispicable, evil men for this, but that kind of contradicts the undeniable evidence that they were, one way or another, bumbling idiots.

*sigh* Thanks for quoting me ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT! Or did you just miss the part where that's not what I was saying? I'm glad you put the ellipses in there (and the link), but let me put in the full quote:

YES THEY HAVE! Do you even know the context in which this clause was originally used? What did the rest of the bill say, for example? That is the context, and this portion has been taken out of it.

1.) this seems to fly in the face of your 'consensus' argument.
2.) I would completely agree with you if the law, as originally written, made sense. If 'forcible rape' were a legally recognized term, then I would say that whoever wrote it had a twisted perspective on rape, sex, and possibly women. As it stands, though, this is [quite obviously] the product of someone who wasn't even thinking about what they were writing!

 

NOG, I don't run around looking for excuses to call people misogynistic. I simply know of no other way to interpret drafting a bill that redefines the way the federal government defines rape for the purpose of funding abortions since I simply cannot buy your argument that the actors that authored the legislation did not do so deliberately for reasons I'll be clarifying later in this post.

NOG, stop being so intentionally dense. I have been nothing if not moderate throughout this thread, pointing out how both pro-life and pro-choice actors have employed and continue to employ questionable tactics in a zero-sum game to defend their respective battle lines and achieve their legislative goals. I have been free with my criticism of both sides of the the debate, and I have made no attempt to pin down either side as vile, despicable, or "evil." Take a breath. Look over my previous posts, calmly this time, and actually read what they say. The vitriol you're seeing isn't actually there.

As to your rational explanation, I truthfully don't find it terribly realistic. A house pro-life caucus that wants to end all federal funding for abortion unless the mother's life is in danger* has drafted legislation that tightens the standards by which one can qualify for federal abortion funding, and you are asking me to believe they did this by accident. Do I really need to explain why this narrative is implausible? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it usually isn't a chicken.

* An observable fact that is not open to debate -- in fact, some within the caucus go even farther -- they want to end abortion funding even for instances in which the mother's life is in danger.

 

NOG,
thanks for the neg rep. I marvel at your probably supernatural ability to give the GOPers and anti-abortionists the benefit of a doubt even then when it is exceedingly and improbably implausible, but alas, it's you rallying under the banner again, battling the enemy and fighting for the good cause. Nothing that can be done about that I presume.

Re consensus: How daft can you yet become? Being happy with a compromise and not deviating from if for thirtyfive years, and that in a partisan and highly polarised climate as in the US, is a that consensus to nut push the matter. Period.

Re the rest: If you think the text of the bill has been taken out of context you are wrong. If the title of the bill, incidentally 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H. R. 5939)', is not enough, the legislators establish their legislative intent very clearly and unmistakably in SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS of their bill. If the titles leave any doubt, you can read the full text in the spoiler below, which (lest we waste time in your tail chasing obstinacy) I kindly provide since I recall you're google-skills are not always up to snuff.

Spoiler

`CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS

`SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS.

`No funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.

`SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS THAT COVER ABORTION.

`None of the funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

`SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.

`For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section--

`(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,

`(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and

`(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.

`SEC. 304. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL FACILITIES AND EMPLOYEES.

`No health care service furnished--

`(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal government; or

`(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician's or individual's employment,

may include abortion.

`SEC. 305. CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO SEPARATE COVERAGE.

`Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

`SEC. 306. CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO THE USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR HEALTH COVERAGE.

`Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any nonfederal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or appropriated by federal law are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

`SEC. 307. NON-PREEMPTION OF OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.

`Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.

`SEC. 308. CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO STATE OR LOCAL LAWS.

`Nothing in this chapter or any other federal law shall be construed to require any State or local government to provide or pay for any abortion or any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of any abortion.

`SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

`The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

`(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor; or

`(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

To dismiss this as poor wording, a spelling mistake, or perhaps that overzealous intern from Regent University going on a rampage after he got high on white-out fumes (mistaking that for a divine experience and inspiration), or that something was wrong with Boehner's Merlot, is just silly - for people blessed with a rich fantasy life there is no limit to potential potentially exculpatory narratives. You're grasping at straws.

Of course limiting access to abortion by restricting funding is the very point about the Hyde Amendment of 1976, and the very point of it having been added ever since - and it is the very point of this bill - and since it is unlikely that Republican and anti-abortion lawmakers in general as a group collectively got amnesia about their ideas and strategies behind legislation on abortion, you can expect them to know that. Suit yourself, but don't insist that we accept against our better judgement your improbably naive view on the matter as correct.

 

Sorry, good point. The 'explain to me why it's ok even though you don't think it's ok' bit got to me.

I guess what this comes down to is an assumption. You assume that any move by them that could be pro-life must be an intentional move, even if it's completely irrational and, in a legal context, nonsensical. I assume the reverse, that irrational and nonsensical language that is quickly changed as soon as it's pointed out is a mistake, not intentional. In short, you say it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, but I say it feels like a cat and smells like a cat.

The rep wasn't for your opinion, Ragusa, and you know it. It was for the blatant manipulation of quotes.

... You and Drew really need to work out your stories. Drew has a better perspective. Neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice side has been 'happy', and both have been trying to maneuver to get an advantage over the other. It's like two guys with knives circling each other: just because no one's stabbed anyone recently doesn't mean they've signed a peace treaty.

Thank you for that. I was willing to do so if you weren't, but I wanted you to actually read it for yourself. The primary purpose of the bill is to prevent subsidies from going to private plans that do fund abortions, as is legal without this (as I understand, at least). On top of that, legalese isn't exactly fluent, so could you tell me if Sec. 307 may cause a contradiction with the Hyde Amendment (given the use of the term 'forcible')?

I'm sorry, Ragusa, but you and I simply have two different sets of assumptions (I suspect you share many of Drew's). But why don't you apply the same assumptions to the Dems and HCR (Obamacare)? That opened the loophole that the Reps are now trying to close: that public subsidies for private health care plans can fund abortions. Did the Dems strike at the Hyde Amendment with that? Did they intentionally include a clever workaround?

 

Drew and I don't coordinate talking points, we just happen to agree a more often than not.

Does the name Sestak mean anything to you, NOG?