Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
November 10th, 2009
08:30 AM ET

Health Care & Paying for Abortion

Federal funding for abortion could tip the balance in the health care debate.

On Saturday, the House passed health care reform which includes a ban
on federal money being used to pay for abortions.

Would you like to see a similar ban in the Senate health care bill?

Leave us a comment.
We’ll share some of them on air in the CNN Newsroom, 11am – 1pm ET.

Filed under: Tony Harris
soundoff (132 Responses)
  1. dennis linville

    I am not a supporter of abortion but then I am not a woman and I do see some cases where abortion would be considered. I think this may wake up some women on this issue though as why they are being descriminated against.
    I dont think abortion is the real issue anyway. It is the republicans using abortion as the tool to put a death sentence on 47 million Americans and I think this will go a long way in finally destroying the republican party as any sort of credible threat to a public office.

    November 10, 2009 at 9:11 am |
  2. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Just end this issue theres alot more pressing issues in this country then abortion like people without jobs and our lives going down the drain .

    November 10, 2009 at 9:21 am |
  3. ABU OLU Nigeria

    AM expecting the same bill from the house of senate,if you want to abort,then you have to pay from your pocket.

    November 10, 2009 at 10:07 am |
  4. Brad Kelly

    For many if not half of the country abortion is literally an issue of life and death, therefore it seems unreasonable to expect people to have their taxes pay for what some consider the murder of another.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  5. CC Love

    This is a moot point. No one pays for abortions today but the person who wants them. Smoke screen, don't be fooled. Republicans and Right Wing Christians please stop trying to maintain the status's not working!

    November 10, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  6. Donna

    I feel that a Healthcare Reform bill has to be passed now. If the abortion issue is not included in this bill, so be it. We can deal with it in another way, if we are creative.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  7. Michelle

    No, I don't think it's right for the religious beliefs of a few to be forced on others who don't share those beliefs. What happened to the principle of religious freedom in America?

    November 10, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  8. Marcus

    I think that the Abortion Amendment should not be on the Senate Bill. It is the woman's choice, and something that woman will have to live with. You could make them have counseling to make an informed decision, but taking away a right should not be something we do in America.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  9. Giny Brown

    I am against abortion and I do not want my federal taxes paying for the murder of innocent children. This is no longer a democracy if passed.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  10. Patz Mac

    An a nation of many cultures and religions, we cannot possibly make laws that accomodate everybody's idea of morality. The fact there is so much division over the issue is proof there needs to be a freedom of choice. We do not need an American Taliban!

    November 10, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  11. Ethan Kopelman

    There is no direct funding for abortion in the law that has been in place for over 30 years. No need to change that. While I strongly disagree with the Stupak Amendment if that will get moderate pro-lifers on board with healthcare reform I support it, assuming there is a public option that is actually meaningful. Don't see it happening

    November 10, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  12. Jane Ellen

    I absolutely believe that women's reproductive rights should not be discriminated against in the health care reform bill. Stupak should be ashamed of himself and all who care about women's rights should stand up against this abomination and demand that abortion be funded in the same manner it has always been.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  13. Tony

    The Hyde Amendment already states federal funds can't be used for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life endangerment. The amendment added to the health reform in the house is thus pointless, and should not be put in the Senate health care bill.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  14. Justin P.

    I believe in a Woman's right to choose (Pro-Choice), but I also recognize that taxpayer assistance in Health Care should not go to Abortion because of the fact that late term abortions are wrong, as in this stage it is a Baby and not a Fetus.

    Abortions of course, can be paid for by the patient or bought in Private Insurance plans, but again, not on a Public Plan assisted by taxpayers.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  15. Carlos

    The Stupak amendment does more than ban federal money being used to pay for abortion. It bans the public option and any insurance company participating in the insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage even if paid for with private money. This goes well beyond the Hyde amendment and should be removed!

    November 10, 2009 at 11:27 am |
  16. Lee James

    Opponents of heath care and public option are seizing on any excuse to derail the will of the people.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:27 am |
  17. Tammy

    No. If you don't want your taxes paying for abortion that's fine. Let mine pay for it. Or how about this, you can ban taxpayer money for abortion which you oppose if you also ban taxpayer money for viagra and cialis which I oppose.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:28 am |
  18. Larry Buffington Ellenwood, GA

    The abortion issue is a religious issue, not a political issue. We supposedly have separation of church and state, so I am in favor of the abortion payment.

    This is just a further blurring of the separation of church and state by the republicans just like the faith based initiatives. If the old republican men don't believe in abortion I save that they shouldn't have one! lol

    November 10, 2009 at 11:28 am |
  19. Zed B. Starkovich

    How about a ban of federal funding for illegal wars that kill innocent people?

    How about a ban of federal funding for corporations that prey on the American people?

    How about a ban of federal funding for the absurd "War on (some) Drugs" while we pretend that alcohol and prescription drugs don't kills half a million people a year?

    November 10, 2009 at 11:28 am |
  20. Janice Martin

    I find it ironic that the house passed a health care bill denying abortion to the poor on an inadequote, insurance companies made happy bill that will not deny their own women abortions. It is an approved benefit in their own insurance plans.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:28 am |
  21. Rebecca

    If funds for abortion are not included then neither should funds for erectile disfunction be allocated.. Once again women's reproductive issues are being pushed into to back alley while men's virility is considered necessary.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:29 am |
  22. Larry Mills

    So some congressmen are bowing to constituents who don't want their taxes used to pay for abortions. They're morally opposed. Fine. But where was my right to withhold my taxes from paying for deaths inflicted on Iraqis? That was a moral life-and-death issue too, but I don't recall being given the chance to opt out of it.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:31 am |
  23. Stacey Davis

    I believe that it is our constitutional right to be entitled to an abortion, and if we need health coverage for an abortion we should not be denied it.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:31 am |
  24. Dan Fleury

    For the Republicans to cry about government intervention, then to insist that a protected right of pregnancy termination be banished from any health care reform is at least disingenuous. I am personally pro-life, so this is not an issue with me. Just seems that the Republican argument is flawed when they are the ones who want to place so many government restrictions on what my options should be.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:31 am |
  25. Henya CA,

