Kathy Dahlkemper DID vote for taxpayer funded abortions

Courts have held that any federal health care plan includes abortion as part of it's package of benefits unless specifically prohibited by LEGISLATION.
That is why it required legislation, The Hyde Amendment, to ban federally funded Medicaid abortions and a mere "executive order" by a Republican president would have been insufficient.
"Koat Khanger Kathy" know this and is lying, again.

Teabag the Democrats wrote:

Courts have held that any federal health care plan includes abortion as part of it's package of benefits unless specifically prohibited by LEGISLATION.
That is why it required legislation, The Hyde Amendment, to ban federally funded Medicaid abortions and a mere "executive order" by a Republican president would have been insufficient.
"Koat Khanger Kathy" know this and is lying, again.

Actually as usual you are full of crap.

Abortion and the health care reform bill
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...

Don't let the truth ruin your neocon paranoia scare tactics on Halloween.

Teabag the Democrats wrote:

Courts have held that any federal health care plan includes abortion as part of it's package of benefits unless specifically prohibited by LEGISLATION.
That is why it required legislation, The Hyde Amendment, to ban federally funded Medicaid abortions and a mere "executive order" by a Republican president would have been insufficient.
"Koat Khanger Kathy" know this and is lying, again.

You are so full of shit.

Federal appeals courts have been unanimous in their holdings that when Congress
provides funding for “comprehensive” services, it must explicitly prohibit the use of federal
dollars to pay for abortions. If there is no explicit prohibition, the courts will order the
federal government to pay.
This is why we needed the Hyde Amendment in 1976. This is also why the Senate bill,
unamended, will provide a very large appropriation that can – and most assuredly will – be
used to fund elective abortions.
CHCs and other federally funded primary health care providers such as migrant, tribal,
rural, and public housing health centers are required by law to provide “comprehensive”
primary care services. The statutory term “comprehensive health care services” is broad
enough to include reproductive health services, family planning services, and gynecology
services. And the courts are unanimous in holding that – in the absence of the Hyde
Amendment – this statutory term necessarily includes federal funding for elective abortions...

Sincerely,
Robert A. Destro
Professor of Law

----------
Sorry, you legal morons, the Hyde amendment was needed because the courts have held, unanimously, that an executive order is worthless.
Why would Republican presidents fight over the Hyde amendment if a simple executive order would suffice?

Larry G wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so full of shit.

Says the brain-less liberal drone...
Find me one example when the courts ruled that an executive order was sufficient to ban federal funding of abortions.
Besides, you want all abortions funded. Why do you defend Kathy's position since it contradicts your own?

Teabag the Democrats wrote:

Courts have held that any federal health care plan includes abortion as part of it's package of benefits unless specifically prohibited by LEGISLATION.
That is why it required legislation, The Hyde Amendment, to ban federally funded Medicaid abortions and a mere "executive order" by a Republican president would have been insufficient.
"Koat Khanger Kathy" know this and is lying, again.

You silly teabagger you, you forgot the word 'NOT' in the heading of this thread.

Kathy Dahlkemper DID NOT vote for taxpayer funded abortion.

There, I fixed it for you. Would it hurt to tell the truth for once in your life? Just once.

Teabag the Democrats wrote:

Federal appeals courts have been unanimous in their holdings that when Congress
provides funding for “comprehensive” services, it must explicitly prohibit the use of federal
dollars to pay for abortions. If there is no explicit prohibition, the courts will order the
federal government to pay.
This is why we needed the Hyde Amendment in 1976. This is also why the Senate bill,
unamended, will provide a very large appropriation that can – and most assuredly will – be
used to fund elective abortions.
CHCs and other federally funded primary health care providers such as migrant, tribal,
rural, and public housing health centers are required by law to provide “comprehensive”
primary care services. The statutory term “comprehensive health care services” is broad
enough to include reproductive health services, family planning services, and gynecology
services. And the courts are unanimous in holding that – in the absence of the Hyde
Amendment – this statutory term necessarily includes federal funding for elective abortions...
Sincerely,
Robert A. Destro
Professor of Law
----------
Sorry, you legal morons, the Hyde amendment was needed because the courts have held, unanimously, that an executive order is worthless.
Why would Republican presidents fight over the Hyde amendment if a simple executive order would suffice?

Actually you consider that your source? A teacher at the Catholic university of America?

Sorry my ill informed little teabagger but just because a teacher says "yes it will" doesn't make it law.

Once again...the facts...that you ignored....prove that you are full of crap.
Abortion and the health care reform bill
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
Abortion and the Health Care Bills
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-and...
and you have as your source.....a Priest at a Catholic school.....LMAO

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually you consider that your source? A teacher at the Catholic university of America?
Sorry my ill informed little teabagger but just because a teacher says "yes it will" doesn't make it law.
Once again...the facts...that you ignored....prove that you are full of crap.
Abortion and the health care reform bill
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
Abortion and the Health Care Bills
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-and...
and you have as your source.....a Priest at a Catholic school.....LMAO

One thing you forgot, dumbass. Every Catholic Priest supports "universal coverage". Most don't support abortion as part of that coverage.
The Catholic Priests you disparage are strictly issue oriented, not partisan. If the bill prohibited abortion funding the Catholic church would completely support it.
The Catholics are the best barometer for judging the effects of this legislation, they wanted it.
BTW, the law professor I cited argued many abortion funding cases before the courts.
Find me just one actual case that contradicts my claim. That should be easy, if one exists.
If you can't find one case, I WIN!!!!!

