« Huckabee: Religion Had Nothing to Do with the Commutation | Main | D.C. Council Passes Bill Allowing Same-Sex Marriage »

December 8, 2009

Breaking: Senate Rejects Abortion Restrictions in Health Bill

Majority leader Harry Reid may not have the necessary votes to move health-care reform bill to passage without key prolife Dem.

The Washington Post and ABC News reported just a few minutes ago that the Senate defeated Senator Ben Nelson's amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in insurance policies purchased by people receiving federal subsidies under the Senate's proposed health-care reform bill. The amendment was defeated 54-45.

Nelson had threatened to filibuster the bill unless the abortion restrictions were added. Without Nelson's vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may not have the necessary votes to move the bill toward passage. Reid hinted that he may try to find another way to satisfy Nelson's concerns and win his vote.

Comments

I realize this will keep a lot of Christians from supporting the bill, because some of their tax money will go to fund abortions. But doesn't the money that we and our employers pay to insurance companies already fund abortion. I don't know of any insurance companies that refuse to cover abortions.Why is it okay of corporations use our money for abortions, but not the government? I guess it all comes down to Christians worshiping the Republican Party, who puts big business interests above all else, including the Bible.

Yes K. Scott, it does seem to me as well to be just some Christians who have aligned themselves with the Repub party

It doesn't say much about the Democractic Party that it's assumed that they're for the murder of the unborn, but, they are the party voting for the murder of the unborn. I believe it might be illegal for insurance companies to say no to abortion procedures but do not quote me on this. Insurance through companies is usually negotiated through unions and if not, the company picks the insurance plan. Perhaps employees should talk to their companies to see what's up and perhaps people should talk to their insurance plan companies to see if covering abortion is forced on them or not. One voice can start a change. And, it's a nice viewpoint that the Republican Party is for life but in reality there are many pro life voters in all parties.

Jefferson said that we get our rights from God at the time we are created.

When is that? Conception? When we are born? When the mother says so? When the doctor says so? When a pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choicer says so?

It's critical to know cuz we need to give Rights to those who are supposed to get them at the time they should get them.

Also, when is a woman pregnant? Conception? When the woman says so? When the doctor says so? When the Supreme Court says so? When a pro-choice=pro-abortion-wrong-choicer says so?

If she's pregnant at conception, pregnant with what? Something dead? Something not alive? Founders didn't mean the unborn when they referred to their "posterity"?

@original Anna

You said the following "And, it's a nice viewpoint that the Republican Party is for life but in reality there are many pro life voters in all parties."


How then do you explain Republicans by and large supporting wars?

How then do you explain the Republican view that insurance should not be proivded to poor children?

@original Anna

You said the following "And, it's a nice viewpoint that the Republican Party is for life but in reality there are many pro life voters in all parties."


How then do you explain Republicans by and large supporting wars?

How then do you explain the Republican view that insurance should not be provided to poor children?

The only way the compromise bill is going to pass the House is if some kind of abortion funding restrictions apply. The failure of the amendment may spell doom for the reform.

How then do you explain Republicans by and large supporting wars?
Which ones?
How then do you explain the Republican view that insurance should not be provided to poor children?
Where does it say that Republicans'view is that poor kids shouldn't get insurance?

So what I don't understand is why the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 that already bans using federal funds for abortions is not sufficient to cover any publically funded portion of health care reform?? In other words why do we need a new law if one already exists??

@Mr Incredible.

1.The atrocity that has been occuring in Iraq

2.This one
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

"WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance..."

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/2009%20CHIPRA/CHIP%20History.pdf

"Since 1997, the Children’s Health Insurance Program has provided health coverage to millions of
children of working parents who don’t qualify for Medicaid, but who can’t afford private health
insurance. In 2007, Congress launched a robust effort to renew and improve the program, twice
passing legislation to preserve coverage for the 6.6 million children enrolled that year and to provide
CHIP coverage to an additional 3.3 million kids. However, President George W. Bush twice vetoed
legislation to expand the Children’s Health Program..."

1.The atrocity that has been occuring in Iraq -- Posted by: Justin at December 10, 2009

I agree that what Al-Q has been doing and is doing is an atrocity.