    Hello Tony,
    I'm a female and I am pro abortion I'm sick and tired of all the old man right wing telling a woman what to do with her body, and I would like the senate to pass Health Care Reform it is about time that we catch up with the rest of the modern world and take care of all American citizens.Healthy country is a Wealthy country,

    November 10, 2009 at 11:32 am |
  26. Richard Hyatt

    I don't think taxpayer money should be used for abortions, unless it has been established the person having the abortion will die if they are left in that impregnated condition.
    Also I think in the case of Rape or incest there oculd be a case made to use taxpayer money for abortion, but with very stringent sets of rules and circumstances.
    These rules and circumstances to me made by made by a panel of Healthcare professionals in unison with a doctor.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:33 am |
  27. Dorothy McGlynn

    Yes, I would like to see a similar action taken in the Senate regarding abortion funding. Being against abortion (I see it as killing), would put our government and our country really as putting life ahead of materialism. We need someone in the Senate to stand up and clearly ask for support of this. Our country's top role in democracy in the world should not include that we approve of killing babies.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:33 am |
  28. Stacey Davis

    Many of the reasons that people have abortions are because of financial reasons, so to say that they should pay from their pocket is ridiculous because they might not be able to afford it.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:34 am |
  29. Betelgeuse

    To include ANY type of ban on ANY kind of health care, because of "personal opinion" or "moral stand" would be criminal. Legislation of this magnitude should be done in an unbiased manner, with only the "health and well being of the patient ', being the only issue.
    Whether you agree with any individual procedure, is none of anybodies business, except the medical communities and the patient involved! If we still wrote medical laws, based on moral judgement, we would still be living in the "Dark Ages".

    November 10, 2009 at 11:36 am |
  30. Meredith

    Banning health coverage for abortion is tantamount to banning abortion. This provision is an outrage. If the ban is passed, it will disproportionately affect poor women who will be unable to afford potentially life-saving medical interventions because of this petty politically-motivated legislation. Congress should be worrying about protecting women's health, not limiting their access to medical care.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:37 am |
  31. Vince ponder

    I am a supporter of a womans right to an abortion. I am very upset that the anti-choice people were able to ban federal dollars for abortion. I was horrified to hear that certain members of the house were consolting catholic bishops! This is very frieghtening. We are not supposed to be a theocracy. Abortion is a responsible option for some women. People with the financial means will be able to get abortions,people without the means will have tougher decisions to make though abortion may be preferred. This is contradictory to the spirit of healthcare reform. What a shame. The irrationality of the religious prevails again.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:37 am |
  32. Arine Ward

    This Country America...Has long been the land of the free. Its only free, when your paying Congress to help in your favor. These folks get on my last nerve. Its always Abortion this, or Obama, that always something to complain about. Then they come with this if these lazy people would work, and pay taxes...Every time one goes out and makes a purchase its taxed so they are paying taxes...the real issue here, is nothing major has hit your front door, but it will..and lets see how you want to call a spade a spade, you will change your tune of sweet Dixie, to help me please...Women get your abortions, men get the lift when it no longer rises, and the gov't hasn't said a word, all the commercials on television about erectile dysfunction...probably needs to stop working for awhile. Government and its crazy constituents make me just Upset...cause they need a cause to say something sit down and hush up you sound like children that should be seen and not heard...your gettin on the nerves of Americans always complaining Pay your taxes live your life, and stop trying to live others.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:38 am |
  33. Brian (Houston)

    We need healthcare reform, and the current legislation doesn't even address the out of control rising cost. 1st of all, remove the antitrust exemption from the insurance companies. They should have NEVER been allowed to collude and fix prices in the back meeting rooms.

    2) Put the language back in the legislation enforcing and restricting illegal aliens from gaining access to this program. They have gamed our social services for more than 20 years and its LONG overdue we put a stop to that now. Americans cannot afford to insure 12-20 million people who are the responsibility of their respective countries, NOT OURS. Americans are sick and tired of paying for a bunch of freeloaders which brings me to the third point.

    3) Don't force Americans to pay for health insurance of others such as
    raising the tax on the rich. Much as I think the rich don't pay their
    fair share of taxes, the burden should't be placed on anyone, rich,
    middle income. Create a insurance pool that is cheap and allows
    the poor to be able to see a doctor and have access to healthcare.
    If not that, then expand medicare and create programs within that
    already existing program where the poor can buy into a healthcare
    plan within medicare or medicaid.

    I hope the current legislation that just passed through the house doesn't pass in its current form mostly because of illegal aliens who will gain access to this program if we don't make sure they will not be able to use this social service program and suck the life out of it as they have done with all our other social services. THEY are getting healthcare free where Americans cannot even get that care and we are the ones paying the tab.

    $1.2 trillion the Democrats say it will cost? If illegal aliens get access to this service, that number will more than double, if not triple.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:41 am |
  34. may

    Hi,If we are all paying for the health care. We should have a choice.
    People who are against abortion, don't have to have one. Our taxes are spent on guns and war which I am against but we have to live with that.
    I would like to see names of congressmen and senators who took money from the Insurance lobby and Pharmacutical lobby to vote against this health care bill. May

    November 10, 2009 at 11:41 am |
  35. John

    There are many religious people like myself who really want to support the Health Care Bill and to do the right thing to help people who are uninsured get health care. Now, with this amendment, that prevents the proposed law from spending our tax money on practices that destroy human life, I hope all those like myself will give their full support for this health care bill. There are many Americans who have just gone from being unsure about health care reform to enthusiastic supporters. Senators get this bill passed!

    November 10, 2009 at 11:43 am |
  36. charles russo

    Yes I would like to see a similar Bill in the Senate on not suppling financial support to any abotion issues.
    These women get themselves in trouble knowing that they will not have to suffer the conseqences. There are 3700 teenagers get an abortion EACH DAY. Thats every day. There are 600 women raped or sexually molested every day. Now you figure out how many of the 3700 are just having unprotected sex. They don't even have enough sense to care what will happen.
    How stupid are our government officials that we can't figure this out and do something good for the people instead of making things easy to do wrong.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:45 am |
  37. Matt Prewett

    There are many people on both sides of the political spectrum that are morally opposed to abortion of viable fetuses – myself included. Asking the public to fund this procedure will be a political disaster. Why can't we have a discussion about health-care reform, public options, and single-payer health care without bringing this into this mix?

