|
willbeurdaddy -> RE: My vote for Chump of the Year (7/14/2010 8:05:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
The whole website, let alone the article
Gotta be careful with that ad hominen. The article is absolutely correct.
heres another source
Willbeur, I'm not even going to get into your constant use of ad hominem and strawman when it is painfully clear you have no idea what the terms mean.
You use it as a fallback position when you have no other argument to make.
But I'm curious why you would post a source that doesn't agree with your position.
From your link:
The Pennsylvania high-risk pool language states that it does not cover "elective" abortions, but the National Right to Life Committee says that term isn't defined anywhere. Instead, the pool would cover abortions that are legal in Pennsylvania, a condition that is met if a single physician determines that an abortion is necessary for the "well-being of the woman." The NRLC says that would cover any abortion expect those motivated by parents' desire for a child of a different gender.
Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the charge is inaccurate. She said all high-risk pools - whether run by the states or by the federal government - will follow the same rules as do the insurance plans for federal employees, which only cover abortions in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.
I know perfectly well what they mean, and have never used them incorrectly. You want to debate that, start a thread.
You also apparently dont know "my position" in that post, which has nothing to do with the merits of the claims, but on the veracity of the link in the OP. It says exactly the same things that other sources do.
As far as what will or wont be allowed under Federal law you might consider the entire law, not just what someone paid to defend it says.
"The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that “elective abortions are not covered.” However, that statement proves to be a red herring, because the operative language does not define “elective.” Rather, the proposal specifies that the coverage “includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of” several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is “necessary” based on “all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.” Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: “No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.”
Do you really think Boehner is going to comment if there isnt some substance to the claim?
There is also the fact that the administration's lackeys are considering regulations to actually back up the EO, which dont exist yet.
|
|
|
|
