The Library of Congress link didn't work, but I did look up the Pitts bill. I think that bill is more of a clarification and not a change to the law. I wouldn't be surprised if it does have bi-partisan support. It's not the Democrats that are filibustering everything. Plus, some Republicans can look good for getting something passed that effectively doesn't do anything but clarify what's already been said.

The link to the Conference of Catholic Bishops is interesting, and does raise some interesting points. I don't agree, however, that courts will effectively change the law and mandate that Hyde provisions don't apply. I didn't find that memo misleading at all, in that the portions of the laws it cites seem to be correct. Also, in that it admits that they haven't read the entire act and aren't sure if there are further restrictions on funding that they hadn't seen. I just think their opinions and conclusions are incorrect.

This! The base will love it in their campaign ads.

Like B.O. signing his executive order.
Even Ezra Klein characterized it as stating "the law will follow the law."

Which does nothing to change the fact that people receiving government subsidies for healthcare will be able to buy a policy on the exchange covering elective birth-control abortion.

Sebelius, Boxer, Murray, have admitted that it's all accounting smoke and mirrors. Now there's a shocker.

Even PolitiFact rated Lipinski's assertion that taxpayer money will be used to directly fund abortions in federal community health centers as "barely true" - not "completely false."



Planned Parenthood received $350 million of taxpayer money for the fiscal year ending June 2008. In that same time period PP performed over 300,000 abortions. Shortly after B.O. signed the PPACA into law, PP announced it was opening a new clinic in Michigan in preparation for the "onslaught" (their word) of new clients seeking reproductive and abortion services under PPACA.

States are "opting out."
The issue is not as cut and dried and settled as you believe it is.

For that reason, it is misleading to assert or even infer that no taxpayer dollars will fund abortion services under the PPACA.

Once again, the devil is in the detail, Steven.

By that logic, I'm offended that tax breaks are given to churches.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Churches are still able to spend the tax breaks I give them on stipends to pastors who patronize hookers. I have a big moral problem with that.

Should I have veto authority over any spending decision you might make because you got an energy tax credit? After all, you are probably spending my tax dollars on something I have a moral problem with.

Possibly, but not probably.
I'm a pretty benign, boring person.

But if you let me know how much you paid in taxes, I will figure my share of your tax dollars, and make sure that I keep them in a separate account to pay for something like, oh, I don't know...my blood pressure medication. Since health care has become my inalienable right, you can't possibly have a moral problem with that.

None of which negates the point to Steven.

You're putting money in a collection plate, where a minister will keep some of it and pay no taxes.

Don't be ridiculous.
Of course the minister pays taxes on his income. He also owns his own Hoquiam home, so he pays property taxes, too.

Btw, our church is a major supporter of the local Mission.
Pretty controversial stuff.

As I said before, I'd be happy to calculate any portion of Lumberjack's paid taxes that might come my way, and keep that account separate from anything Lumberjack considered objectionable.

None of which negates the point to Steven.

A minister who receives a housing allowance may exclude the allowance from gross income to the extent it is used to pay expenses in providing a home. Generally, those expenses include rent, mortgage interest, utilities, repairs, and other expenses directly relating to providing a home. The amount excluded cannot be more than the reasonable pay for the minister's services.

Boy, wouldn't it be nice if EVERYONE could exclude their living expenses from their gross income?

And of course, you prepare the minister's taxes, so you know his personal situation, whether or not the church gives him a housing allowance, etc., etc., etc..

None of which negates the point to Steven.

Now, you may consume your current ridiculous thread poison concoction by your lonesome.

pax

You're still applying a different standard to yourself than you are to a woman who wishes to purchase insurance on the exchange.

Your whole point is that the woman might (because her health insurance tax credits allowed her to retain some of her wages and tips) purchase insurance on the exchange... with those wages and tips.

In other words, once government money subsidized her normal insurance, you should have veto authority over all her discretionary spending.

In other, other words, it shouldn't be up to you. I want to know what you're spending your money on so that I can decide if you deserve your energy tax credit.

I've come to realize that this law was about the most reasonable compromise possible in this messed up society. Women can purchase the coverage if they wish, and the cost is not in any meaningful way commingled with public funds.