    November 10, 2009 at 11:45 am |
  38. Lydia Brazon

    Women of means will always be in a position to obtain a safe abortion if they so choose. This amendment will simply deny poor women the same option.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:46 am |
  39. Chris

    How hypocritical of health care opposition. First they fear monger that government bureaucrats will dictate what kind of health care people can and should get. Now they have stepped in and done just that, using government to tell people what kind of care they are allowed to receive.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:46 am |
  40. Brandy LaBrie

    It's really upsetting to me that the democrats and republicans get to decide what a woman does with her body. They dont know these women and what they go through in their lives and they arent trying to know them either. It is none of their business what they do with their bodies and we already spend gov. funds on abortions for people on welfare (at least I know in Cal. thats how it works) so this makes no sense to me. I personally do not like abortions for my body but I also understand I can only think for me and thats what the gov. needs to realize. We need to focus real issues with this new health bill. People are dying everyday because they are not getting the proper health care they need. Lets focus on that, abortions should be strictly up to the woman who needs to make that decision. They should have the right to make that decision.

    November 10, 2009 at 11:52 am |
  41. tom

    55 to60% of Americans support healthcare reform, tespecially the public option. If this is a democracy why do our elected officials reject what the majority wants and why does the media seem to focus on the minority who oppose reform instead of those who support it. This doesnt pass the smell test.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:08 pm |
  42. Jeanne Gentz

    I am opposed to the government paying for abortions.

    An abortion is a personnel matter and should not even be considered in any government program..

    November 10, 2009 at 12:08 pm |
  43. Mohammed Konneh, Liberian, North Carolina, Charlotte.

    Let me urge member of the US senate to extract the aspart of aborption in the final passage of the healthcare bill because aborption is an art of murder which should not be given room for and people will re-think before making pregrenancy or face the ultimate prize for their art.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
  44. Daniel

    Absolutely not. Republicans say they don't want the federal government coming between patients and doctors, unless they disagree with the decisions patients and doctors reach.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:10 pm |
  45. Mr Dean n Seattle

    why take awa a womans rights, when will they take their right to vote away?

    November 10, 2009 at 12:10 pm |
  46. W Dell

    The 1976 Hyde amendment prohibits US tax dollars going to abortion subsidies. The Stupak-Lee amendment goes BEYOND that and prohibits private citizens from purchasing, with their own money, and prohibits insurance companies from providing abortion services IF those policies are purchased from the government organized exchange. Tony, you need to frame the question correctly – to say the Stupak-Lee amendment prohibits tax dollars from paying for abortions is INCORRECT. You're usually more careful than that.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm |
  47. Carole Kennedy

    This is 2009, not 1969. The medical rights of women to all health services that they need must be a part of any health care reform, and not a political poison pill for a minority of right-wing tea-baggers to derail reform. It's time for women to take a stand and hold the majority party responsible to their rights in the 21st century.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm |
  48. Leonard

    Yes I would like to see the ban in the Senate. An abortion is a personal choice, and as such, it should be paid out of their own pocket, rather than making the tax payers pay for someone else's choice.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm |
  49. Dan Olson

    Yes by all means the final bill should include wording to prevent taxpayers from paying for abortions. Why is this so controversial? Lasik surgery, cosmetic procedures, dental... lots of things are not covered by existing medical plans. Abortions are a discretionary procedure and should be covered only if performed for a compelling medical reason.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm |
  50. Pam Goodwin

    Why should health care pay for the killing of a child. Health care is for saving lives not taking them. If someone feels they have the right to take a life let them do it with their own money not mine and other tax payers.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm |
  51. Michelle

    There are rules in place already. If neither side of this issue is attempting to change anything with this new legislation, then why do we need to add anything to the House bill? The rules in place before the healthcare reform bills came about should be enough for the prolife side, and for the prochoice side, this is not the time to try to change current legislation. Leave it the way it is and just get health care reforms passed!

    November 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm |
  52. catnerine nicholas

    No, I do not! What is wrong with us. We are most backword of the enlightened nations. Let people use their own morals and judgement to guide their lives. Freedom does not lead to decay. Do it or don't, it's not my business to impose restrictions on others.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
  53. Dmitry Ostrovsky


    I think that we should all focus on the important issues in the bill. Including an exclusion for abortion will have double effects. While it may please some conservatives, it will also anger liberal democrats. We should really be talking about the funding and "cost saving" measures that will be making this bill, "deficit neutral". And what does that really mean anyway?

    November 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
  54. Scott G.


    I only think that paying for abortion should be covered by insurance companies if it is medically necessary. If you choose to abort and you are perfectly healthy, then you should also choose to pay for it.

    Many women state that its their body and they should choose whether or not this life growing in them will have a life. They take offense when others tell them they shouldn't abort but I take offense that they are able to tell that life growing in them that it doesn't have a chance at life.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
  55. Mr Dean n Seattle

    you can always tell when the republican party is in trouble and have no solution they turn on their abortion issue so the media is distracted from the real issues that keep people from seeing just how bad their party treats america

    November 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
  56. Dan Nowicki

    The very fact that the health bill tries to address specific medical procedures is a big flag that the bill in its current state is at minimum poorly written and at worst full of political bagage. The real issue is weather "elective" procedures should be subsidized by the federal government. "Elective" for the case of subsidized taxpayer supported care should have a very simple definition that is applicable to any medical procedure or treatment allowed in our country,

    November 10, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
  57. Jeanne

    I am opposed to abortion. An abortion is a personnel choice and should not be supported by any government program.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
  58. Frances Young

    I think the Stupak Amendment is a DISGRACE! Our legislators have decided that they can treat women, who are the majority of US population, as little more than a negligible minority who can be safely ignored as their health care rights are stripped away. They caved to extralegal religious influences from Catholic Bishops rather than staunchly follow the strict separation of church and state that is constitutionally mandated.

