Health Care Bill With Pro-Life Amendment Passes House of Representatives

WarriorAngel · Nov 9, 2009

Krentis said:
If you had your way, why on earth would you allow abortions for cancer patients? The Church does not share your preferences.

I dont like it at all....but its in the amendment...so if they refuse to make it completely abortion free - i dont want women coming and saying they feel 'suicidal' and then get one.

I personally think the rape part needs nixed too. Women will claim they were raped left and right. And incest....
As much as it hurts to be pregnant to someone that close - adoption is really the answer. Compounding pain with more pain isnt good.

I do think they need to make it abortion free and have women find their own way to pay for it. Which again - i wish Roe V Wade was repealed.
And the number of abortions - if its not something available - will greatly decrease.
Ppl say that women will do it anyway - without any prooven number of stats...of those who opted for this in the past under cloak of darkness.
So suffice to say - when its readily available - women will use it as a birth control.

And pro choice doctors aren't opposed to assisting in saying 'mothers life is in danger' so she can get one.

BUT if the secular politicians wont have it any other way - they need to make sure it is practically impossible to get one with strict criteria.

Personally i feel - any woman who opts to abort when her life is in danger is threatening her soul. And being she could die - she really ought to reconsider killing her baby.
IMHO - its best to take your chances by giving one little person a chance at life no matter when your time is near to leave this earth.

DO you think we could have them redo it for no abortions - then i am in.

Besides the senate is not going to put this in....any of it.
From what i read.

So thank goodness....the UHC wont be passed. [or so i pray] :crossrc:

They say the bill is dead on arrival.

WarriorAngel · Nov 9, 2009

Fantine said:
It is true that if we had no corporate lobbyists we would have a much better health care bill today than the one that was currently passed.

OBOB members often say that Planned Parenthood is big business--but what about health care as a whole?

Healthcare on the whole is available.
I have a gyne... and i am sure most others do too.

I live in a low-cost area of the US, and I just heard that dental hygienists one year out of college in this area make $70K a year. Health care is a very lucrative enterprise for a very large number of people, and I don't begrudge them their income except when they price a significant number of people out of the market.

Dental hygenists dont abort babies...last i knew.
Sure health care is lucrative - and if it werent - we wouldnt have any doctors.
It takes 10 years for most doctors to study - add on the cost of paying back the college tuition and they really arent coming out all rosey.

Capping costs is good.
Capping court instances is better.
That will reduce the liability insurance that inflated the costs to begin with.
When that is reduced - the costs go down because the insurance isnt a large payment for them to make.

With this bill, the health care industry will be taking in as much, or almost as much, as they have been, because it would devastate the economy if their incomes dropped precipitously. But in the future, costs will be held down as the public option kicks in.

The "cuts" in Medicare are actually "cuts" in projected increases. They were agreed to by hospitals over a ten year period. I imagine they were agreed to because the hospitals realized they would also save money if they didn't have so many deadbeats who ran off without paying the bill or filed medical bankruptcy because they couldn't afford to. (And I have sympathy with the deadbeats, because most of us without insurance would have to file medical bankruptcy if we had a serious illness.)

We have to control costs.

Yes, costs need controlled.
Find the fat and scrape it off.
I contend it was when liability insurance hit - is when costs dramatically increased.
Doctors fear making decisions.

NOW if they cut off your right foot and should have cut off the left - thats worthy of compensation.

If you get a second opinion because the first one messed up - i dont think suing is an option - because that is why the 2nd opinion is an open option to begin with.

When you remove the option to get a 2nd opinion - more mistakes are absolutely going to occur....more ppl will sue, more money will be spent [et al]

I think 2nd opinions should be a necessity and not looked at as bad.

Fantine · Nov 9, 2009

I dont like it at all....but its in the amendment...so if they refuse to make it completely abortion free - i dont want women coming and saying they feel 'suicidal' and then get one.

I personally think the rape part needs nixed too. Women will claim they were raped left and right. And incest....

Comments like this play into my fears.

