Posted on 05/06/2012 8:09:35 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
You are only around #200 this morning in your reading.
We've calmed down a bit after a nights sleep!
LOL
I bow to your superior and creative humor
What would the common name for the MA state law you are referencing? It wouldn't be Romneycare, would it? [Character Counts, post #272]
Nope, it was passed in 1981, forcing the state to use its matching funds in Medicare to cover abortions, as the Hyde amendment forbade using Fed funds. [A. Hun, post #363]
Well, let's look @ your mistakes & incompletions here...and I'll follow this up with another post directed @ your post #30 comments...
#1 it's medicaid -- not medicare
#2 The 1981 MA Supreme Court case [Mary Moe vs. Secretary of Education & Finance] didn't cover abortions in MA carte-blanche...
The decision placed an undefined "medically-necessary" adjective before it [Moe, p. 660]
Tell us, A. Hun, what you would you -- or a governor who claimed to be "personally" "pro-life" -- deem as abortions which are "medically necessary?" [Would that be everything? Abortion on demand?]
Certainly, the case decision itself [you can see it @ http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/382/382mass629.html] references that as of 1980, MA state law allowed for "life of the mother" exceptions and that medicaid coverage included "rape and incest" [ONLY] (see Moe, pp. 636, 644). As of 1980, that was hardly "carte blanche" abortion coverage.
#3 You can note a few other relevant comments from that decision:
The majority, having decided this case on a due process approach, recognized that there was no necessity to examine the plaintiffs' assertions that the legislation violates the provision in our State Constitution for equal protection of the laws... (p. 663)
The 1981 decision actually even mentioned a few concessions which are opposite of the impression you left:
The plaintiffs here correctly do not contend that they have a right to public funding of abortions. See Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977). They also rightly concede the State's privilege to choose to fund no medical expenses of indigent persons, including expenses associated with pregnancy. They simply contend that the State may not provide for the payment of medically necessary expenses of childbirth, but simultaneously refuse to fund the medically necessary expenses of therapeutic abortion. (Moe, p. 661)
...the State has no constitutional duty to provide medical expenses for abortion or any other medical need (Moe, p. 663)
Doom!
Perhaps DEMs crossing over into PUB primaries had something to do with it.
Here in INDIANA we have long time Senator Lugar begging Independants and DEMs to vote for him in the primary!
My, how a mighty man has fallen!
Ron’s a good guy. I think this thread has gotten a little heated and some good people are taking arrows for sins not committed.
It’s a decent and brutal thread but you are both good Freepers and Good Americans.
Perhaps a breather?
Who is supporting Obama.
I've a suggestion:
instead of complaining about FRs sad decline, perhaps by bailing out and finding other like minded folks, you could start and run and moderate and go to court and all the others things needed, an even BETTER site than FR was in it's heyday!
Why; you could even make ANY religious talk off limits and ZOT (gotta find a new word though; this one is probably copyrighted...) folks who do not religiously follow YOUR rules.
Please stop. You are both good people.
Only a LITTLE?
DAMN!
I'm slipping!!!
Oh so you are talking about actaul DU trolls, not Freepers...
That’ll go right over his head.
OCD - now delusional?
It appears we have an analyzer on our hands.
(Ignore the wrong word usage; as his prescriptions always are in in proper English.)
Not likely with some, but hopefully the threat hanging over so many patriotic conservative's heads (who understand how destructive another four years of Obama will be) will at least recede.
That's what a whole lot of people will be waiting to see.
In the mean time, this thread has turned into a crazy religious war, and as a born-again Christian, I vowed years and years ago to never, EVER visit a "religious" thread again.
IMHO, they're demonic, and as far from Christ-like as the day is from the night.
God is Supreme, not one's beliefs - anything that is not from Him is of satan. It's all about Good vs. evil - it's not a mystery.
who denounce others for their ABO view appear to be a tiny minority.
Evil is evil whether ONE person exposes it or ONE million, it's doesn't stop being evil because of anyone agreeing with it.
Man doesn't decide what evil is, God does/has. HE has set the standard. If some have found 'their excuse' where they can bow to evil; there are, also, some who never will. There is nothing new under the sun.