    Do our legislators really think American women can't make appropriate decisions regarding their own health and well-being? Women need to keep on the backs of their elected officials until this Amendment is just a bad memory tainting our Congressional history!

    November 10, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
  59. Kristina

    There should be a ban on federal money used to fund abortion. Some people try to equate this as an outright ban on abortion which is not the case. Regardless of your feelings on abortion you should be able to agree that it is in poor taste to take money from others to fund something the majority of American's disagree with. Quite simply, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself. Do not come to me and ask me to pay for your abortion.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
  60. Kathy

    In addition to not funding abortion, the wording also precludes private insurance from covering abortion even if the individual pays for their own policy. That is abhorant.

    While I don't believe I would ever have an abortion there are situations where I believe it should be an option. A friend's daughter was abused by her father and became pregnant. Because of the abuse the daughter was an alcoholic, was addicted to drugs and later became quite promiscuous. The chance for a successful pregnancy and healthy child was highly in doubt. Should she be precluded from the option?

    November 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
  61. Tim

    I'm not a religious person myself, but I disagree with abortion in all but extreme medical cases where other lives need to be saved. I believe that the passage of this bill is far too important to be held up by such a minor disagreement. The democrats should compromise on this, and get this bill passed. The healthcare bill will save lives and improve many more so it's vital to compromise.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm |

    Men should sit on their hands when it comes to what a Woman does with her Body ... when a Man can go through nine months of morning sickness, swollen feet, back pain, eating for two (or more!!) the pain of delivery, the two o'clock feeding, colic, changing diapers, burping, the fevers, crying with the pain of teething, , And the list goes on!!) THEN AND ONLY THEN SHOULD MEN HAVE A SAY WITH WHAT A WOMAN DOES WITH HER BODY !!!!! ,

    November 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
  63. carl

    something has to done about health care. We do not need a part that would allow Illegals to have access to our Health Care. Our Government should have nothing to do with Abortion. Abortion should be up to the woman. We take better care of people in other Countries better than we take care of our own people. We are providing health care to people in the war zones we are in better than people here in our Country.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm |
  64. Christy

    I am whole heartedly in support of health care reform and whole heartedly against federal funds going towards abortions. Most abortions are not for health care they are used as post pregnancy birth control. Birth control and abortion are a personal, individual decision and should have nothing to do with the government.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm |
  65. Mary Ellen

    No, no, NO! Abortions should not be paid for under the Senate bill. Used too pften as a means for birth control, there are better, less emotionally damaging methods.

    And girsl/women getting multiple abortions to prevent live births become removed from the reality of the life they are destroying.

    Human life loses value when abortion is easily obtained. Put more effort into prevention, not destruction.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm |
  66. Gil

    Tony, you have grossly oversimplified what the bill does. Federal dollars are already banned from paying for abortions by previously existing law. What the bill does is ban insurance companies from offering abortion in any packages that will be available in insurance exchanges, preventing people from buying packages that cover abortion with their own money and limiting the options of people who receive insurance from their employers. It will greatly limit access to safe, legal reproductive coverage for exactly the sort of people who need it and because so many insurers will want to offer their packages in the exchanges it could almost act as a de facto ban on all abortion for many people. It's disgraceful.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  67. Janet

    Just as our hmo's do not pay for prescription birth control , nor should our government pay for abortion as a form of birth control. Choice is choice and not somethings the taxpayers should foot the bill for.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  68. Joy

    I think "the people" should have a say in this matter. If the majority do not want their tax money to go to pay for abortions, then the amendment should remain in the bill in the senate. It IS our money that is being spent, after all. This does not mean that a person shouldn't have the right to buy PRIVATE health insurance policies that cover abortion procedures. But when it comes to public option policies, susidized by "our" taxpayer money, managed by "our" government, abortions should NOT be covered.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  69. Nate Nichols

    Of course abortion should not be covered by federal tax dollars. Paying for the irresponsibility and ignorance of others should not be part of any legislation.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
  70. Joanie Oakes

    We already have a ban on federal funds for abortion. This new addition to the bill makes me furious, because it would take away a woman's choice to pay for her own abortion! This seems unconstitutional. It's none of their business!!

    November 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
  71. Sabine Allen

    I had to undergo a termination of pregnancy for medical reasons 17 years ago.
    Three years later with much support from the medical profession my husband and I were able to have a baby.
    There is not a day that goes by that I do not think of that first (possible) child. But I am also grateful that I and my son are both healthy and alive.
    I am grateful the doctors helped me 17 years ago. Money should be the last thing on a woman's or man's mind when it comes to this very difficult decision of having an abortion.
    YES!!! – Abortion should be covered for health reasons, in case of rape or incest, and for socio-economic reasons.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm |
  72. Sheila Boucher

    I believe that the culture of death that exists in America and throughout the world has, as its base, the taking of innocent human life though the heinous act of abortion. I am opposed to contributing to this in any way, such as through my tax dollars.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm |
  73. Martha Kusz

    Yes, I believe that federal funds should not be used for abortions. Roe v. Wade did not create an absolute right to abortion but set forth a standard for review of restrictions in light of the advancement of medical science. Overwhelmingly, abortion has been used as a method of birth control by individuals who engage in irresponsible or risky behavior and inclusion not only takes innocent life but enables people to continue their unwise behavior.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
  74. Arine Ward

    Look at all these comments about No No No and what shouldn't be done. However in the event that one is needed for a family member whether it be medically or personal they will be running looking for a loop hole to pay for it. These so called "Caring Folks" get on my last nerve. Until you have been put in the position of needing to have one, then you should REALLY keep your mouth closed. None of you, have the right to tell me about my body and what needs to be done, or should be done, and when I die I don't have to answer to not ONE of Get off the Abortion kick before you really make someone upset

    November 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
  75. Bill

    The government has no business involving itself in the personal decisions of a woman. If a woman wants an abortion that should be her choice – especially in the cases of rape and incest, Health care should cover at least the latter circumstance.