One reason why there are so many compassionate programs for unwed mothers today is precisely because abortion is legal, and so it is believed we have to entice women in difficult circumstances to have their children by being kind to them.

Before Roe v. Wade was ruled on by the Supreme Court, it was hard to find Catholics (or other religious people) who said a kind word about unwed mothers. If they weren't lucky enough to get married before the baby was born, they went off to homes where they gave birth in secret and surrendered their babies for adoption.

And in the past few weeks, I have noticed comments like that on OBOB.

That women would pretend they were raped.
That they'd pretend they were suicidal.
That they have abortion for convenience (and there is no reason that, in this scenario, isn't defined as convenience.)

My concern is that if abortion wasn't legal no one would care about these women, because I'm really not sure how much of the "care" is for the women, anyway.

When I was expecting my first child, my mom's friend's unmarried daughter became pregnant and chose life. Well, if the Rosary Altar Society could have canonized her or carried her around the church in a procession they would have.

How fortunate she got pregnant then, and not five years earlier, when she would have been fodder for gossip and not much else...

I am not one of the posters who made comments intimating that unwed mothers would lie about rape or suicidal thoughts. I am not one of the posters who say that no circumstances, no matter how devastating, tragic, or heartbreaking, fall under the category of "convenience."

But when I read those statements from unnamed posters, I realize that there is a fair amount of sentiment like that in people who are currently helping young mothers because they have a "choice," but might not if they didn't.

Ave Maria · Nov 9, 2009

Thanks be to God that this pro-life amendment was included. I only pray now that the bill gets even more pro-life amendments in the Senate. :crossrc:

fragmentsofdreams · Nov 9, 2009

WarriorAngel said:
I dont like it at all....but its in the amendment...so if they refuse to make it completely abortion free - i dont want women coming and saying they feel 'suicidal' and then get one.

I personally think the rape part needs nixed too. Women will claim they were raped left and right. And incest....
As much as it hurts to be pregnant to someone that close - adoption is really the answer. Compounding pain with more pain isnt good.

I do think they need to make it abortion free and have women find their own way to pay for it. Which again - i wish Roe V Wade was repealed.
And the number of abortions - if its not something available - will greatly decrease.
Ppl say that women will do it anyway - without any prooven number of stats...of those who opted for this in the past under cloak of darkness.
So suffice to say - when its readily available - women will use it as a birth control.

And pro choice doctors aren't opposed to assisting in saying 'mothers life is in danger' so she can get one.

BUT if the secular politicians wont have it any other way - they need to make sure it is practically impossible to get one with strict criteria.

Personally i feel - any woman who opts to abort when her life is in danger is threatening her soul. And being she could die - she really ought to reconsider killing her baby.
IMHO - its best to take your chances by giving one little person a chance at life no matter when your time is near to leave this earth.

DO you think we could have them redo it for no abortions - then i am in.

Besides the senate is not going to put this in....any of it.
From what i read.

So thank goodness....the UHC wont be passed. [or so i pray]
They say the bill is dead on arrival.

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. The House amends a bill with a provision that has the potential to greatly reduce abortion coverage, and you oppose it because it doesn't go far enough.

The problem is that politics is the art of the possible. Compromise means everyone is a little unhappy but not unhappy enough to say no. Your options aren't the current bill or a bill that prohibits coverage abortions. A bill that prohibits coverage of abortions intended to save the life of the mother is too big of a pill for most Democrats to swallow. Therefore, your options are either a bill that reduces abortion coverage or the status quo.

fragmentsofdreams · Nov 9, 2009

How people have reacted to this amendment reveals who actually cared about abortion and who was using abortion as a pretense to cover opposition to the bill for other reasons.

AMDG · Nov 9, 2009

fragmentsofdreams said:
How people have reacted to this amendment reveals who actually cared about abortion and who was using abortion as a pretense to cover opposition to the bill for other reasons.

