:agree:

The way I read it, and correct me if I am mistaken, one cannot sell human body parts to purchase a Lamborghini. And the way I also interpret the law, it specifically mentions for human transplant. I believe you would have to take a bit of liberal leeway so-to-speak, to loosely interpret this to relate to this practice of trafficking in human body parts. Just because one dies does not automatically put them on the donor list. If that was the way it works, then anyone passing away in a hospital could be dismantled and used as a donor. I would hazard a guess that if any of these women were asked if they wished to have a special operation on them so as not to damage the baby body parts so that they could be used for sale to the highest bidder, they would decline. Just a guess, but it would probably be a safe wager.

What the heck are you talking about? Iran has something to do with legal abortions? You smoking something that is not legal in Florida?

You have never heard the horror experiences of young ladies before abortion became legal. It was sometimes done by "health care workers" in cheap motel rooms and involved rat poison and coat hangers. Very common for massive infections to set in and lots of deaths, too.

Some women went to Sweden for an abortion. It was legal there but illegal for Americans to have it done there by American law.

Do you want to go back to times like that?

And you wonder why women flock to the Democrat candidates.

You are kidding right? Let me get this right. You think that defunding PP because of their violations, will make abortions illegal? How did you come up with that. Are you saying that if PP is not allowed to sell human body parts, then Republicans hate women? Dude, get a grip. chilout

Some only read or hear what they want.

Let me make it clearer

Iran deal has NOTHING to do with abortion. Ok?

Point was that this kind of argument is becoming the norm, FOR EXAMPLE...it is either this deal or war. No in between, no discussion, that's it. You are presenting this issue that has many upset as....Planned Parenthood or back to the side streets. NOBODY HAS SAID OR EVEN SUGGESTED THAT.

Herein, is the problem today in many issues. No middle ground...it is my way or some extreme that is TOTALLY MADE UP.

Some automatically race to the extreme, and they have no idea what middle ground is or reasonable discussion, and then to top it off they MAKE UP EXTREMES and tell you that is what you believe, no matter how imagined or unrealistic or unsupported.

I suppose that makes them feel right. If you call ALL Republicans racist or some word of THEIR choice, no matter how stupid, it makes them feel better about themselves.

AND you may NOT adjust the procedure you use to allow for "donations" and I know there was discussions on not crushing the head, and going lower or higher, etc.

Abortions are legal. The practices Planned Parenthood carries out are legal. Planned Parenthood may or may not lose its government funding depending on how the senate votes tomorrow. Those are the facts as we know them.

Nothing irks republicans more than poor people getting health care. 'Who do they think they are?' they ask.

Women are not going back to the bad old days, whatever it takes.

Your post is a total and complete POLITICAL statement and you really need to do your homework before embarrassing yourself on here or in public.

NOBODY, ANYWHERE,AT ANYTIME proposed anything even resembling your political knee jerk reaction.

Please get out and get informed...

"For years, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid helped shield Democrats from taking such politically difficult votes, instead forcing Republicans to vote down increases to the minimum wage, paycheck equity and student loan reform proposals.
But now the tables have turned.McConnell (R-Ky.) scheduled the vote not just to satisfy his own socially conservative members, but also to put the squeeze on moderate Democrats."


Read more: Planned Parenthood videos: Senate vote squeezes Dem moderates - POLITICO

Please give me an example of "Nothing irks republicans more than poor people getting health care." You know, getting an abortion on a whim, is not like getting a tooth pulled. If only 1% of abortions are a necessity due to rape, incest or medical reasons, then there's still a heck of a lot of folks getting rid of their babies out of convenience or whim. I want health care for those babies, how about you? Do you hate babies? That is the kind of extreme rhetoric that is coming from you and other liberals. Like many on here have said in previous posts, no one is denying a woman her abortion, even if PP is defunded. Where you get such an idea, must be from Pelosi. It sounds like something she would say. Or, maybe Obama?

I guess CHI-TOWN went to supper.

It is getting old, this total distortion of facts and even what the discussion is about.

From one of those nasty Republicans out to harm everyone

"“We need an investigation about whether Planned Parenthood has violated federal law and medical ethics,” Collins told POLITICO. “But, I am concerned about the millions of women who go to Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings and family planning and to immediately cut them off, millions of women would have to find alternative health care providers. I don’t think it’s that easy. It seems to me we need a more targeted approach.”
She and Manchin say they are working on a compromise amendment that would investigate Planned Parenthood but not cut off funding immediately."


Read more: Planned Parenthood videos: Senate vote squeezes Dem moderates - POLITICO

Pretty far from the presentations on here from people who simply pile on with no facts....but that is easier than actually reading before posting

How about the republican congress voting close to 60 times to repeal Obamacare, because many of the 19 million effected are moderate or low income people, many of whom have healthcare for the first time.

How about all the republican governors refusing to expand Medicaid, even though the federal government pays most of it the first five years. Who does that effect, the wealthy?

Planned Parenthood provides pre-natal and post-natal care. Cutting government funding to PP will infringe on the availability of that care.

The republican congress has had time to take close to 60 votes on Obamacare, just to show what their priorities are.

Planned Parenthood gets 40% of it's funding from gov subsidy. And interesting fact is how much some of their top employees make. Quite a bit more than most gov workers, for sure. I guess they better do some salary cutbacks if they are going to have to make 60% of their funding work for them.