Teabag the Democrats wrote:

<quoted text>
One thing you forgot, dumbass. Every Catholic Priest supports "universal coverage". Most don't support abortion as part of that coverage.
The Catholic Priests you disparage are strictly issue oriented, not partisan. If the bill prohibited abortion funding the Catholic church would completely support it.
The Catholics are the best barometer for judging the effects of this legislation, they wanted it.
BTW, the law professor I cited argued many abortion funding cases before the courts.
Find me just one actual case that contradicts my claim. That should be easy, if one exists.
If you can't find one case, I WIN!!!!!

Actually my name calling little teabagger the fact that you use the claim "EVERY" when as usual you have no way to back up that claim.

Catholics can have their opinion just as you can what you can't do is pass off your opinion as a fact.

Strike 3 you are out.

Teabag the Democrats wrote:

Courts have held that any federal health care plan includes abortion as part of it's package of benefits unless specifically prohibited by LEGISLATION.
That is why it required legislation, The Hyde Amendment, to ban federally funded Medicaid abortions and a mere "executive order" by a Republican president would have been insufficient.
"Koat Khanger Kathy" know this and is lying, again.

Yup me and teabag stood there and watched her do it! he will post proof very soon you just wait and see.

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually my name calling little teabagger the fact that you use the claim "EVERY" when as usual you have no way to back up that claim.
Catholics can have their opinion just as you can what you can't do is pass off your opinion as a fact.
Strike 3 you are out.

Still waiting for one court decision that contradicts my claim. Don't have one?? You were out before you started.

post up the info to show them we aint dumb

Teabag the Democrats wrote:

<quoted text>
Still waiting for one court decision that contradicts my claim. Don't have one?? You were out before you started.

Actually my little tea bagging troll I showed you 3 websites that prove you and your claim are full of crap.

Post a court case that verifies your claim teabagger.

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually my little tea bagging troll I showed you 3 websites that prove you and your claim are full of crap.
Post a court case that verifies your claim teabagger.

Not only do I post 1000 times a day under different names, I also steal a good man's name. I ain't worthy to be a polyp on his colon.

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually you consider that your source? A teacher at the Catholic university of America?
Sorry my ill informed little teabagger but just because a teacher says "yes it will" doesn't make it law.
Once again...the facts...that you ignored....prove that you are full of crap.
Abortion and the health care reform bill
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
Abortion and the Health Care Bills
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-and...
and you have as your source.....a Priest at a Catholic school.....LMAO

Please look at your sources again. They're based on initial drafts of the health care reform legislation, as they were written in August of 2009. There were three draft versions in various stages at that time. None of them made it through the process unaltered. Your only one that is timely does state that yes, it is possible that those funds could be used for abortions, but they didn't think it would happen because Obama and his advisors said it wouldn't. That's reassuring, since when they had the chance to put it in legislation, as some opponents proposed, they refused.

ErieRealist wrote:

<quoted text>
Please look at your sources again. They're based on initial drafts of the health care reform legislation, as they were written in August of 2009. There were three draft versions in various stages at that time. None of them made it through the process unaltered. Your only one that is timely does state that yes, it is possible that those funds could be used for abortions, but they didn't think it would happen because Obama and his advisors said it wouldn't. That's reassuring, since when they had the chance to put it in legislation, as some opponents proposed, they refused.

Are you trying to say that my president may have lied??? Democrats never lie. well ACTUALLY i have never seen them lie. Hee Hee.

True or False

A single mother without any health insurance is more or less likely to have an abortion?

Also I'd like to know why republicans want to force a woman to have child but they don't want to pay for the childs welfare?

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually you consider that your source? A teacher at the Catholic university of America?
Sorry my ill informed little teabagger but just because a teacher says "yes it will" doesn't make it law.
Once again...the facts...that you ignored....prove that you are full of crap.
Abortion and the health care reform bill
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
Abortion and the Health Care Bills
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-and...
and you have as your source.....a Priest at a Catholic school.....LMAO

Only thing funnier would be if he posted stuff from harryreid.com or whyihaterepublicans.com as you and WELCOME do...

Mike Kelly said in the debates to go to the fact check websites. When he was asked about all the attack ads he responded by saying he doesn't control what some independant organizations put in their ads and everyone should go to factcheck.org if they want to check their facts. Maybe those in denial should listen to him.

The democrats and abortion are doing what AIDs, sickle cell, the KKK and the 9mm couldn't do. Let it be.