Kathy Dahlkemper DID vote for taxpayer funded abortions

Doggie-Style wrote:

abstain is the only way

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually noticed they were revised as well.

Honestly wrote:

<quoted text>
What a total a-hole liar you are. You know stupid, the lies and bullcrap you post ion the internet are there forever. Once again you were shown to be a disingenuous lying Sonovabitch.

Judged:

1

1

1

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly, FYI You really should FACTUALLY check your claims before you post
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
Cheerio

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly, FYI You really should FACTUALLY check your claims before you post
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
Cheerio

ErieRealist wrote:

<quoted text>
Take another look at what you posted (dated 2009, by the way). It states that there is nothing in the bill that would prevent taxpayers from funding abortions, but that there is nothing that states taxpayers have to fund them. Doublespeak, but what it means is that there is nothing to prevent it, so it will happen. It claims that a House amendment would seek to prevent funding. What it did was require that a separate premium be collected for abortion benefit. Please note that this is the same site that characterized Obama's efforts in health care to be centered on "reproductive health care," then noted that any attempt to keep abortions from being funded is a violation of this promise.
In short, Obama considers abortions to be part of health care. Obama's administration is setting forth the administrative guidelines for PPACA. Therefore, the administration will do what it can to ensure that abortions get funded (especially since the legislative issue is so muddled that there is no prohibition on funding in the final bill).

Judged:

1

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
In short:
Your claim is false
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-fun...

ErieRealist wrote:

<quoted text>
You realize that first post is talking about a draft and a proposed amendment that DID NOT PASS, don't you? The only thing saying that tax dollars won't pay for abortion is an executive order Obama signed - and one he is equally free to abolish at any time.
The second article is only talking about risk pools - not all types of coverage that may arise through other governmental subsidies. Once again, the only reassurance we have is an agency saying that it will be treated the same as any other FEHB plan (which these are not always) and subject to an executive order that Obama can pull at any time.

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.

Stu Pedaso wrote:

<quoted text>
Well looks like you were right and Actually and the rest of the left wing nut liars ....surprise....lied again.

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that your claim is still false don't you?

Judged:

1

1

1

ErieRealist wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't make a claim - you did. You claimed that PPACA prohibits abortion funding. I showed you that the sources you relied on for that view are outdated and incomplete, because they fail to note the ease with which executive orders can be reversed. The LEGISLATION does not prohibit funding of abortion. If you disagree, please point to the specific language.
I'll wait.

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
I did no such thing. If you have proof show it, if you don't quit bellyaching over something you obviously know nothing about.

Judged:

1

1

1

Honestly wrote:

<quoted text>
The original poster was correct. Then you came in with your leftist lies. The posts are recorded. You are once again shown to be the deceitful scummbagger you have always been.

Judged:

1

1

ActuaIIy wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Stu Pedaso wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks like time has once again proven you to be a liar. Ho Hum...the more things hope and change the more they stay the same.