Congress to make hyde permanent + disincentive insurance coverage of abortion

[libertpaulian]

The 2018 Dems will probably vote for it.

[publicunofficial]

I have literally never seen TNvol "respect the other side of the argument"

[The_Doctor]

My position on abortion, since a ton of people here think I'm some leftist.

I am unapologetically against Roe v. Wade (or if you prefer, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services). I am pro-life in every instance except when the mother is verifiably in danger of losing her life (as attested to by two attending physicians.

Ideally, not only would Roe be rolled back, abortion rights would be sharply done away with the protection of life shifted to the unborn. I don't merely support a states' rights position; I support the unequivocal ban of abortions in virtually every case and believe it to be constitutional.  

Likewise, we would also make contraceptives more widely available and birth control freely available for both men and women as a way to reduce abortions as well as proper sex education. I would rather realistically reduce our abortion rate by educating our population about safe sex methods to avoid pregnancy.  

So, I most likely will support constructionist judicial nominees and all pro-life bills coming out of Congress, including ending Planned Parenthood funding until they end all abortion related "family planning services." But also support all legislation to make sex-ed and contraceptives more widely available (within the proper constitutional framework; states should take the lead on sex - ed)

[Bojack Horseman]

That damned Dan Lipinski needs to be primaried. Maybe that's how I'll make my entry into politics, by moving to Illinois and challenging the Republican in a Democrat's clothing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Passed the House 238-183. Lipinksi, Peterson, and Cuellar were the only Dems to support it. No Republican defected.

It is pathetic just how in line with the party members of congress are.
I support this legislation but I would like to see more republicans oppose it and more democrats support if only to know that some people can think for themselves and not just do what their party leaders tell them to do.

I find it absolutely repulsive anyone could support using the people's money to pay for the killing of the unborn though. Granted I also find it repulsive to force people to fund drone innocent kids in the middle east and yet both sides seem to have no problem doing that.

It would be nice if our tax forms came with little boxes that read "I do not want my tax dollars funding x" or "I would like my tax dollars going to x."  Alas, that would bring on its own set of budgetary problems.

No, that's a terrible idea in theory too. Democracy is based on the assumption that everyone must accept the will of the majority. If everyone only pays for the thing they like about the State, then there is no State at all, only private patrons.

[RI]

That damned Dan Lipinski needs to be primaried. Maybe that's how I'll make my entry into politics, by moving to Illinois and challenging the Republican in a Democrat's clothing.

His district is probably on his side. Lots of pro-life Dems there.

[Mr. Reactionary]

That damned Dan Lipinski needs to be primaried. Maybe that's how I'll make my entry into politics, by moving to Illinois and challenging the Republican in a Democrat's clothing.

Go for it. Abortion all the time worked great for Mark Udall.

[world.execute(me)]

That damned Dan Lipinski needs to be primaried. Maybe that's how I'll make my entry into politics, by moving to Illinois and challenging the Republican in a Democrat's clothing.

Go for it. Abortion all the time worked great for Mark Udall.

A democratic primary in a safe D seat is perfectly equivalent to a tilt-D swing seat in a republican wave.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Could you pass compromise legislation by legalising and allowing public money to fund abortions in the first trimester, but completely banning all non-medically necessary abortions in the second and third trimesters?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Could you pass compromise legislation by legalising and allowing public money to fund abortions in the first trimester, but completely banning all non-medically necessary abortions in the second and third trimesters?

We probably could and it's a damnation to our political culture that we won't. (The position that I posted earlier today is blueskying and, at this point in history, might require Ezekiel 36:26-27 to be fulfilled first. But I'm a relatively hardline socialist in 2017 so of course I bluesky.)