    Public option – yes
    Tort reform – yes
    Abortion coverage – yes for rape and incest cases

    November 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
  76. Lakisha Williams

    Hi, Tony! I am for a woman's right to chose, but I don't think federal dollars should be used to fund abortions. We will be infringing on the rights of those who thinks having an abortions is morally wrong.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
  77. Bill Green

    Last time I checked, the Supreme Court has not overturned the decision for a woman's right to choose. How can the government now try and make abortions, in essence, unattainable, by financial measures? My personal beliefs, as well as those of the senators and representatives, are irrelevant. As long as abortion remains legal, it should be recognized in a national health plan. I personally think abortion is not a means of birth control, and should be considered only in the most heinous of circumstances, and I'll always maintain this with my 9 month old daughter. But abortion is still legal in this country, and politicians who do not believe in it must not be allowed to create a de facto state of 'illegalization' of it.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
  78. Gil

    Just to make it more plain: federal money was never going to pay for abortions in this bill at any time since that's already illegal. This amendment makes it so that you can't buy coverage that includes full reproductive rights EVEN WITH YOUR OWN MONEY.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
  79. Robert Lake,MI

    I dont care for the current reform suggested in congress now but I do think if the tax payer is going to pay for old men to be on Viagra then abortions should be paid for as well! Pro-Lifers cant have it both ways! We actually need to start doing what China has been doing and limiting the number of kids one has! I`m all for having as many as one can support but if I have to be responsible for life for other peoples choices to have kids they cant afford, then I say abort them!

    November 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm |
  80. Norma Ladner

    The primary purpose of health care is to preserve life and health. Since abortion is so morally controversial, and since it takes life rather than preserving it, the Senate bill should include a ban on paying for abortions. Cosmetic surgery won't be covered either, so people don't always get to choose what they want to do "with their own bodies." We desperately need health care reform. So often Congress throws out good legislation because some members don't get everything they want in the bill. We can't let health care reform fail.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm |
  81. mike mckinley

    NO! Any bill that is passed should cover ALL legal treatments.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:26 pm |
  82. Sisley Dougherty

    I do not believe in abortion, but I do respect the choice of others. Their are too many couples, that can't have children and would like to adopt. I do also believe in separation of church and state. If you want an abortion and have the funds to do it, then it is your choice. If you are raped, or have a medical problem, (life and death) then that is a different matter. I could go with Health reform with abortion included as long as it was for medical reasons etc. Washington needs to get on with the bussiness of getting things done, instead of playing games.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm |
  83. Esther Mayer

    I do not want my taxpayer money to go for abortion. They say it is a woman's choice, but how about the baby's choice, do they want to die?
    I support the public option on health care. How come they have health care in my native Slovakia for every citizen, they can afford it and the richest country in the world is not able to afford it. Esther

    November 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
  84. Bill G

    Hi Tony, you know I can't believe the negitive minds in this country, we have a President simply trying to help all of us and give us something we have never had before. Even if you don't like the President something is better than nothing here. People pick one small part of a bill and vote against it for that reason ( Example Abortion)? What a huge failure of seeing the bigger picture.
    This healthcare bill should be evaluated like a marriage, I remember my step father told me once before he married my Mom he said I made a list of the good and of the bad. After all was written he had alot more good than bad , then he said to himself I have a pretty good thing here. Well that was 25 years ago. Point being people need to just have a little bit more faith instead of being so suspicious, and negitive from the very start.
    I guess one huge issue for many is cost, ok I hear that lets say it isn't deficate neutral, and we do have to pay some in time. Tell me what's more important Health or money?
    I remember years back I bought a 1500.00 exersize bike, my Ma said are you crazy? I said nope because you can't put a price on health.
    I myself have lost my insurance in the past when I was deathly sick, so I know what it's like. My own Sister today can not get health Insurance because of a pre- existing condition.
    If I were talking to the good people of my Country I would say stop focusing on small issues, instead look at the overall picture of what America desperatly needs. In life thinking positive is key for success, thinking negitive gets us nowhere.
    I am proud this bill passed the house, but scared of the Senate and how they will rape a good bill and it will end up so watered down change wont happen as it could. God Bless this Country , but please people stop looking at health care through beer bottle glasses.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
  85. Henya CA,

    This is another thing the abortion is for mostly woman that can't afford to pay for it but if she have that child and she is on welfare than it cost the government till this child is 18 years old. if we are talking about cost we all will pay any way so we should not put a price on any health care issues at all,

    November 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
  86. Scott

    So what other LEGAL operations should be banned because someone does not agree with it? What if it is for the health of the mother? What if its rape? I am sorry but this is a legal procedure and should be included with all other legal procedures. Note that I don't agree with abortions either, but picking and choosing seems like... well insurance companies.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:32 pm |
  87. Frances Young

    The only way that health care reform legislation could remain balanced between the sexes is to completely eliminate ALL REPRODUCTIVE health coverage – no matter the person's sex or their reproductive health concerns. Now, let's be honest, who in their right minds would decide that coverage for treatment for prostrate or breast cancer should be a personal expense. Or birth control, viagra, vasectomies, hysterectomies, tubal ligations, or yearly pap smears or prostrate exams. How about no coverage for mammograms or child birth while these legislators are at it too? Or no coverage for victims of sexual abuse, no matter if they are adults or minors, male or female?

    Essentially, by eliminating one legal medical procedure (namely abortion) from coverage, elimination of all coverage for all reproductive health care must also be considered, even if it is only done so in a rhetorical manner. Is it reasonable to even contemplate restricting all such reproductive health care? Of course not. So why should a single, solitary LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED

    November 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm |
  88. Frances Young

    a single, solitary LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED medical procedure be excluded from coverage, especially from private medical insurance plans? Such discrimination against women's health care rights should not even be contemplated by our legislators. Just as any discrimination of men's medical rights shouldn't be.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
  89. Robert Lake,MI

    So what are all these people crying for free health care going to do when they get a job with health benefitts and are stuck getting soaked in taxes in which they will have to pay and watch people who dont work enjoy better health care than them? Surely these people expect to go back to work or do they? People in this country need to wake up and stop feeling sorry for themselves! People who are crying for free health care should be careful in what they cry for! What comes around goes around! Most of these people need to learn to go without things like cell phones, ipods, internet, Nike shoes, designer clothes, car payments, nights out at the bar, ect, before crying for a handout! These people really need to know what it means to go without! This is the land of opportunity not the land of free giveaways!