2.This one "WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance..." -- Justin at December 10, 2009

So, cuz he did, in YOUR view, means that he doesn't want children to have insurance, is that it?

Founders didn't mean the unborn when they referred to heir "posterity"?

Correct. -- Posted by: Christian Lawyer at December 10, 2009

So, if unborn children are not posterity, what is "posterity"? Well, it refers to those who come after. That's what refer to people. There are no people if they are not conceived and develop in the womb, then born.

So, you disagree with that. We understand.

Where they refer to "our posterity," what, then, do they mean?

At our nation's founding abortion was not generally illegal. It was a matter handled among the women. Under the law that had existed for centuries even at that time, one could not be either a murder victim or an assault victim unless one was born alive.
-- Posted by: Christian Lawyer at December 10, 2009

Also, for a couple-a hundred years, there was no mention, in law, of the so-called "separation of Church and State." All of a sudden, SCOTUS, in 1947, said that it is in the Constitution, even though the Founders didn't put it in the Constitution. In other words, SCOTUS, in unconstitutionally amending the Constitution, was saying, essentially, that it always had been in the Constitution, even though no one can find it, even to this day.

However, in so many words, the Framers mentioned "posterity" in their statement of purpose extended into those not yet born.

So, aborting a pregnancy and, thus, killing the unborn child, interferes with the securing the blessings of liberty to our posterity blessings of Framers guaranteed to our posterity. Yet, you people wanna take those blessings away. Unconscionable.

extended into those not yet born -- -- >extended to those not yet born

to our posterity blessings of Framers guaranteed to our posterity -- -- > to our posterity, blessings the Framers guaranteed to our posterity

@CL: "At our nation's founding abortion was not generally illegal. It was a matter handled among the women. Under the law that had existed for centuries even at that time, one could not be either a murder victim or an assault victim unless one was born alive."

And your point?
Neither was slavery. But godly men and women had for centuries been critically thinking about the theology of personhood and came to this conclusion: given what the bible says about human beings - we are created in the imago dei -, it is therefore unconscionable to buy or sell another human being.

*Apply your "enlightened" sense of right and wrong you reserve to "perversion rights" to the abortion issue: given all we know now about in utero infants, babies are persons - not fully developed personalities - but persons nonetheless (TO THE DEGREE THAT YOU CANNOT DETERMINE WHEN THEY PASS FROM LITTLE CELLS TO A PERSON B/C FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION THEY ARE PERSONS. DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK GOD'S WILL FOR THESE LITTLE ONES IS TO BE ABORTED? That is if you believe God has a will/plan for people's lives.), regardless of what our laws say. (Ps. 139) And if you stop and think even momentarily about it, abortion is not only a terrible way to die, but it is also unimaginable torture. Think about it CL - partial birth abortion. Would you like to have a Dr. take a pair of scissors and punture a hole in the back of your head and then suck your brains out? Or to be horribly burned by a solution and cut up all the while possibly still alive? What kind of a monster would do that to a baby?
If you did that to a dog you would be arrested for animal abuse.
If you break a bald eagle's egg you're going to jail and pay a fine.
But if you want to abort your baby "we" will assist you with taxpayer's money. No thanks. Don't make me an unwilling accomplice to killing babies.
Abortions in the USA - 50,000,000 and counting.

@Markus: "When a zygote, fetus, baby die in the womb- do you view that as God performing an abortion?"

>Job 1:21 - The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."
>Rom. 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, ...
>Isaiah 29:16 You turn things around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That (A)what is made would say to its maker, "He did not make me"; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
>Isaiah 45:9"Woe to the one who (A)quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the (B)clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?
>Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, (A)You are our Father,
We are the (B)clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the (C)work of Your hand.


Markus

Quite an intriguing question. And one that I’ve never given any thought to. Give me a little time to wrap my head around it.

Posted by: K. Scott:I guess it all comes down to Christians worshiping the Republican Party, who puts big business interests above all else, including the Bible.

Posted by: K. Scott Schaeffer at December 9, 2009

K...

Please show sources, references and citations to back your otherwise unsubstantiated vociferous factoidal conjecture..

Thank you in advance...

.