You might also consider the reaction of the pro-abortion advocates that are extremely angry over the fact that the Amendment was forced to be included. They have vowed in their rage to make certain that no amendment expressly forbidding public abortion funding will make it into the final bill. And of course, it has noted that the House Bill (even with all the heavy handed arm-twisting in the House) is Dead On Arrival. Perhaps the folks who are objecting are noting that this bill was only used as a pretense of being pro-life (it is a form of a "Trojan Horse"). There is more to it. A lot more. This is not the finale.

Krentis · Nov 9, 2009

WarriorAngel said:
I dont like it at all....but its in the amendment...so if they refuse to make it completely abortion free - i dont want women coming and saying they feel 'suicidal' and then get one.

I personally think the rape part needs nixed too. Women will claim they were raped left and right. And incest....
As much as it hurts to be pregnant to someone that close - adoption is really the answer. Compounding pain with more pain isnt good.

I do think they need to make it abortion free and have women find their own way to pay for it. Which again - i wish Roe V Wade was repealed.
And the number of abortions - if its not something available - will greatly decrease.
Ppl say that women will do it anyway - without any prooven number of stats...of those who opted for this in the past under cloak of darkness.
So suffice to say - when its readily available - women will use it as a birth control.

And pro choice doctors aren't opposed to assisting in saying 'mothers life is in danger' so she can get one.

BUT if the secular politicians wont have it any other way - they need to make sure it is practically impossible to get one with strict criteria.

Personally i feel - any woman who opts to abort when her life is in danger is threatening her soul. And being she could die - she really ought to reconsider killing her baby.
IMHO - its best to take your chances by giving one little person a chance at life no matter when your time is near to leave this earth.

DO you think we could have them redo it for no abortions - then i am in.

Besides the senate is not going to put this in....any of it.
From what i read.

So thank goodness....the UHC wont be passed. [or so i pray]
They say the bill is dead on arrival.

I find the above inconsistant with your statements in another thread stating that you voted for McCain, who favors legal abortions in cases of rape, incest and the mother's health. Care to elaborate? Why would you support a Presidential candidate who favors less, but still some, legal abortions and not a bill that would do the same, AND provide healthcare to people who do not have it today?

Krentis · Nov 9, 2009

AMDG said:
You might also consider the reaction of the pro-abortion advocates that are extremely angry over the fact that the Amendment was forced to be included. They have vowed in their rage to make certain that no amendment expressly forbidding public abortion funding will make it into the final bill. And of course, it has noted that the House Bill (even with all the heavy handed arm-twisting in the House) is Dead On Arrival. Perhaps the folks who are objecting are noting that this bill was only used as a pretense of being pro-life (it is a form of a "Trojan Horse"). There is more to it. A lot more. This is not the finale.

You're right, this small victory for life was not the end, but only the beginning! We, as American Catholics, are setting precedent! We are commanded by mother church to combat abortion AND to heal the sick. We have flexed our muscles in the House and we have shown the world how strong we can be when united. No, this isn't over, it's far from over. It will be over when every child is protected and cared for from conception to natural death and every. single. step. along. the. way. It ain't over - but this week is better than last week was. Here's hoping for a Catholic bill - one that will both reduce abortion to the extent possible and provide health care for every american, without regard to immigration status, race, wealth, creed or employment. Part of faith is beliving that tomorrow can be better than yesterday was, through sweat and prayer. Here's hoping for less abortion and more people with medical coverage tomorrow!

I love your sig! LIFE OVER THE ECONOMY EVERY TIME!

helenofbritain · Nov 9, 2009

InTheCloud said:
I think that was the best outcome possible, I'm just worried for some other things right now. Like the US deficit, and the hidden costs of health reform right now.

But that is another story.

I'd be more worried about how much you spend on defence if I were you...

Steve &quot;Sonic&quot; Smith · Nov 9, 2009

This bill is junk.

We traded antiabortion legislation for forcing an additional 25 million Americans to line private health insurance companies pockets by removing the public option. Allowing further increases in corporate profiteering form the suffering of real people

Trading pro-life legislation for other pro-life legislation isn't worth the effort.

