HR 3200, read it for yourself

[Bodaddio]

Also how can it be if our system is so broken, so horrible and needs to be fixed; why am I going to have the option of being able to keep what I have? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Cheers

 

[midlifebear]

Industrialsize:

I'm rather proud of your Senator, Barney Frank, too. To paraphrase Senator Frank: "Arguing with the He/She/and Holy It (the icky Trinity) is like arguing with a dining room table." Anyone else notice she has more time than brains on her hands? I'm assuming she's a shut in who hasn't anything constructive to do with her life except whine her existence away.


A question for Trinity: 1. Why do you hate your country so much? and 2. Don't you have a job?

 

[Trinity]

Does HR 3200 prohibit taxpayer funding for elective abortions?

According to this article: NO Obama misleads on abortion funding in health reform

According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican website the answer is NO:

An amendment offered by Rep. Capps D-CA., would allow for immediate federal funding of elective abortion coverage through the public plan, permit taxpayer subsidies of private plans that cover elective abortion, and mandate that all areas of the country contain one private plan that covers abortion. For a detailed vote tally and text of this amendment, click here.
This amendment passed by a vote of 30 to 28.

Several abortion related amendments were considered culminating in a dramatic reversal of an amendment offered by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA). Pitts offered an amendment making it clear that no public funds were to be used for abortion as a consequence of the health care reform bill. Initially, this amendment passed the committee by a 31-27 vote. Oddly, pro-choice Democrat and chair of the committee, Henry Waxman (D-CA) voted in favor of the Pitts amendment. However, House rules allow the chair to reconsider an amendment if the chair originally voted in favor. Waxman then brought up the amendment for reconsideration and switched his vote, along with one other Democrat, plus one who did not vote before. Here's how the AP told the story.

It wasn't odd for Waxman to vote for the pro-life amendment...it was strategy!

/Prior to the first consideration, the House subcommittee consider the Capps amendment which supporters said would prohibit abortion with public funds. However, pro-life representatives expressed doubts that the amendment as worded would prevent the Secretary of Health & Human Services from allowing such abortions in the public health plan option. All pro-life groups opposed the Capps amendment. However, it passed 30-28.

thechristianpost.com, Warren Throckmorten

​

Is Acorn still in the mix? Yep!

An amendment offered by Rep. Betty Sutton, D-OH., would authorize the HHS Secretary to issue $150 million in grants for community outreach programs that would enroll more people in public health welfare programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP. Unfortunately, the eligibility requirements for these grants were made so broad that groups like ACORN could receive these government grants, denying more qualified, health-focused groups access to these valuable funds. For a detailed vote tally and text of this amendment, click here.
This amendment passed by a vote of 36 to 23.
​

Unbelievable!

 

[Industrialsize]

Well IMO opinion it SHOULD contain FEDERAL funding for abortion. The last time I checked it was LEGAL. (you do realize that Hillary was a staunch pro-CHOICE candidate)

 

[Trinity]

Well IMO opinion it SHOULD contain FEDERAL funding for abortion.

I disagree.

The last time I checked it was LEGAL.

The issue is that there are many people who are pro-life (Republican and Democrat who do not agree with taxpayer funds going to fund abortions. The issue is that many supporters of HR 3200 are asserting that the plan prohibits such use of taxpayer funds. Most pro-life groups are forcefully coming out saying that the bill is protecting the use of taxpayer funds for abortion. The Waxman "trick" supports that and the fact that a clear amendment that would have left no ambiguity on the matter was rejected by ProChoice Democrats supports that.

(you do realize that Hillary was a staunch pro-CHOICE candidate)

And? This is a discussion of healthcare reform...I don't believe elective abortion should be funded through taxpayer funds.

 

[Industrialsize]

I disagree.

The issue is that there are many people who are pro-life (Republican and Democrat who do not agree with taxpayer funds going to fund abortions. The issue is that many supporters of HR 3200 are asserting that the plan prohibits such use of taxpayer funds. Most pro-life groups are forcefully coming out saying that the bill is protecting the use of taxpayer funds for abortion. The Waxman "trick" supports that and the fact that a clear
amendment that would have left no ambiguity on the matter was rejected by ProChoice Democrats supports that.
And? This is a discussion of healthcare reform...I don't believe elective abortion should be funded through taxpayer funds.

Good for them.