    November 10, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
  90. dorothyjfields

    yes i would like to see a ban on abortion that the senate would like to put in their health care bill. i think it sould be stated if any problems like rapes,or incests, or danger to the health of the mother that her doctor gives her instruction.but their should not be finacing no abortion just to kill a little baby god will judge america for all these aborted babies. let us keep our minds on the public option for so many family thats donot have any insurance. please don,t let the gop put up all kind of road blocks derail this important issues.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
  91. Marianne Delaney

    I completely object to the use of our tax dollars to fund abortion. Why pay for the destruction of human life to betray the dignity and value given us by Almighty God. We are in enough debt caused by foolish spending. Let us preserve our gifts - the greatest of which is life.

    November 10, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
  92. Robert Lake,MI

    In all of these countries in which you try to compare with us that have universal health care might have health care for everyone but those same people can never move up the ladder or chase the American dream because the money they do make is ate up in taxes and as long as you stay in one of these countries it will be this way till you die! We were founded on Democracy and a capitolist style economy in which there is no room for Socalism! Everyone of these countries that have universal health care are Socalist type governments! Is this what you want? You want to live in a country with no dream of succeeding and being stuck in the same ole hole year after year? Be careful for what you wish for! In your quest for something for free will end up ruining an entire nation!

    November 10, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
  93. Arine Ward

    These wild citizens of America always talking about someone wanting something for nothing. Just because your in a position that seems like you've arrived don't speak so swiftly, the same way your criticizing and degrading folks that are in need...that "Comfort" blanket will be ripped from under you, and that "old money" you think will keep you forever will be gone...sometimes like little children you should be seen and not heard. Don't be so foolish!

    November 10, 2009 at 12:59 pm |
  94. Robert Lake,MI

    Hey Marianne then you pay for all of these kids being born to those who cant afford them, dont force me a tax payer to pick up the tab! I suspect you will have no part of that but on the same hand you expect that I have to take care of these kids! I didnt make these kids and have no hand in their up bringing so therefore I should not have to bare any responsibility in providing for them as well!

    November 10, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
  95. Larry Mills

    Fact Check: This is the most restrictive abortion legislation of our generation. Why? Because priivate insurers all want a slice of the newly-insured if a health reform bill passes. Those newly insured making less than $88K will be eligible for Fed subsidies. So insurers who currently pay for abortion services will have to discontinue it if they want the new customers. Abortion will still be legal, but that's meaningless if the average woman can't afford it.

    November 10, 2009 at 1:02 pm |
  96. Robert Lake,MI

    Hey Arine, I made my way with absolutely NO handouts! I lived poor dirt poor for many years and with NO handouts! I was raised to live within my means! I own a house that is well within my means! I have never felt compelled to keep up with the JONES`s! People in this country try to use the system to maintain wealth in which it was never intended to be! You were to lose everything before receiving a handout! Dont ask me the tax payer who `s paid his fair share to support you while you talk on the cell phone or surf on the internet you know the things you DONT have to have!

    November 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
  97. Robert Lake,MI

    By the way I never inherited anything, I earned everything I have period! Theres no OLD money here, its all new money I`ve earned!

    November 10, 2009 at 1:07 pm |
  98. Bill G

    It's so close minded to think socialized healthcare is going to give us no future? We already have medicare which is a great thing, nobody is talking about a government takeover however I wish the one thing we had was a single payer system and we never had to worry about looseing everything because of an illness. If makeing medicare and medcaid bigger to get everyone coverage that would be a wonderful thing.
    Last I checked we were suppose to be a giveing nation and want to help those whom have less than us. But saying a government option is a government takeover is simply crazy scare tactics, and to protect the insurance companies. So when Obama says the reason for a government option is to keep the insurance companies honest, and keep it afordable to all, you really believe there's some covert thing the President isnt telling us? My God he's American too he isn't trying to make America Communistic.

    November 10, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
  99. Robert Lake,MI

    Add it up, cell phone($100), internet ($50), car payment($400), satillite tv($100), McDonalds 3 times a week($50), nights out at the bar(at least $100 per night), designer clothes(probably at least $200 per month), these are things you dont have to have but insist that you do and now you dont have enough for your own health insurance so I the tax payer should pick up the tab? You`re crazy! Dump all the stuff you dont have to have and most could afford their own health insurance, its all about living within your means in which the majority of people in this country cant do! Shelter(within means), food(within means), and clothes(within means) is all one should be getting help for and even that should be limited!

    November 10, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  100. Arine Ward

    Simply HILARIOUS how the guilty conscience of man will always speak out. Seems I've hit a nerve...LOL! Good! While your working, and earning, remember others are doing the same, and TRUST me, I don't seek you, or anyone to make anything possible for me...I'm a legal resident of the United States of America, and has been from the day I entered the world. So I've passed just as much if not more in taxes, labor, and duty to this country than you. So again, some act as little children and should be seen and not heard. Stereotypical people, always assuming! Surfing the net, and speaking on cell phones, is that your only case. Bring me some proof...Show me the statistics of American Citizens using cell phones, and surfing the net that needs would say to me the people who really need help, don't have those materialistic entities and they're the ones who aren't being heard! Grow up and hush up you sound foolish

    November 10, 2009 at 1:18 pm |
  101. M Kelso

    1) Why is the Catholic church so powerful as to keep senators from voting on anything? What about separation of church and state?

    2) The Planned Parenthood Planning Clinics are non-profit, nonpolitical and I think non-governmentally funded anyway so why would anyone be putting this issue into the healthcare debate?

    3) I agree with the President that this is a separate issue anyway.


    November 10, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

    I am for a woman's right to chose. Though I respect those who oppose all abortions, it is disingenuous to show the picture of a 6-week fetus and claim this makes you anti-choice. These same folk are against medications that prevent adherence of the earliest embryos to the wall of the uterus, when the fertilized egg is the size of a pinhead, and looks like a speck of blood. They are couching their religious beliefs about the soul in misleading photo enlargements. Will they allow a "morning-after" pill? ...RU-486? ...Early aspiration abortions? Before Roe v. Wade, the gynecology wards of city hospitals were filled with septic young women with a perforated uterus due to illegal abortions. Is that what awaits the poorer women in our society?

