2011-02-25T11:44:46Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/67508 2011-02-25T11:44:46Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-25:/comment/228979 thepeach Jbach717, some taxpayers don't believe in the military or war, and yet all of us fund the military. Some taxpayers don't even believe in paying taxes, and they will pick and choose from whichever religious text they live by to justify this. Has this ever worked? No. It's just too bad that people who try to play the "moral opposition" game don't seem to have a problem with the suffering of women that occurs when abortion services are limited and disenfranchised. May this cult of self die a quick and painful death. 2011-09-15T19:36:41Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-09-15:/comment/235373 kennijudd Because this bill does far more than eliminate what little taxpayer funding there ever was for abortion (under the Hyde Amendment, it was already limited to rape, incest and life of the mother -- no "convenience" abortions). As a practical matter, it eliminates insurance coverage for abortions -- even insurance paid for by the policyholder, on the pretext that because a portion of health insurance premiums are tax-deductible, that amounts to taxpayer funding for abortion. The "forcible rape" language is also problematic. That's an undefined term in federal law, it has the potential to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded litigation -- money I'd rather we put to better use. 2011-04-25T01:21:22Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-04-25:/comment/231878 arossoc test comment to end 2011-02-05T07:05:02Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-05:/comment/227028 fakk2 As a side note, I've kinda been waiting for someone to bring this up, and I don't have any facts other than logical reasoning, but where is the voice of the transgendered? I mean, this IS an abortion debate, but no one has even mentioned gender identity and the fact that someone who may identify as a male, or half-male, may have the capability to give birth. I know it doesn't happen a lot, maybe 1 or 2 per million or even less, but in all the abortion/pregnancy debate, no one on either side has mentioned the transgendered. 2011-03-19T08:12:19Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-03-19:/comment/230316 nmeagent Barring illness, catastrophe, or failure to sustain the mother's life, those cells will certainly become an actual person some amount of time after conception. With no unusual action on your part, a child is born. Removing the embryo kills the possibility of that child and therefore effectively kills that child. You may not feel guilty about it, but it is still removing a life from existence. 2011-06-22T00:20:47Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-06-22:/comment/233692 rachelnwmn Defunding clinics that provide safe, affordable abortions to lower-income women does not reduce the amount of abortions performed. It simply reduces the number of SAFE abortions performed. Morally, I'm against abortion. But I'm also morally against putting hundreds of thousands of American women's lives at risk because they cannot afford a safe, effective abortion. This isn't about abortion. This is about women's health and women's rights. 2011-02-02T15:50:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-02:/comment/226815 nebeltanzerin This argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as it discusses the moral reasoning against allowing abortions at all. Since Roe v. Wade, abortions have been, and continue to be, legal in the United States. Arguing over the personhood of a fetus is not going to change that. 2011-05-06T01:37:15Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-06:/comment/232276 AlphaFemale1968 Hello- big difference between SLAVERY and ABORTION. A slave is owned and controlled by another entity. An abortion occurs inside a womans own body. STOP using your religous beliefs to control my personal choices. I'm glad that you have your beliefs. You God tells you all about life. Perhaps, I don't believe in God and an unwanted pregancy is a medical decision that I have to choose to make. Keep your religion away from my uterus. 2011-01-29T10:27:21Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-29:/comment/226299 filiasilvae And yes, I know that it's a presumption to call TheConservative male as well. I find it difficult to believe such statements could come from a woman, though if that is the case, I'll stand corrected on that point. 2011-01-30T17:47:45Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-30:/comment/226442 MDMilanese I wonder how many jobs taking away the rights of rape victims will get us. I'm guessing none. 2011-02-01T06:30:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-01:/comment/226578 fakk2 JackCox, you are correct. The 1977 Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds being used for abortion except for: "SEC. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion— (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a lifeendangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed." [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ161/pdf/PLAW-110publ161.pdf] This has limited all Medicaid for over 30 years. Also, military personnel do not have the ability to use their VA benefits for abortion or abortion counseling. They can use their personal insurance, but not their VA benefits. (continued) 2011-01-31T04:24:13Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-31:/comment/226464 TheConservative Actually, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of proper English grammar rules can tell you, it is customary to use the masculine pronoun for an anteceent whose gender is unknown. Hence, my referral to the fetus as a 'he'. Incidentally, it is also interesting that 'fetus' is just Latin for 'little baby' 2011-02-01T11:16:17Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-01:/comment/226628 fakk2 Hopefully the fair tax will eventually be pushed through some day, then the tax deductions won't matter anyways. But that's still a fantasy of sorts (ooooh, no more IRS, how I wish). 