It's impossible to prove a negative.

Your letter from the Catholics is not "proof," either, on that basis.

You're an idiot. Here, prove you're not.

Question: Does the recently passed health care legislation provide that any federal funds may be used to pay for abortions?

That question really seems pretty straight forward and should qualify for a "yes" or "no" answer. So which answer is correct? This discussion so far seems like an attempt to make them both correct. How can this possibly get so confusing?

No.

You sound like a no caveats kind of guy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/21/one-more-step-towards-health-insurance-reform

What if it does?

I'm sick of the BS. They caved years ago and put the Hyde Amendment in. I suppose it was the only way to get the vote. The Health Care bill did nothing to end adherrance to the Hyde Amendment but the nutbars still have their tits in a wringer over it. So, the President, in order to appease a loose cannon Dem signs an Executive Order saying, "current law and current practice is still current law and current practice regarding abortion". Jesus! Thank you Captain Obvious. But, I guess it please Stupak and his minions. So be it.

There are hundreds or thousands of things I would stop my federal tax dollars from funding if I could... like all that goddam faith based crap. What's with that anyway? "Office of Faith Based Initiatives"? You've got to be kidding me. Has Obama gotten rid of that garbage yet? Are my federal tax dollars being spent on that?

Fortunately the law and practice in America does allow my tax dollars to be spent for the medical decisions of a woman and her doctor in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother... that is until the nutbars take over. And that may not be far away.

</RANT>

Take heart amigo.

The "nutbars" are increasingly gaining control of the republican party and purging the "country club" republicans, such as Bennett, McCain, Crist, and etc.; and it's good.

Remember when the "nutbars", Cathy Colley and her sanctimonious comrades, gained control of the WA state republican party and nominated Craswell as their candidate for governor?

Again I say, the ten percent fringe has always been with us. The vast, vast majority of us have no taste for ideological extremists.

James Madison, the guy who wrote the First Amendment, would agree. As President, in 1811, he vetoed a bill that would have given a parcel of land to a church, with the following veto statement (emphasis added):

Feb 28, 1811, by James Madison. To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares the 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'

If we are to believe the man who personally authored the First Amendment, the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and associated funding is thus egregiously unconstitutional.

So much for America being "founded on the Bible."

It qualifies as a "it could."
There's a technical/legal loophole allowing for an end-run around the Hyde Amendment. It could have been closed, but for whatever purpose one might speculate, it was not.

One side bellows "the intent was to have the Hyde Amendment apply." Well...that's all fine and dandy, but we all know that intent often means squat in reality. Courts have already compelled tax funding of abortion where there is no specific Hyde Amendment limitation.

The devil in is the detail.

I'd say your devil is just being nit-picky.

It's interesting how the other side has a totally different take on things. From Naral's press release "Statement on Health Reform":



and


source

And NARAL's press release "Statement on Executive Order":


Source

Or make an end-run around them.

Of course NARAL is going to bitch.
They're going to bitch until the day it's legal to slice and dice the pre-born while its head is crowning.

And the anti-choice crowd will bitch until a man and woman are imprisoned for wasting an ejaculation by pulling out.