Yes K. Scott, it does seem to me as well to be just some Christians who have aligned themselves with the Repub party

Posted by: Justin at December 9, 2009

Justin...

It appears to me that this country is being sacrificed on the altar of, post-modern progressive so-called christians who support both abortion and the godless practice of homosexuality......


.

Posted by: Justin:How then do you explain Republicans by and large supporting wars?

How then do you explain the Republican view that insurance should not be proivded to poor children?

Posted by: Justin at December 10, 2009

Justin...

How do you explain this?

Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921 Democrat WW1

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-1945 Democrat WW2

John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 Democrat Vietnam

Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-1969 Democrat Vietnam

As for your "For the children!" insurance lament...

Medicaid is health insurance that helps many people who can't afford medical care pay for some or all of their medical bills.

Good health is important to everyone. If you can't afford to pay for medical care right now, Medicaid can make it possible for you to get the care that you need so that you can get healthy and stay healthy.

Medicaid is available only to people with limited income. You must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid does not pay money to you; instead, it sends payments directly to your health care providers. Depending on your state's rules, you may also be asked to pay a small part of the cost (co payment) for some medical services. (For more information, download "Medicaid At-A-Glance 2005" from the bottom of the page.)

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaideligibility/

Why don't you take your weepy melodrama to Broadway, instead of depositing it here...

.

Posted by: Heather:So what I don't understand is why the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 that already bans using federal funds for abortions is not sufficient to cover any publically funded portion of health care reform?? In other words why do we need a new law if one already exists??

Posted by: Heather at December 10, 2009

heather...

The real question to be asking is why is government intruding into the private sector...

How is running GM and taking over the insurance industry a part of national defense?


.

Posted by: Heather:So what I don't understand is why the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 that already bans using federal funds for abortions is not sufficient to cover any publically funded portion of health care reform?? In other words why do we need a new law if one already exists??

Posted by: Heather at December 10, 2009

heather...

The real question to be asking is why is government intruding into the private sector...

How is running GM and taking over the insurance industry a part of national security?


.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer:--Correct. At our nation's founding abortion was not generally illegal. It was a matter handled among the women. Under the law that had existed for centuries even at that time, one could not be either a murder victim or an assault victim unless one was born alive.


Posted by: Christian Lawyer at December 10, 2009

Proof please...

.

Posted by: Markus:For the sensible Christians who post here, like Brendan, Christian Lawyer, Justin and Anthony

When a zygote, fetus, baby die in the womb- do you view that as God performing an abortion?

If not, why not?

Posted by: Markus at December 11, 2009

It is a direct result of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden...

We will always reap the consequences of the sin of Adam...

Spontaineous abortion is but one of the consequences of the corrupted gene pool of corrupted humankind...

.

And who implemented the rule of the consequences of sin?

Are you saying that this has nothing to do with God?

--------------------------------------------------
David Hardy said: "It is a direct result of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden...

We will always reap the consequences of the sin of Adam...

Spontaineous abortion is but one of the consequences of the corrupted gene pool of corrupted humankind...

Posted by: Markus: And who implemented the rule of the consequences of sin?

Are you saying that this has nothing to do with God?

Posted by: Markus at December 12, 2009

Markus...

That's about like bleming God for the consequences of attempting to defy the law of gravity...

If you jump off of a 1000 foot high cliff, wearing nothing but your birthday suit, there is about a 99.9% probability that you are going to get spattered like a ripe watermelon when you hit the ground...

Hosea 8:7 "They have planted the wind and will harvest the whirlwind. The stalks of wheat wither, producing no grain. And if there is any grain, foreigners will eat it.

.

Posted by: Markus:Oh dear me

I knew I was going to regret engaging you. Can I suggest you go figure out what analogies are.

---------------------------------------------------
David Hard said:"That's about like bleming God for the consequences of attempting to defy the law of gravity...

If you jump off of a 1000 foot high cliff, wearing nothing but your birthday suit, there is about a 99.9% probability that you are going to get spattered like a ripe watermelon when you hit the ground...


Posted by: Markus at December 13, 2009

Markus...

The analogy fits...

Adam is the one who jumped off the cliff...

Humankind has been suffering the consequences of that willful leap ever since...

.