#1: Medicaid covered abortions ONLY for rape and incest. RomneyCare went beyond rape, incest (or even life of the mother/ectopic pregnancies) abortion-coverage. Will you or will you not concede that, A. Hun?
#2 As you accurately mentioned, abortion was already legal in MA -- and the state indeed already funded abortions for low-income women under Medicaid. But as noted #1 above, that was not ALL requests for abortions by poor women...only rape & incest (& possibly LIFE of the mother).
The bottom-line of what I cover below is that RomneyCare expanded Who would receive taxpayer-funded abortions:
When we had these FREEPER discussions in late 2007 and early 2008, I didn't try to hold Romney accountable for all 7% of abortions committed by the uninsured in MA now covered by RomneyCare.
When FREEPER folks pointed out that MA was under court order to fund low-income women Medicaid eligible, I didn't contend that. What I did contend in the previous election-cycle was the 4+% of the MA population who earned/earn above Medicaid level.
Romney himself said in one of the last-election cycle debates (I heard it direct from his lips) that almost 1/4th of the MA uninsured earned $75,000 or more. That's almost 2% of the female pop in MA. From other figures I extrapolated that another 2+% earn above Medicaid & below $75,000.
While I thought it 'twas "unreasonable" to hold Romney accountable for the court order in MA aimed at low-income women, they were less than 40% of the uninsured in MA. Therefore, the crit of $50 abortion subsidies in MA still holds...especially since NOW RomneyCare has SOME abortions 100% taxpayer-funded!
For more on this, see: RomneyCare Now Funding FREE Abortions: A Disqualifier for Mitt Romney’s Candidacy [Enabler Mitt]
#3 ALL: FREEPER folks -- like A. Hun -- keep dodging the fact that RomneyCare, just like ObamaCare does, expands the abortion industry's reach into our wallets. If you don't believe that, click on the link I just provided and educate yourself as to what has happened to RomneyCare since he left governing that state!
Bay State taxpayers are now partially paying for abortions for mandated women who earn above Medicaid eligibility levels under RomneyCare. The court order in MA only covered low-income, Medicaid eligible women...and Romney's on-the-record comment that RomneyCare covered 7% of the MA population...and that 1/4th of them earned $75,000 or more (almost 2% of the female population). Another approximate 2-3% earned less than $75,000 but above the Medicaid line.
That's almost 5% of the female MA population who are receiving taxpayer subsidized abortions under RomneyCare who were not part of the court order...
#4 The 1981 MA Supreme Court case wasn't the only one that Romneyites hide behind. They also hide behind a 1997 state opinion.
I'll let somebody in MA who has researched this address it: The 1997 opinion stated that if the government paid for childbirth, it must also pay for "medically necessary" abortions 29, [Planned Parenthood vs. Attorney General] evidently reasoning that if the government is going to pay to help kids, it must be fair and pay to kill them also. Romney's commitment to government intervention in health care prevails even when that "health care" pays to kill them. Not only is Romney's claim false that he had no choice, but adults, let alone leaders, are never "forced" in such ways. Romney should have vetoed, rather than praised and signed, any legislation that would pay abortionists to kill children. As he did also by implementing homosexual marriage, Romney created activist judges on steroids by taking anti-family court opinions and maximizing them, in this case, by interpreting "medically necessary" to mean all abortions.
Source: Mitt Romney: Former Gov. of Massachusetts (R) Tier 4 - Personhood Never
LOL
LV Ron is a really good guy.
I hope you two can work things through.
There isn’t anyone on FR supporting Obama
___________________________
Yes..... there are!
*********************************
In fact I have encountered precisely two who said they would vote for Obama in order to accelerate the reform or destruction of the GOP. I have encountered several more than that who said they would vote for Satan/Lucifer/the devil himself in order to unseat Obama, as nothing could be worse. A half dozen or so made this remarkable argument.
Setting aside the poor logic in both arguments, Lucifer is not a natural born citizen. Besides, Lucifer wins either way this cycle, via proxy representation.
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.