...and somewhere, Rick Santorum is smiling.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Where is the contradiction?

Whomever pays the piper, plays the tune. If you want us to stop interfering, then we shouldn't be funding it. If you want it funded, then you want use to interfere and make it harder for women to choose not to have an abortion.

[Ebowed]

Where is the contradiction?

Whomever pays the piper, plays the tune. If you want us to stop interfering, then we shouldn't be funding it. If you want it funded, then you want use to interfere and make it harder for women to choose not to have an abortion.

Not really?  To look at it another way, someone who is pro-choice would see a value in also subsidizing the cost of childbirth and neo-natal care.  If I am following your logic correctly, someone who is pro-life would have to be opposed to funding childbirth costs.

[BlueDog Bimble]

When Irish Eyes Are Smiling, sure 'tis like a morn in spring.
In the lilt of Irish laughter you can hear the angels sing,
When Irish hearts are happy all the world seems bright and gay,
And When Irish Eyes Are Smiling, sure, they steal your heart away.

There's a tear in your eye and I'm wondering why,
For it never should be there at all.
With such power in your smile, sure a stone you'd beguile,
And there's never a teardrop should fall,
When your sweet lilting laughter's like some fairy song
And your eyes sparkle bright as can be.
You should laugh all the while and all other times smile,
So now smile a smile for me.

For your smile is a part of the love in your heart,
And it makes even sunshine more bright.
Like the linnet's sweet song, crooning all the day long.
Comes your laughter so tender and light.
For the springtime of life is the best time of all,
With never a pain or regret.
While the springtime is ours, thru all of life's hours,
Let us smile each chance we get.

Title gave me the urge to sing!

[Keystone Phil]

Did someone here really say only right wingers care about abortion? LOL. Cute. Very cute. Followed up with the usual simplistic, black and white worldview that government shouldn't get involved because it's "people's business" but that is to be expected. The first point though is mind numbing.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romney on CBS This morning interview, "Obamacare is a tax, Romneycare isn't because mandates are legal as a penalty at the state level"

[BlueDog Bimble]

Romney on CBS This morning interview, "Obamacare is a tax, Romneycare isn't because mandates are legal as a penalty at the state level"

Good ol' states right

[Ebowed]

Romney on CBS This morning interview, "Obamacare is a tax, Romneycare isn't because mandates are legal as a penalty at the state level"

Keep those snappy soundbites coming, Mitt...

[pbrower2a]

Where is the contradiction?

Whomever pays the piper, plays the tune. If you want us to stop interfering, then we shouldn't be funding it. If you want it funded, then you want use to interfere and make it harder for women to choose not to have an abortion.

Not really?  To look at it another way, someone who is pro-choice would see a value in also subsidizing the cost of childbirth and neo-natal care.  If I am following your logic correctly, someone who is pro-life would have to be opposed to funding childbirth costs.

Beautifully stated.

To all the anti-abortion people out there -- wouldn't ACA be one of the strongest affirmations possible of the value of human life, especially the lives of poor people?

[True Federalist]

Romney on CBS This morning interview, "Obamacare is a tax, Romneycare isn't because mandates are legal as a penalty at the state level"

<facepalm />

You know, if the GOP harps too much on Obamacare being a tax it's going to end up biting them in the arse because they'll no longer be able to get away with calling various sorts of revenue enhancements as being not taxes.

[Mercenary]

Where is the contradiction?

Whomever pays the piper, plays the tune. If you want us to stop interfering, then we shouldn't be funding it. If you want it funded, then you want use to interfere and make it harder for women to choose not to have an abortion.

Not really?  To look at it another way, someone who is pro-choice would see a value in also subsidizing the cost of childbirth and neo-natal care.  If I am following your logic correctly, someone who is pro-life would have to be opposed to funding childbirth costs.

Beautifully stated.

To all the anti-abortion people out there -- wouldn't ACA be one of the strongest affirmations possible of the value of human life, especially the lives of poor people?

ACA has some good elements, but bad elements too. The original house bill was far better. As a pro-life person, I actually would support a single player plan, but I don't want no abortion coverage or funding of any kind in it, which includes any abortifacient "birth control". Non-abortifacient birth control coverage is fine though.

Although I know I may be in the minority view. How many people other there want abortion illegal, but at the same time want single payer health care in general, specifically 100% coverage of any costs regarding pregnancy and birthing as well as assistance to finding well suited parents to adopt unwanted children or children who's birth parents just are unable to provide the care needed (such as perhaps someone simply too young, or a rape victim).

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

To all the anti-abortion people out there -- wouldn't ACA be one of the strongest affirmations possible of the value of human life, especially the lives of poor people?

