As if Joe Lieberman’s threat to filibuster the health care bill in the Senate if the “public option” is included was not enough, now Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska threatens to filibuster and fight against the legislation if abortion is allowed under the bill in final passage.
Many of the liberal Democrats who backed the House bill and allowed it to pass by 220-215 on Saturday night have made it clear that they would not support the final legislation IF abortion limitations are not taken out of the bill, and Senator Barbara Boxer of California has made it clear that she and other women senators in the Democratic party are working to prevent abortion restrictions in the final Senate bill.
So the abortion debate that has raged since Roe v. Wade in 1973 still simmers, and is a new obstruction to fundamental health care reform. It is looking as if the barriers to health care legislation are becoming so massive that it will not be possible to gain passage of legislation unless “reconciliation”, use of the 50 or 51 vote majority, is invoked to overcome any filibuster on abortion or on “public option”.
Since “reconciliation” has been used before by the Republicans under George W. Bush, it is reaching the stage where the Democrats MUST use it or face failure and dissolution of their mandate for change. If that happens, then the Democrats are doomed. If they use it, there will be anger, but the accomplishment of health care reform, despite controversy, will eventually assist the Democrats and President Obama, as the vast majority of Americans want such reform, so what must be done to accomplish it should be pursued.
Forget bipartisanship and catering to conservatives: It is time to play hardball and do what MUST be done!
I am not as pro-life as some on the far right of me but quite frankly this has nothing to do with being pro-choice or pro-life if you ask me. I simply cannot understand how anyone – regardless of their view on abortion – could defend the idea that it is justifiable to use federal tax dollars to fund abortion, while at the same time knowing it is arguably the most heated debate going on today. It does not make since to me why the government would use money from some people who believe that the act is morally wrong. Why can’t they just understand that if they do this it will upset and infuriate millions of people, with reason whether you ideologically agree with them or not you still have to respect the principle. That it is not right for a government to use tax dollars for an act that millions and tens of millions of Americans vehemently believe is morally wrong. If you want to somehow fund the abortion on your own, that is up for a more detailed debate. But to use federal tax dollars to fund it, to me there is no debate!
What say you? 🙂
This is a difficult issue, but as long as abortion is a legal procedure, I think women should be covered for this. Many people are against the wars we are engaged in, and yet we all are paying to support those wars. If the health care bill goes through, many people will be opposed but will be paying for what is in that bill that is tax supported. We don’t get an opportunity to decide what our tax dollars pay for as it is, and women who are poor should have the same right to determine their own reproductive futures as women who can afford an abortion. Having said that, I would prefer there be the least abortions, but I do not want children born whose mothers do not want them, as that leads to child abuse and worse.
I agree but I just think that it is not necessary to use tax dollars. I believe that there are plenty of private institutions that would pay for an abortion for a mother who desperately desires one.
You make a good point with the war but tax dollars are one of a limited source of funds for the military; At least less ways to be funded than a private abortion. So I do not think they are exactly the same, but a good point nonetheless.