    November 10, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
  103. Charles Wright

    Health insurance reform will not be facing enough uphill battles in the senate and the house by approving the bill showed its full lack of vision in the added problems that will emanate and continue to grow from the bill passage. It is ok for thoughtless men and women to produce babies they know full well they cannot provide for, but it is unacceptable when a woman decides that having a child would be more of a problem than a solution in her life. What’s up with that? I would much rather provide assistance to a woman to abort a child rather than having a child that will cost taxpayers more money down the road if that is her wish. That is called using common sense.


    November 10, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  104. Matt Prewett

    I understand abortion-rights advocates' concerns about the Stupak-Pitts amendment but it actually is fairly moderate text. Let me remind everyone that there were almost 70 Democrats that would not have voted for this bill without this amendment. The claim of some that it is the Republican party stalling on health-care is simply not accurate. May God bless our country and grant us the wisdom to make the right decision here.

    November 10, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  105. Claudette Stone

    The "government" should not disallow abortions as the Supreme Court has ruled them legal. The House cannot change the law illegally by prohibiting abortions. If the House wants abortions to become illegal, they have to do it by first by passing a constitutional amendment. This is basic Civics, which one hopes the members of Congress know. Oh wait, what am I thinking! Congress does what it wants to do, regardless of the LAW!

    November 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  106. Sandra Tune

    While I fear that federal funding for abortion may stop a health care reform bill in the Senate, I still feel that a ban against it should not be included. Abortion is legal in this country and it is an integral part of health care for many women. Poor women will continue to seek dangerous procedures which in many cases will result in their ending up in emergency rooms, always the expense of the taxpayer.

    Many enlightened, developed countries offer government support for abortions, and we should not let the conservative, anti-choice element of our society influence legislation in any way.

    November 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  107. Eugene Ray


    If men could have babies, abortion would be legal and federally funded. It is criminal to force a teenage girl to have a baby that is the result of rape or incest.

    November 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
  108. Jane Ellen

    I have read many of the posts here today and agree with many. There are a lot of things my tax dollars go to that I don't approve of, many I'm sure I might consider immoral, so don't play the "I don't want MY tax dollars going to abortion." The fact is, it is a WOMAN'S body and her right, period. Those thoughtless women and controlling men who try to take that right for her own reproductive rights away from a woman are NOT Jesus-like at all. I have never understood men thinking they have a say when they will NEVER be pregnant and have to face those choices. I am grateful for the sensitive, caring men who support a woman's right to choose. Please keep up the good work.

    November 10, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
  109. Dodie ~ California

    Abortions have occurred since the beginning of human appearance on earth. To say health care will not support abortions is tantamount to supporting back alley hackers instead of licensed MDs doing the procedure. This is outrageous!

    You will never stop abortions!!! You are only condemning those who cannot private pay for the procedure and must resort to back alley hackers. Where is your sense of humaneness? Oh yes, the embryo is more important than the mother. The irresponsibility and irrationality of religion prevails!!!

    November 10, 2009 at 11:00 pm |
  110. Don

    One step at a time. Stop giving republican a reason to delay health care reform or put it to rest all together. For now if you want or need an abortion pay for it yourself. Please think of the big picture one battle at a time. We need health care reform now.

    November 11, 2009 at 12:45 am |
  111. Ben

    Have never understood what abortion has to do with politics. The right wing just want to force their believes upon everyone. My way or the highway as usual, thats their democracy.

    Excluding abortion will mostly effect the poor, and the result will be that
    they will still seek abortion, now in an uncontrolled, illegal facility, the risk for complications or even death will increase and now the legal health care system will have to pick up the pieces, at a much higher cost. Besides the health effects, this will contribute to an underground market where the profits made, will not be taxed. I do believe abortion should be included, but that everyone seeks abortion should have the right to counseling before making a final decisions. For the wealthy their will always be an option to travel to another country and get a safe procedure or just pay for it.

    November 11, 2009 at 10:07 am |
  112. Dodie ~ California

    @ Robert Lake,MI

    I understand your rage about having to pay for all the children being born to huge families that cannot afford them, ultimately relying on the tax payers. I agree, those people are very selfish and narcissistic making sure their seed will be past on regardless of the consequences. Being a responsible parent myself, birthing only one child due to my concern over the environment and the impact the human race has on this planet, what do you suppose we do?

    I would think the Republicans (the conservative group) would be very pro active for abortions.

    November 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm |
  113. Amy in Illinois

    If abortions won't be covered then insurance companies should be required to cover contraception. I just had an insurance claim for contraception denied by my insurance company. THAT IS RIDICULOUS! They can't have it both ways.

    November 11, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
  114. Len Aaron

    In regards to the health care questions and abortion coverage:

    Is a woman's right to choose legal? The last time I checked, it was. As such, if health care reform is passed by the Senate (as I hope it does), these legal procedures should be covered.

    As a taxpayer, I did not have the opportunity to withhold my tax dollars from paying for the US military invasion of Iraq. I was not able to withhold my tax dollars from paying for the bail out of the banks and US auto makers.

    There are many things that I, as a tax payer, am morally opposed to that I am forced to pay for. This is no different from those. If we, as taxpayers, are allowed to 'pick and choose' where each and every one of our tax dollars are spent – nothing would ever get done.

    As long as it is a legal procedure, it should be covered by health care reform.

    November 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm |
  115. John

    I was born 2 months premature. If my mother felt overwhelmed and decided to kill me at 3 weeks old, wouldn't that be considered a terrible crime no matter what my mother was feeling. I don't understand how being covered by a layer of skin changes a crime into a right.

    November 11, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
  116. Jaycie

    It is very distressing to live in a country where anti-rational religious myth and intolerance have such a stranglehold on our govoernment.
    Abortion is a legal medical proceedure, and it should be funded by health insurance whether any government funding is involved or not. Why would we want to force a woman who doesn't want a child to have one? By forcing a woman to bear a child we are practically guaranteeing that the child will grow up abused, neglected and undereducated, with little hope for a productive life, and sowing the seeds that cause such a child to turn to a life of crime. It is obscene to force women, especially poor women, to bear unwanted children and we should be ashamed of our country for allowing such a thing.