@CL: "At our nation's founding abortion was not generally illegal. It was a matter handled among the women." So exactly what was the understanding of the in utero child back then? How did they perceive it? Pretty primitive compared with today. It hasn't been until recently that we have begun to have an incredible understanding of the baby in the womb. And they are more human than we've dared to believe. (But Elizabeth could have told you that when baby John the Baptist leapt for joy in her womb when Mary - pregnant with Jesus - visited her.) And what was legal back then wasn't necessarily moral either - just like today. Remember the "white man's burden" - slavery? More like the white man's sin - tho not all whites agreed with slavery I will hasten to add! But, too, free blacks owned slaves in the old South. Just not as many. I know this isn't exactly what you were responding to, but it is important to remember as well when discussing what was allowed then. I believe I'll take my cues about how to understand the personhood of babies from the bible rather than from common law, Blackstone, Coke or what have you, or the most recent fashion since last Wednesday.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer: David Hardy: You asked for proof that abortion was not illegal at our nations founding and proof that for centuries, in order to be a murder or assault "victim," one had to be born alive. OK, here it is:

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at December 13, 2009

Thank you for your response...

It just goes to show that it depends upon which well one chooses to go to draw truth out of...


But the abortion debate in America has rarely dealt with the gruesome medical reality of abortion itself.

Many Catholic urban legends surround this issue. They are primarily populist cautionary tales meant to silence the counter-cultural voice of the Church. They are used to argue against Catholic positions in the public arena without actually having to refute the logic, meaning, and purpose of the Church’s stances. In the case of abortion, they are not varying interpretations of history but falsifications of history—the conversion of propaganda into fact until the truth of actual events is forgotten in the culture and the public mind.

One of the greatest of these is the notion that prior to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, laws against abortion had their genesis in religious dogma imposed by Catholics and other such religious fundamentalists.

Why Was Abortion Illegal?

An examination of why abortion was illegal for so many years prior to Roe v. Wade says otherwise.

In eighteenth-century colonial America, social pressures in small communities generally forced a man to care for a child conceived without marriage. Abortion did quietly exist in at the time, though not as a surgical procedure—a guaranteed death for mother and child in the days before antibiotics—but with the use of potions. It was employed by young women who found themselves helpless and without familial or community support. But nowhere is it stated that the use of potions to induce abortions was an acceptable practice. In fact, counseling women on how to make and use such potions was a punishable act throughout most of colonial America and Europe. Additionally, courts were harsh on men who forced young women to attempt it. (Abortion was actually less of a social problem in colonial America than infanticide, which was a far more serious problem and the focus of early legislation.)


A Universal Ban


After 1800, American life began to change, with a growing number of Americans living in the urbanized North. With the expansion in the number of young immigrant women and rural migrants to the cities, forced abortions became more of a publicly recognized social problem. This was exacerbated by the increase in abortion activity in the nineteenth century caused by a massive growth in prostitution. Prostitution was a nasty and brutish way of life for young women with few alternatives. Syphilis became a scourge, and dangerous abortifacients were a common form of injury or even death.

Increased medical knowledge of fetal development, the desire to end the use of dangerous abortifacients, and various reform movements that addressed the needs of young women adrift in America accelerated legislation to eradicate abortion. Such laws were drafted in many states prior to the Civil War and directly addressed the administration of abortifacients and any form of surgical abortion. The laws were aimed at those who conducted abortions and those who forced them on women.

Some laws were vague on the issue of when the crime had been committed but not that a crime had been committed. The difficulty centered on the murky understanding of when pregnancy actually began, not as a sanguine response to abortion. Some states fell back on the point of "quickening," a medieval notion that attributed the beginning of pregnancy to the moment a woman could feel the fetus moving within her. In doing so, legislators were not making a pro-abortion statement concerning early-term abortions. Rather, they were attempting to define and restrain abortion based on the general knowledge of the time. The nascent American Medical Association was a major supporter of anti-abortion legislation and issued a strong denunciation of abortion as early as 1859.

During the 1840s and the 1850s, at least thirteen states passed laws forbidding abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Three additional states passed laws making abortion illegal after quickening. By the end of 1868, thirty states had passed anti-abortion legislation. The momentum against abortion continued in the post-war period, creating the virtually universal ban on abortion in the United States that existed from 1880 until the late 1960s.

