Posted on 11/09/2009 3:48:50 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Alternate headline: “Rabidly pro-choice president sides with pro-choicers.”
TAPPER: Here’s a question a lot of Senate Democrats want to know. You said, when you gave your joint address to Congress, that under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. This amendment passed Saturday night which not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public option, but also prohibits women who receive subsidies from taking out plans that — that provide abortion coverage. Does that meet the promise that you set out or does it over reach, does it go too far?
OBAMA: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time.
TAPPER: Do you think that amendment is status quo or does it lean a little bit in one direction or the other?
OBAMA: I think that there are strong feelings on both sides.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Fox News ran a ticker about how Wasserman-Schultz (that harridan in Florida) said the Stupak amendment WILL be written out of the bill.
I guess if there’s anything to console me about this health care fiasco in the house, it’s how much the liberals HATE the Stupak amendment.
Didn’t Obama explicitly state that abortion was NOT part of this bill?
Seems to me that Bart simply put it in writing.
so then does it go back to the House for another vote, or does it just pass?
The Stupak Amendment is meaningless!
I am confident that a loophole exists....either for sake of the ‘health’ of the mother or a delegation of authority to a bureaucrat that can modify insurance plans without congressional oversight.
The whole damned thing had better go!
What a shock! Did anyone see that coming?
But if our country makes a mistake then I don’t want it to be punished with a marxist POTUS.
Hmm, I don't know. Let's go ask Joseph Cao.
Democrat House members will be urged (forced, that is, by one means or another) to vote for the final, Sans-Stupak, bill on the grounds that the Perfect should not be the enemy of the Good.
Really, is this is a surprise? The American people saw this
Really, is this is a surprise? The American people saw this
The lower case p in POTUS refers to the magic negro 0 (zero)
Bozo's daily accomplishments are as follows.
1. Pucking around a golf course.
2. Shooting Hoops
3. Eating $100.00 per pound Kobe beef.
4. Choking his chicken.
And of course the blue ticks (calling them blue dogs is off the mark; ticks are blood suckers) played their voters for the fools they are by pretending they only voted for because of the Stupak amend. The proof will come later when the blue blood suckers vote to pass the abomination even after the Stupak is removed, but democrat voters are so stupid, they won’t notice ‘cause the domestic enemy media will fail to point that out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.