2011-02-01T11:19:10Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-01:/comment/226630 fakk2 Mophatt, I never quite thought about it that way. What an intriguing idea. I mean, yes, abortion is a VERY personal matter, but so are property rights, and the federal government doesn't pay the expenses of me being robbed, that's why I have insurance, because if I didn't, no one would reimburse me for my property. And a woman's body is her property. VERY intriguing idea indeed. 2011-11-18T02:02:15Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-18:/comment/238601 nameman The website is adapted throughout the day by its agents andforum members. We are committed to accouterment you with the accoutrement bare to findthe best <a href="http://www.cheaptiffanymall.com" title="tiffany jewellery online store">tiffany jewellery online store</a> deals online. 2011-02-03T06:51:46Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-03:/comment/226858 mmstahlecker Our Constitution guarantees the right to life. Period. The recent uncovering of illegal activity at Planned Parenthood in both New Jersey and Virginia demands a full investigation and immediate suspension of all Federal funding. Sex trafficking is a major problem worldwide and right here in the U.S., and Planned Parenthood is a willing accomplice. 2011-02-03T12:35:16Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-03:/comment/226898 fakk2 KEngel, you have a lot of good points so let me talk about them in order: 1.) Yes, I think it's fair that you "...lose [your] tax deductions unless [you] change [your] insurance policy..." because the moment we let the government decide that insurance cannot discriminate against pre-existing conditions, we allowed the government to mandate what is and is not covered and at what expense, to the companies, and to ourselves. 2.) "...a male rapist with an expensive lawyer can get away with a lot...", I'm sure they can and if I had enough time, money, and bullets or sharp bolt cutters, it wouldn't be a problem after the first time. 3.) "...all the poor men tricked in fatherhood by scheming woman and their evil uteri is just ridiculous...", are you saying women don't rape men? I know 1 man who was raped by 2 women and 1 gay man. Another man I know was raped by 1 woman. So, if you don't think it happens, you're sadly mistaken. 2011-02-01T05:39:20Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-01:/comment/226569 Mophatt Abortion is a tough subject. Always sure to get the debates heated. As for this bill, I agree with it. I don't think tax payers should be resposible for someone's abortion, rape or not. I don't think abortion should be legal under a few circumstances but shouldn't be a means of birth control. If I was a woman, which I am not, I wouldn't expect anyone but me, or my parents if I were underage, paying for my abortion if I were raped. That is a personal matter. If that is allowed, then the tax payers paying for a stolen tv when someone breaks into my house should be allowed. Taxes aren't meant to pay for things like this. That I am firm on. 2011-02-03T13:49:27Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-03:/comment/226907 fakk2 Nebeltanzerin, I don't know how you equate not being able to take a tax deduction as "takes away her choice of payment". Sure, she wouldn't be able to take a tax deduction, but does that mean she can't use her private insurance anyways? No, it doesn't. This bill does make it more expensive for the mother, no denying that, but isn't that the point of cutting government spending? like the welfare comparison, why should we not cut the size of welfare checks? WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Abortion is the woman's choice, this bill doesn't change that, but, just as with the welfare analogy, we're reaching our debt limit, and if we don't cut spending then we're screwed. Someone, somewhere, has to pay more for abortions as the years go by due to inflation, and I don't see why it can't be the woman, especially since all rape and life threatening conditions will be covered and she won't have to pay for those. Why is it so horrible to not allow tax deductions for having an elective abortion? 2011-02-04T13:46:44Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-04:/comment/226987 k_alderman In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton co-workers while working in Iraq. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction. She was not allowed to sue because her employment contract prohibited it. In 2009, Sen. Franken proposed an amendment to deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. So for those who say that Republicans just think the rape victim should get the perpetrator to pay for an abortion, we don't believe you. 30 Republicans voted against a rape victim's right to sue the perpetrator! Last year, the fed paid for just 191 abortions. This isn't about who pays. It's about the fact that certain people feel that they have the right to impose their religion on others, and that they have the right to use the government for that purpose. They believe that they have the truth, directly from God, and thus are entitled to run the lives of other people.