    November 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  117. John A Babitskas

    Please get your story straight. They want to ban all insurance companys from using the exchange if they offer abortions as parf of a womens insurance policy. EVEN if no federal subsidies are envolved. They claim that since the exchange is government sponsored it is indirectly paying for abortions. This ban would apply even if you pay for the entire policy. The public option is dead because of this issue. The exchange provision is dead because of this issue. We havn't even gotten to the immigrant provisins in the bill yet. Have a great day!.

    November 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  118. Jordan B

    The government should not have to shell out money to the people who can't be responsible. Maybe it will give folks an incentive to be moral. If you need abortion coverage, you're totally taking advantage of the government.

    November 11, 2009 at 6:33 pm |
  119. T Nykreim

    If we pay for abortion should not even be the question.
    If the bill is treason should be the question.
    Didn't the President, Nancy Pelosi and 219 other Congressmen commit treason? Didn't Nancy force the democrats to attempt an overthrow of the United State Government by Making it a crime not to buy health care insurance? (5 years in jail)
    Doesn't the Bill violates (HIPAA) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by allowing a Czar into your personnel medial records? Didn't the Bill also violates Habeas Corpas by making you incriminate yourself by not buying health care insurance? Didn't the Bill also violates the undefined right of the constitution? Wasn't the vote Aye on the Health Care Bill an act of treason?
    T Nykreim

    November 12, 2009 at 9:02 am |
  120. Andy

    Conservatives want to keep them alive as fetuses, but let them have access to guns when they grow up, go bankrupt when they're sick, and put to death when they commit crimes.

    Liberals want to kill them in the womb, give them just enough healthcare to not die quickly, and let them out of jail early to kill more people.

    We really need consistency with our death policies

    November 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm |
  121. Ginny


    I am against abortions...taxpayers should not pay for abortions.

    November 12, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
  122. Toni J Clark

    If MEN had the babies, funding for abortion would not be a discussion, it would be a given.

    November 12, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
  123. Imari Abubakari Obadele, III

    Isn't it discriminatory to deny men or those who think differently than your position access to affordable health care because the House decided to respect the law as it currently is, whether right or wrong, with respect to women and their choices?

    November 12, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
  124. Ben

    To all the commentary on this subject.

    First of all, slow down, think outside the box, make up your own mind, do not listen to politicians, do not listen to men, this is a women's issue, think about how you would like to handle an unexpected pregnancy yourself.

    Regarding healthcare, just imagine for a while that there were a single payer system, everyone had access to healthcare. Everyone helps to pay for it, individuals, businesses, etc. with taxes (not popular, I know), but stop and behold, if businesses that offer healthcare today could get buy with a much smaller cost in taxes verses what the employer part is today. They will be more competitive on the World market where they have to compete with businesses from countries that have government sponsored health care, they eventually could afford to pay higher salaries. For those that think this is a scary solution will always be able to buy their own Cadillac plan as a supplement.

    November 12, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
  125. DoNoHarm

    Abortion and gay rights are used by the religious right and republicans as smoke screens, avoiding main issues. Every election, every issue brought forward is the same song and dance. Take those two issues away and the republicans have nothing else to say, except having a Black President. Anything our President Obama does, as simple as talking to children on the value of education, is put across as a negative. How ridiculous can anyone get? I'm sure there's more up their sleeves. How anyone can be a republican in this day is beyond understanding and common sense. Lynch mob thinking, constant state of agitation. God bless America and President Obama for all he has to undo from the previous admin. and for all he is trying to do. Thanks for all you do!

    November 16, 2009 at 10:06 am |
  126. Ben


    The best statement I've read in along time, so good so I probably print it and frame it.

    November 17, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  127. Bill Lane

    Myabe a better question might be do you want to pay for the Abortion in Health Care or pay for this child the next eightteen years on welfare?
    By forcing a woman to bear a child we are practically guaranteeing that the child will grow up abused, neglected and undereducated, with little hope for a productive life, and sowing the seeds that cause such a child to turn to a life of crime then we pay the cost of this child all of it's life. Because if the mother can't afford an abortion how can she afford to raise a child?

    November 18, 2009 at 11:34 am |
  128. Dan Fleury

    Personally, I am pro-life however I do find it interesting that the Republicans are the ones who scare us with "government will get between you and your doctor" yet they insist on disallowing a procedure that is already protected by law. I find them at least, disingenuous.

    November 18, 2009 at 11:46 am |
  129. Len

    I say no coverage for abortions unless it meets ethical tests such as saving the life of the mother. Men and women have to take responsibility for their sexual behavior. I have been a pharmacist for 40 plus years and I know that their are many ways to protect against unwanted pregnancies. I can't beleive that in todays age we even an abortion issue.

    Regarding coverage for illegal immigrants, if our president grants them amnesty they immediately become "legal" and eligible for the health care plan. Hello! Has anybody thought of this? I propose that anybody who has entered this country illegally be prevented from participating in any public plan. That way, amnesty or not, they would have to return to their country and gain entry according to the laws of our nation in order to participate. That's not too much to ask!

    Thanks for reading my opinion.

    Leonard Leis – Independent voter

    November 19, 2009 at 1:07 pm |
  130. D.J.

    Hey Tony, Did you know–Senator Reid is paying money to buy votes. He added a $100 million dollar sweetner to the bill to get Mary Landrieu to vote for the bill. Where is our share? When do we get what we need? If the bill is so great–every elected public official should be made to use it as well. It is time to start over. Every elected official should not be re elected and terms should be decreased to 1 term only.

    November 20, 2009 at 11:15 am |
  131. Ben

    As we are a civilized country we don't leave people or even animals to lay and die on the streets. We are already paying for illegal immigrants health issues and accidents in our emergency rooms.

    November 20, 2009 at 11:16 am |
  132. W Campbell

    The selfish, arrogant, and destructive Republicans destroyed the nation's economy in support of special interest lobbyists and oppose everything that might benefits the citizens of this great nation – including a good Health Care Program. Lead, follow, or get out of the way…

    November 23, 2009 at 11:29 am |