Not when 1 million americans are killed every year through abortion. You're saying that the state has control over who lives and who dies. Rather than affirming human life, this is the exact opposite.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Although I know I may be in the minority view. How many people other there want abortion illegal, but at the same time want single payer health care in general, specifically 100% coverage of any costs regarding pregnancy and birthing as well as assistance to finding well suited parents to adopt unwanted children or children who's birth parents just are unable to provide the care needed (such as perhaps someone simply too young, or a rape victim).

Won't happen. Too many people are invested in seeing the abortion industry continue, and Obamacare ensures that the industry survives. Hopefully you'll see this for what it really is. If it were all about providing health care and coverage, than Obama would have been more than willing to strip out coverage for contraception and abortion from his bill.

He did not, and insisted that they had to be in.

As for me, I like the American system prior to Obama - no one is denied care, hospitals are required to actually care for everyone who shows up, they can't just turn them away and let them die.

With Obamacare, more Americans are going to go without coverage, and their coverage will be less, as employers drop their own coverage.

The other problem with single payer is rationing. People are not going to get the care they want when they want it, and they won't be able to pay to get better coverage. This is bad. People should be free to buy the healthcare that they want to buy and the people paying more will fund the operations for everyone.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Not really?

You're forcing prolife women to support abortion. By incentivising abortion, you're making it more difficult for them to choose to keep their children. By imposing an extra tax, you're making it more difficult for them to look after the children that they do have.

someone who is pro-choice would see a value in also subsidizing the cost of childbirth and neo-natal care.

And that's my point. You don't support 'choice', you support 'abortion.' If it were about 'choice', there's no need to force the government to fund it.

If I am following your logic correctly, someone who is pro-life would have to be opposed to funding childbirth costs.

I don't think people who don't want children should be forced to pay for things that they do not want or use. I don't see why someone who chooses not to have children should be forced to pay for someone else's medical bills.

So yes, it cuts both ways, and that's fine. I think that women get a better deal from doctors through privitization than they would through subsidies. Less red tape.

[realisticidealist]

Although I know I may be in the minority view. How many people other there want abortion illegal, but at the same time want single payer health care in general, specifically 100% coverage of any costs regarding pregnancy and birthing as well as assistance to finding well suited parents to adopt unwanted children or children who's birth parents just are unable to provide the care needed (such as perhaps someone simply too young, or a rape victim).

Sign me up. I might add a couple things like universal maternity leave as well.

[pbrower2a]

Where is the contradiction?

Whomever pays the piper, plays the tune. If you want us to stop interfering, then we shouldn't be funding it. If you want it funded, then you want use to interfere and make it harder for women to choose not to have an abortion.

Not really?  To look at it another way, someone who is pro-choice would see a value in also subsidizing the cost of childbirth and neo-natal care.  If I am following your logic correctly, someone who is pro-life would have to be opposed to funding childbirth costs.

Beautifully stated.

To all the anti-abortion people out there -- wouldn't ACA be one of the strongest affirmations possible of the value of human life, especially the lives of poor people?

ACA has some good elements, but bad elements too. The original house bill was far better. As a pro-life person, I actually would support a single player plan, but I don't want no abortion coverage or funding of any kind in it, which includes any abortifacient "birth control". Non-abortifacient birth control coverage is fine though.

Although I know I may be in the minority view. How many people other there want abortion illegal, but at the same time want single payer health care in general, specifically 100% coverage of any costs regarding pregnancy and birthing as well as assistance to finding well suited parents to adopt unwanted children or children who's birth parents just are unable to provide the care needed (such as perhaps someone simply too young, or a rape victim).

I certainly would have preferred the single-payer system (Medicare for all)... but that may have been politically impossible.

[hopper]

Where is the contradiction?

Whomever pays the piper, plays the tune. If you want us to stop interfering, then we shouldn't be funding it. If you want it funded, then you want use to interfere and make it harder for women to choose not to have an abortion.

Not really?  To look at it another way, someone who is pro-choice would see a value in also subsidizing the cost of childbirth and neo-natal care.  If I am following your logic correctly, someone who is pro-life would have to be opposed to funding childbirth costs.

Beautifully stated.

To all the anti-abortion people out there -- wouldn't ACA be one of the strongest affirmations possible of the value of human life, especially the lives of poor people?

ACA has some good elements, but bad elements too. The original house bill was far better. As a pro-life person, I actually would support a single player plan, but I don't want no abortion coverage or funding of any kind in it, which includes any abortifacient "birth control". Non-abortifacient birth control coverage is fine though.