What we need is Medicare for everyone and a public buy in.

Single payer now.

Single payer tomorrow.

Single payer forever.

helenofbritain · Nov 9, 2009

Steve "Sonic" Smith;53463326 said:
This bill is junk.

We traded antiabortion legislation for forcing an additional 25 million Americans to line private health insurance companies pockets by removing the public option. Allowing further increases in corporate profiteering form the suffering of real people

Trading pro-life legislation for other pro-life legislation isn't worth the effort.

What we need is Medicare for everyone and a public buy in.

Single payer now.

Single payer tomorrow.

Single payer forever.

Tell us what you really think Charlie!

Steve &quot;Sonic&quot; Smith · Nov 9, 2009

helenofbritain said:
Tell us what you really think

I'm a educated man but I fail to understand the pro-life calculus that says we're going to save the life of 1 in 5 at the expense that all 5 will lead blighted lives, slaves to a broken, corrupt health insurance industry that makes nothing, dispenses no care and only exists to take 35% of all health care money and then deny health care when it is needed.

This has to be fixed holistically with every living person in mind and taken into consideration.

This bill does nothing of the sort.

Fantine · Nov 10, 2009

You're right, it's not nearly as good as it could be.

But at least it puts a mechanism in place that can be improved on in the future. Social Security has gone through many changes. So has Medicare. So has almost every law.

The original Medicare prescription plan was dreadful. The sickest patients had a $2,250 "donut hole" during which they received no prescription benefits. It took seven years to fix that, but it's been fixed.

And those Medicare "Advantage" plans that were supposed to bring competition to Medicare have been panned by the AARP. The Medicare Advantage companies are making windfall profits and being sued right and left by 70 year old women needing hip replacements and being told, "Use a walker..."

But if there had never been that frail shadow of a prescription plan the Republicans passed in 2002, we would not have had the opportunity to correct those problems today.

This is where it stands: the plan may not be great, but it will codify universal health care into law, and we'll never look back. Sure we'll have to make it better eventually, to keep costs in line, if for no other reason, but at least we have the foundation.

CreedIsChrist · Nov 10, 2009

Krentis said:
If you pay income tax, you already have the blood of the innocent on your hands; you've paid for abortions, fetal stem cell research, the death penalty, etc. Ifyou've ever bought a car from or paid an electric bill to a company that provides health insurance that includes abortions, you have blood on your hands.

The fight for life is a noble one. I do think we have to be realistic in our opposition toi abortion though. I do not believre that we'll get a bill that truly excludes all abortions. I do think that with this bill, ammended as it has been, you'll be paying for less abortions than you are today. That's not nothing. I fear that we've won a great victory here, and if we turn our noses up at it, we'll regret it. I'm not sure this bill will get any better from a life point of view.

I agree. The fight against abortion, especially in the legal sense, must be done in small steps. That is how abortion became legalized. Small steps until people were finally calloused and desensitized towards life.

In my opinion people against this bill that would indeed lessen abortion have an agenda they are not quite showing....It is this type of thinking that has let abortion go on in the first place. You don't become strong in one day. The more pro-life bills are passed, the stronger a hold we will get on finally stopping abortion.

Marriage and familys will NEVER be normal again until abortion is banned. There is no way a person can think straight while at the same time viewing that its ok to kill children. Abortion says children are cheap and discard-able and you can only imagine what that kinda mindset does to the way adults view today today(abuse, divorce, abandonment, etc). If you view something as discard-able you view it as not valuable and worth nothing, and as long as we view children that way families will never truly be functional

Health Care Bill With Pro-Life Amendment Passes House of Representatives

I close my eyes and see you smile

I close my eyes and see you smile

Dona Quixote

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

Tenderized for Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us

Steve &quot;Sonic&quot; Smith

Guest

St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us

Steve &quot;Sonic&quot; Smith

Guest

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Steve "Sonic" Smith

Steve "Sonic" Smith