The driving forces behind these laws were not churches—and certainly not the Catholic Church specifically, which had neither the political nor moral impact in nineteenth-century America to force any legislation. In fact, medical authorities generally resisted inserting theological judgments into arguments about abortion, preferring that science be at the heart of the issue.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609tbt.asp.

.

Evan, those verses also can be used to describe those who support abortion.

Actually, that would make them more accurate.

It's quite difficult to keep up with the flood of posts of late, so I'll just reply to Christian Lawyer's first post, on the debate surrounding Federal funding restrictions for abortion.

Christian Lawyer,
It's no big surprise to me that the Dems and Reps are hypocritical when it comes to advancing their causes; they will argue whatever legal avenue advances their immediate interest, just like the Athenians in the Miletian Dialogue. And we know how the History ended for the Athenians. So goes history for all who see nothing beyond short-term gain. But I digress.

I for one am skeptical of the argument that partial funding is fundamentally different from all funding. In my home state, the governing party allocated general funds to special programs so exhaustively that essential programs ran short of funds. They then begged the taxpayers to approve "emergency" tax hikes, lest firefighters, bridges and police run out of money and civilization as we know it would end. So the voters approved taxes for services that should have been funded by the general fund, more special programs dipped into the general fund, and on the vicious cycle goes. Aside from being tricky to the point of deceitfulness, this practice highlights the logic of partial funding. The main point is, taxpayers didn't mean to fund those special programs, but because they put their money into a big pot that could be allocated at the legislature's discretion, it was used to fund what they didn't want funded. When you put funds into a general fund, it's as good as going to any place any part of the fund goes.

Another example: When I put my money in the offering plate at, say, a PCUSA church, part of that money goes to the denomination, which in turn funds controversial groups like the World Council of Churches (which says, among other things, there is no need for missionaries). So every dollar I put in that plate goes to the general fund. Only by designating where the funds should go, say, in an envelope saying "deacons' fund," some of that money is as good is going to fund a group that's not pro-missionary. And if I'm pro-missionary, that's something for me to consider.

Same with Federal abortion funding. If Federal tax dollars go to a plan that supports abortion, that's supporting abortion. Whatever the Hyde Amendment says, that's what I say. I try to be consistent about this, which is why I don't approve of Federal funding for faith-based organizations, because it violates the intent of SCOTUS's interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

I for one argue for restraint to be the order of the day for all kinds of funding by the Federal (and state and local) government, especially on an issue as contentious as abortion. If a health insurance plan wants to get Federal dollars, it had best meet extremely exacting requirements; it is not (pardon the pun) a birthright.

CL, I want to be sure to say that, while I strongly disagree with you, I appreciate the effort you make in finding supporting cases for legal arguments. Unlike other liberals on this board, it at least shows that you take this discussion seriously.

Friendly Reminder:

Please attack the issues not the person. Comments that include name calling or slurs will be removed.

Thanks for your cooperation.

BJ
Christianity Today Community

Thank you kindly for your intervention BJ. By my observations it seems that certain individual(s) whose name(s) will not be mentioned have hijacked the comment sections of this site and have made it their business to offer acerbic and sarcastic responses to a good number of comments here.(Many of which come from those who do not share the convictions of many who read CT) Let's hope that no deleting or banning will ever be necessary. Again many thanks.

God iss #1. Lord Jesus #1. Babys are a blessing.Say no to abortion. A new cell, a new person!!!!!! Do not cover up corruption.That is satanic!!! A abortionist, cig official did not like a christian official. Also said if other official helped would not like him. So citizen christian wanted to work with non bias lzy official. Lazy did not do anything. Friends Already lost family. Abortionist official said hey ill remember that time in the past that you went off.So kept. Big point is that it happened for over 10 years.Also news went along and takeovers happened. Be ready.Thanks. Relax not have to be perfect.Rom 3:23. Could be afflicted- Crazed neighbor or relative. 1 corinth 14:26. Gal 3:3.Col 3:11 kjv. psa99:9-outside pray.

Anyone notice Dr. Alveda King's M.L.King day comments on abortion? http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080415/alveda-king-calls-abortion-racist/index.html