Although I know I may be in the minority view. How many people other there want abortion illegal, but at the same time want single payer health care in general, specifically 100% coverage of any costs regarding pregnancy and birthing as well as assistance to finding well suited parents to adopt unwanted children or children who's birth parents just are unable to provide the care needed (such as perhaps someone simply too young, or a rape victim).

I certainly would have preferred the single-payer system (Medicare for all)... but that may have been politically impossible.

What? Medicare has to be reformed and you want Medicare for all? I don't know what to say.

[hopper]

Romney on CBS This morning interview, "Obamacare is a tax, Romneycare isn't because mandates are legal as a penalty at the state level"

<facepalm />

You know, if the GOP harps too much on Obamacare being a tax it's going to end up biting them in the arse because they'll no longer be able to get away with calling various sorts of revenue enhancements as being not taxes.

I don't see any revenue enhancements. Where are they?

[hopper]

Congrats, Republicans:  You're gonna nominate the ONLY candidate who can't benefit by the ObamaCare issue.

What? Just yesterday you swore Romney WOULD benefit by it and win in a landslide. Flip flopping so soon?

I thought about changing "can't benefit" to "will benefit the least", but I wasn't counting on someone like you reading it.

What I've said is that the ObamaCare (or ObamaTax) issue will hurt Obama.  I've always said that Obama will lose in a landslide, no matter who the GOP nominates. But on the other hand, I've always said that Romney is obviously the weakest candidate the GOP could have nominated.  (Thus, I may have to take a few states away from him that I predicted last November that Obama would lose.)  Yes, the ObamaCare issue hurts Obama -- in that sense ONLY does it "help" Romney.  

Unlike any other potential GOP nominee, Romney has and can have NO POSITIVE message on healthcare.  His positive message is RomneyCare/Tax -- the prototype for ObamaCare/Tax.  So in that sense, he can't benefit from the revival of the ObamaCare/Tax issue, except NEGATIVELY -- being a guy who can claim he wants to repeal it.

I hope that makes my views clearer.

Romney is weaker than Santorum as an opponent to Obama? I'm sorry I don't think Obama "gets it" as president but Obama would destory Santorum in a debate. At least Mitt could stand up to Obama in a debate unlike McCain who couldn't debate at all last time.

[hopper]

Where is the contradiction?

Whomever pays the piper, plays the tune. If you want us to stop interfering, then we shouldn't be funding it. If you want it funded, then you want use to interfere and make it harder for women to choose not to have an abortion.

Not really?  To look at it another way, someone who is pro-choice would see a value in also subsidizing the cost of childbirth and neo-natal care.  If I am following your logic correctly, someone who is pro-life would have to be opposed to funding childbirth costs.

Beautifully stated.

To all the anti-abortion people out there -- wouldn't ACA be one of the strongest affirmations possible of the value of human life, especially the lives of poor people?

ACA has some good elements, but bad elements too. The original house bill was far better. As a pro-life person, I actually would support a single player plan, but I don't want no abortion coverage or funding of any kind in it, which includes any abortifacient "birth control". Non-abortifacient birth control coverage is fine though.

Although I know I may be in the minority view. How many people other there want abortion illegal, but at the same time want single payer health care in general, specifically 100% coverage of any costs regarding pregnancy and birthing as well as assistance to finding well suited parents to adopt unwanted children or children who's birth parents just are unable to provide the care needed (such as perhaps someone simply too young, or a rape victim).

ACA has to be torn apart in my opinion. Do we really need 159 new federal agencies for the new law? No. If I want to shop for insurance I don't need DC to serve as a middle player. Does the US Government serve as a middle man for auto insurance? You can do all your shopping for auto insurance on the internet so why I can't do the same for health insurance?

[hopper]

As for abortion I am pro-choice but if a woman wants an abortion she should pay for it herself.

[WhyteRain]

Romney is weaker than Santorum as an opponent to Obama? I'm sorry I don't think Obama "gets it" as president but Obama would destory Santorum in a debate. At least Mitt could stand up to Obama in a debate unlike McCain who couldn't debate at all last time.

What would Obama do in a debate with Santorum -- say "Rick is absolutely right" eight times like he said "John is absolutely right" eight times in the McCain debate?

Obama couldn't win a Special Olympics debate competition.  But he knows he doesn't have to win -- he just has to tie and the MSM will declare him the "winner".  And all he has to do to "tie" is to not make a major mistake and sound reasonable.  Three years of law school -- which I can attest is really three years of learning to "sound reasonable" in public speeches -- prepares anyone for that level of competence.  (OK, I know -- but Biden is the exception that proves the rule.)