Special Rules Relating to Training in and Coverage of Abortion Services- Nothing in this Act [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the Protect Life Act modifies] (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of or access to abortion services or to allow the Secretary or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion services.’
No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)...may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
and remember to be decent to everyoneall of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
@2 Topeka, KS supposedly does not have enough money to prosecute domestic abuse offenders.
So they ARE supporting domestic abuse.
Expect that as the next "cost control" from the Republican House.
But would a President Romney? Who knows...
Would President Romney endorse the philosophy that in the midst of the largest recession since the depression, this is a time for austerity and balancing budgets?
Would President Romney set the clear precedent that presidents and their cronies are above the law by choosing not to investigate them when there's clear evidence they committed war crimes?
We only live in a lesser of two evils paradigm because so many of you people are too scared and unimaginative to try and find a way out. I'm done voting for evil, thanks.
Maddow pointed out that this is the seventh anti-abortion bill in this session [I haven't checked that] while two thirds of americans and the Democratic party would really prefer our legislators to be working on jobs bills.
It is an intentional move to please the bat-shit hard right, and stall anything that would actually achieve anything productive.
Kansas City Bishop Is Indicted for Failing to Report Abuse
The Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City, Robert Finn, and the diocese he leads have been indicted by a state grand jury on a charge of “failure to report suspected child abuse” in the case of a priest who had been accused of taking lewd photographs of young girls.
The indictment is the first ever of a Catholic bishop in the 25 years since the scandal over sexual abuse by priests first became public in the United States.
Because such obscenities cannot go unpunished!
@17 But is the President the proper venue for "legal decisions?" I thought that's what courts are for? Yes, the law is complicated but there's certainly the quaint notion a) that rights should be absolute and that b) we'd like to have some fucking proof that a moderate Muslim who posted videos on YouTube was an "imminent danger" so that we had to kill ENTIRELY innocent people many times before we hit him. And that's just to name one crime. I'd say not prosecuting wars of aggression is another crime in itself. And yes, I even think we could let that go if we had some sort of "Truth and Reconciliation" commission but Obama was too afraid to even do that because it would be a distraction from his bold (hahahahaha) agenda. What an asshole.
Let's talk about Cheney or Bush. Ok. Let's not prosecute anyone. First of all, Article VI makes it pretty clear that we're subject to the Geneva Conventions, at least since 1996 when it was incorporated into the US Criminal Code. If Obama doesn't prosecute war crimes, he himself is a war criminal. The failure to punish war crimes is simply a crime and Obama is compelled by our law to do so--I don't think that's within his discretion. But nobody really cares about those things nowadays and it's among many things we don't observe as law when it doesn't suit our imperial needs.
Tossing that aside there could have still been a political remedy that would've satisfied examining the crime. By allowing war crimes to go completely unexamined, we've simply opened the door for far more egregious violations, like assassinations of American citizens without due process of law or any proof of criminality, preventive detentions that will start with Muslims but will soon be used on other Americans, and other forms of once illegal surveillance, violence and murder.
The Republicans passed this bill SO THAT Obama would veto it.
Look at it this way, they had the gall to call it the "Protect Life Act," which is a simple, deceptive name. It's going to resonate with their voters and enrage pro-choice people (and a bunch of anti-choice people too, you know, the ones who are actually pro-life).
If Obama vetos it, then they downplay the more dangerous parts of the law and paint Obama as an ultra-liberal baby killer. If Obama fails to veto it, then his own (ex-)supporters will paint him as a craven weakling (because it would be true).
Either way, they can go back to their constituents and say how much they did to protect helpless little babies, strategically neglect to mention the women bleeding to death while their doctors nurse their deluded "consciences," and claim that it only failed to pass because of that wretched, out-of-touch Obama.
With only 17% in total representation from both houses. Don't like this law getting passed? Why not ensure laws like this never get written in the first place. But not with 17% representation for 50% of the population. Discussions of the partisan chess game makes women off to be political chattel, still after almost a century.
How many women reading this would consider running for public office?
Over 30 years of my life and this shit, every day. How much longer will I have to see this crap?
Knock the crap out of your heads and try thinking for yourselves you freaking brainwashed jackasses...
See, I read the full text of the bill, as well as the nonpartisan summary of the bill assembled by the Congressional Research Service. And here's the juicy bit that matters, down in 2.(a).(3): Basically, this bit prohibits the Federal government from requiring insurance companies or healthcare providers to allow coverage of or access to abortions. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS LISTED HERE. This means that if a pregnant woman wishes to have an abortion, the hospital can turn her away, and there is nothing that Uncle Sam can do about it, even if she dies as a result.
Well, where are those exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or risk to the mother? Well, they are down a little further in 2.(a).(4): Okay, then, that's settled. The exceptions aren't there about a woman's right to a lifesaving abortion! They're there to protect government funding for such lifesaving abortions! If a woman is in danger of losing her life if she doesn't have an abortion, government-subsidized health care can still cover her, sure, BUT, there is nothing to stop a hospital from refusing to perform the abortion and leaving her to die.
DO. YOUR. FUCKING. RESEARCH. Your move, bitch.