And that's fine. But not everyone is employed in a field earning "tips." Some people earn incomes which are paid solely from taxpayer dollars.


And this:

http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/communityhealthcenters.pdf

If there were no chance that the bill allowed for any taxpayer money to be used for abortion services, there would be absolutely no reason for the "opt out" clause.

Huh?

I think I missed something. Did the arguement switch to whether a Federal employee could use their wages to buy their health services? There must be something else to this because that would be too ridiculous.

Okay, here's where I concede a few points:

1. State tax revenue can and does fund abortion services in some states, including Washington. That doesn't change anything in relation to the Hyde Amendment. I should have included the word "federal".

2. The Hyde Amendment still allows for the funding of abortion services in the cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger. Always has.

3. People receiving government subsidies for healthcare can write a separate check for a rider that covers elective abortion coverage. They also can vacation in Vermont, download Lady Gaga and watch Glee. They just can't use their government subsidy to do it.

4. We have a court system that allows people to file lawsuits to change laws to be different than the way they are written. Maybe. I think Washington's Public Records Law will survive the Supreme Court, BTW.

Call me naive, misleading, whatever, but I find it silly that I should only take the interpretation of the two groups that say that I'm wrong, both of which have a stake in this, and ignore all the neutral sources that say that I am correct.

I decided to take a look at politifact and see how wrong I was. Take a look at this list of findings (http://www.politifact.com/subjects/abortion/) and try to tell me with a straight face that I'm being misleading. To quote Mr. Armstrong's LTE, "tommyrot"!

You are on solid ground. But, I sure as hell don't want any of my tax money being spent on listening to Lady Gaga!

I agree with Stash here. You're not even taking this seriously anymore. If you work for the government, Iky gets to decide what you spend your money on? Ridiculous!



I find it hard to believe that you really don't know what the religious exemption is for: people who are morally opposed to insurance in general. You know, people that believe that if they pray and work together as a community, that God will provide. This applies to those who have opted out of Social Security, for example. http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100109/NEWS02/301099964

I don't think you're going to get it. Have at it, Beavis...

If I had to get ridiculous for someone to concede a point, then it was worth it.



Except our federal tax dollars DO fund abortions.

WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush.

And under PPACA, federal subsidies (i.e. our tax dollars) go straight to the insurers. As the ladies admitted...it's all accounting smoke and mirrors.

There's a reason why PolitiFact rated this:

The Senate version of the health care reform bill "allows taxpayer money to pay directly for abortion in federal community health centers funded in the bill."

as "barely true" and not "completely false."

It's just dishonest to say that no tax dollars will be used to fund abortion services.

Steven, I was talking about the right of states to "opt out." Not the conscience clause.

Your reference on PolitiFact shows that if you have the logical capacity of a Glenn Beck, you could reach that conclusion. Therefore, barely true. If you read it with sincerity, however, you will find the article to support my viewpoint.

Does the PPACA scrap the Hyde Amendment? No. By the article you posted, it appears to expand it.

There's FactCheck, too: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/the-abortion-issue/index.html

I guess Iky's saying he doesn't want any tax dollars spent in any way that could conceivably be linked to any service or product in any way related to abortion. So a public road built with tax dollars in front of a medical facility that performs abortions, for example, would be in Iky's view "tax dollars spent on abortions." The receptionist at a doctor's office that performs abortions who got her AA degree using a Pell Grant would be "tax dollars spent on abortions." A federal grant used to clean up the tapwater that a woman who is going to get an abortion drinks is "tax dollars spent on abortions." Etc.

How about reading it honestly?

"Could the money be used for abortions? It doesn't seem likely based on the comments from the White House, Sebelius, the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and the umbrella organization for community health centers.

But neither can we say definitively that the scenario laid out by the Lipinski and the National Right to Life Committee could not happen."

Can YOU say definitively that it could not happen?

Plus, I've already shown you definitively where tax dollars are used to fund abortions. If you want to be dishonest about it, continue your blanket rhetoric.