Breaking news: Legislation funding DC abortions includes abortion funding for 8 million federal employees

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for breaking.jpgI previously wrote about the cantankerous passage in the House last week of a bill to allow publicly funded abortions in the District of Columbia.
Meanwhile a Senate companion bill (S. 1432) has passed out of committee and is on its way to a vote in the full Senate….

The text of S. 1432 has just been made available online, with a startling revelation: The Smith Amendment tagged on the bill in the House, and prohibiting taxpayer subsidized abortions through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program has been deleted.
fehbp.gifThis means that in addition to allowing taxpayer funded abortion in DC, S. 1432 would result in taxpayer funded abortion for the more than 8 million people covered by the FEHBP.
Wrote a source, “This is particularly noteworthy in light of the ongoing debate on national health care reform, because the FEHBP has been repeatedly used as an example of what the new national health care system might look like. In that context, it is alarming that the Senate is now proposing to fund abortion through the FEHBP.”
If S. 1432 passes in the Senate, it will go to conference to iron out differences with the House passed bill.

6 thoughts on “Breaking news: Legislation funding DC abortions includes abortion funding for 8 million federal employees”

  1. Strict Standards: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /home/jills/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
    GodsImage says:

    Democrats trying to sneak through more funding for more baby killing. We should all call and fax every Senator IMMEDIATELY and OFTEN and refer to S. 1432. Demand that the Amendment that would not allow Obama and his pro-abortion Democrat friends to confiscate our tax dollars to promote and fund more abortion BE PUT BACK IN THIS BILL!
    Things would be a lot easier if we just vote out all the Democrats. Then we would not have to spend so much time watching their every sneaky move to insert language that allows them to kill innocent children with impunity.

  2. Strict Standards: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /home/jills/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
    Jerry says:

    Nancy Pelosi, a nominal Catholic, was told in no uncertain terms by the Vicar of Christ, Benedict XVI, that legislators and judges have a particular responsibility to enact just legislation that would protect the vulnerable and unborn.
    Nancy Pelosi has not heeded the charitable counsel of the Pope. Nancy Pelosi should leave the Church or be excommunicated. She may as well take some of her cohorts in crime with her–all of the so-called “Catholics” in the legislature who brazenly defy the clear and unequivocable moral teachings of the Church.
    Pro-choicers who defend her position on the grounds that she represents her district and as such cannot be expected to kowtow to the Pope on every issue may want to hold their pen. No one is suggesting she kowtow to the Pope on anything. However, if she wants to practice the Catholic faith, there are certain fundamentals that are non-negotiable, one of them being the Church’s teaching that innocent human life is sacred and ought to be protected from the moment of conception.
    She is pro-choice. She chooses to be for abortion rights, thus she has exercised her “choice” to separate herself from the Church.

  3. Strict Standards: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /home/jills/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
    Pharmer says:

    I know that I have to actively oppose the killing of innocents but ……
    It appears that the leftists are plotting to abort themselves to extinction.

  4. Strict Standards: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /home/jills/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
    xalisae says:

    (sorry to repost this so much, but Prochoicer has mysteriously disappeared, and I will not rest until I have an answer to this. As always, delete if you see fit to do so, mods.)
    “A fetus is using another individual’s body to survive. I don’t think any entity has the right to do that against the other individual’s will, even if innocently.”
    Wrong. There is no “innocent” or “guilty” about it, since the fetal human is there without intention-placed there by the willful actions of either mother, father, or a joint effort. This happens through no fault of the offspring itself. There is no such thing as “accidental sex”. I don’t find myself walking down the street, trip over a rock, and WHOOPS! pregnant again! Shucks. If a fetal human is in a postion that makes it require the nutrients and protection of its mother, that is the result of a concerted effort on the part of SOMEONE. And any effort THAT intensive (I don’t know about your sex life, but for me it requires at least a bit of effort to accomplish) implies a willful act. It’s neither my fault nor the fault of a fetal human that some people seem to find themselves completely ignorant of the results of the act of sex after the fact, and neither of us should be allowed to be killed legally as a consequence.
    “But any one who is born ought to have a healthy, whole, pain free life.”
    Why only born humans? Please tell me what happens at birth that makes a human THAT MUCH MORE SPECIAL than one a few days, weeks, or months younger. I thought you were opposed to partial birth abortion? Why, if you think that only born humans have this right to a healthy, whole, pain-free life?
    To me, you seem to be contradicting yourself, but I guess that’s why I’m pro-life. So much less dancing around facts and arbitrary line-drawing to rationalize things.
    “Someone born without an arm due a doctor’s botched abortion attempt ought to have redress.”
    Ummm…that’d be like requesting a physician to operate on your kidney, then becoming irate with them when they go to make the opening incision complaining that you “didn’t realize that they’d have to cut me open to operate!!!” I mean, ripping off limbs and at least moderately damaging the fetal human is kind of an understood requirement when one is attempting to kill said fetal human. The birthing process is kind of expected when you’re talking about the termination of a pregnancy. I mean, getting pregnant without expecting to birth a human being-living or dead-is like having sex without expecting to get preg-oooooooh. NOW I get it.
    Unfortunately (for you), your wants, beliefs, desires, or political affiliation have no bearing whatsoever upon biology or the natural biological processes our bodies go through. Even the abortion procedure ends with birth, it’s just the birth of a dead baby rather than a live one (most of the time). I don’t really see how you can justify wanting to prosecute or somehow penalize a doctor for an unsuccessful abortion…would you also hold a doctor who unsuccessfully operates on a tumor (failing to be able to retrieve the entire mass) to the same punishment?
    Posted by: xalisae at July 17, 2009 10:44 PM
    Posted by: xalisae at July 21, 2009 3:31 AM

  5. Strict Standards: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /home/jills/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
    carla says:

    I am patiently waiting for ProChoicer as well. :)

  6. Strict Standards: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /home/jills/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
    GodsImage says:

    I would not hold my breath “waiting for ProChoicer”.
    From my experience, the typical reaction of liberals and prochoicers to fact, logic, reason, compassion, historical lessons, and absolute, undeniable truth follows a predictable pattern:
    1)they call you names, engage in ad hominem attacks and try to destroy the messenger.
    2) they throw up a smoke screen, a bunch of nonsensical, emotion based drivel to try to distract you from the original point, which they know they cannot argue successfully.
    3) instead of real debate or honest discussion, they subject you to intimidation. Debate is not permitted, and liberal orthodoxy and “political correctness” is enforced to seek your conformity, or, in the alternative, your silence.
    4) if they can, they will ignore your discussion of the truth and try to distract others from it. This is how American media operated for years when we only had the liberal CBS, ABC, NBC, Time and Newsweek, and the New York Times. They ignored the silent majority of Americans and pretended there was no real argument to their liberal path. The mainstream media largely does this today, praising Obama and ignoring his mistakes, while highlighting and endlessly repeating any human mistake by Sarah Palin or any conservative.
    The good news here is that it is becoming harder for liberals and their willing accomplices in the press to ignore the truth. We have alternative means of communication like this blog and others on the internet, internet news sources, talk radio and Fox News, which gives both sides fairly.
    We should all remember what Clarence Thomas famously said:
    “Even if one has a valid position, and is intellectually honest, he has to anticipate nasty responses aimed at the messenger rather than the argument. The objective is to limit the range of the debate, the number of messengers, and the size of the audience. The aim is to pressure dissenters to sanitize their message, so as to avoid being subjected to hurtful ad hominem criticism.
    During my youth there were many wonderful sayings, now considered trite, that provided cryptic, yet prescient guidance for my life. Among them was one based on Luke 12:48: “To whom much is given of him much is required.” Perhaps such sentiments are embarrassing in sophisticated company today, but I continue to believe this with all my heart.
    I do believe that we are required to wade into those things that matter to our country and our culture, no matter what the disincentives are, and no matter the personal cost. There is not one among us who wants to be set upon, or obligated to do and say difficult things. Yet, there is not one of us who could in good conscience stand by and watch a loved one or a defenseless person—or a vital national principle—perish alone, undefended, when our intervention could make all the difference. This may well be too dramatic an example. But nevertheless, put most simply: if we think that something is dreadfully wrong, then someone has to do something.”
    Thank you to the pro-life community for “doing something”.

Comments are closed.