So, Obamacare is for the poor? Then why is health insurance mandatory for the rich? Please don't answer. I believe 26 states refused to expand Medicaid because they would have to increase taxes to pay for it. The gov promised to subsidize it for two years. Use your head, there's better ways than Obamacare. Republican ideas such as the senator from NC tried to introduce were tabled by Reid. He kept around a hundred house passed bills from being voted on in the senate.
There is a big difference between "infringing" and denying. Glad you cut back on that rhetoric. Obamacare is bad for the country so YES the voters wanted it gone. That's why we have a Republican majority in congress, because that was the mandate that the voters wanted. Obamacare is a blight on the economy and the taxpayer.
Where you get the rhetoric of Republicans hating women, children and the poor is just extreme exaggeration.
It's easy for us to say Democrats hate babies because they want to kill them. Is that what you want, because we have evidence by means of abortion, don't we?
Selling body parts is disgusting and I find it interesting that you favor it. PP does this to themselves.
By the way, Obama wanted Obamacare to fail. He wants a socialized medicine system such as Europe has. And I have been to several socialized health care countries, living overseas for years, so don't get me started on how bad they are.

Correction: 55 Billion dollars, that's billion with a B, was earmarked for Florida at 5.5 billion dollars per year for 10 years to expand Medicaid, that Gov Rick Scott rejected. These were not new tax dollars, but federal tax dollars already paid and sent to Washington. So now our federal tax money is being sent to states like Ohio and Arizona, where the republican governors expanded Medicaid and put the welfare of their constituents above their hatred for Obama.

Six years we've been waiting for the GOP healthcare plan, you remember 'repeal and replace'. At least Donald Trump told us last week that his replacement plan for Obamacare will be "terrific". That is more than the republican congress has told us about their plan since 2009.

As Donald would say....terrific post. Informative and zippy to read

Let us first dispel of the old wives tale that you are trying to sell here.

This is from 2010 Wall St Journal....an article criticizng the Republican party but making note

"In the House, Republicans were frozen out from the start. Three Chairmen—Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman and George Miller—holed up last spring to write the most liberal bill they could get through the House. Republicans were told that unless they embraced the "public option," there was nothing to discuss.

As for the White House, House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor in May sent a letter to President Obama "respectfully" requesting a meeting to discuss ideas. The White House didn't respond. Mr. Obama's first deadline for House passage was July, and only after public opinion turned against the bill did he begin to engage Republican ideas. Yet in his September address to Congress attempting to revive his bill, he made no concession save pilot projects for tort reform."


The GOP and ObamaCare - WSJ

The criticism in the article revolves around the writer thinking that at some point, even though being blocked at every turn, they maybe should have given a bit more because of the size and cost of the bill....

"In the end, Republicans couldn't as a matter of principle support even 50% of a bill that was such a huge and reckless expansion of government. If they had, they would have rightly lost the support of their own most loyal supporters. In the end, too, the bill was so unpopular—59% opposed in a Sunday CNN survey—that 34 House Democrats voted no and Mr. Reid is resorting to reconciliation to get the "fixes" of more taxes and spending through the Senate."

I highlighted in red what is important. Those who are staunch Democrats of the far far left laud this bill as if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread. It was unpopular and for a bill of such proportions, it REQUIRES A MANIPULATION to even get it passed with total control of both houses.

Now that we have that....lets understand....IF YOU SPEND SOME TIME reading at all, there are a number of proposals to replace/adjust Obama care as the cost will bankrupt the country and sooner than later.....

I might add that also inherent were some strong objections of a legal nature, and then we will move on to any possible alternatives.....but this from FORBES in 2012.....

"I’ve tried my best to explain that most conservative opposition to the mandate is not driven by partisan hypocrisy. Here is Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in 2006, well before anyone was worried about Obamacare: “An individual mandate crosses an important line…it opens the door to widespread…political interference in personal health care decisions.” Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, also in 2006: “The first concern [of the Massachusetts health plan] is the requirement that every individual in the state must purchase health insurance or face financial penalties.”

What a Bipartisan Version of Obamacare Would Have Looked Like - Forbes

Ok....now we know that this bill is far from popular, far from smart, far from saving health care costs and was a simple political exercise and duping on the american public.

Now, you sarcastically promote that Republicans have just been sitting on their hands ....thus my next post.

Ok...we have a really bad bad law on the books. One which because of its size, cost and scope would be hard to simply repeal and replace, although there is strong feelings on doing that.

"“Repealing and replacing” Obamacare with market-oriented reforms has been the Republican mantra for years now. If you’re a long-time follower of this space, you know that we’re skeptical that Obamacare will ever be repealed, GOP slogans to the contrary. Today, however, a trio of experienced Senate Republicans—Tom Coburn (Okla.), Richard Burr (N.C.), and Orrin Hatch (Utah)—have put forth the most thoughtful and constructive plan yet developed to repeal and replace Obamacare. The plan seeks to ensure that as many Americans have health coverage as Obamacare does. It’s a proposal grounded in the real-world tradeoffs that all serious reformers must make. Want to know how those tradeoffs might affect you? Read on."

Senate Republicans Develop The Most Credible Plan Yet To 'Repeal And Replace' Obamacare

It goes on to explain that some in the party want simple incremental changes and others want wholesale changes. A bit of a summary of some of the thoughts.

The idea in sharing this is to keep your folks quiet when you say things that are not true. The Republicans were totally shut out by our President, then manipulated congress to have it pass. It is not a good thing It has not even taken full effect as of yet...so at least, if you really are concerned read about the various ways being explored to handle this and it will not be easy. THAT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THEY WILL SPEND YEARS TRYING TO FIX THIS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THEY HAD NO CHANCE TO EVEN BE INVOLVED WITH BUT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

"The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of House Republican conservatives, put out a plan last fall that would replace Obamacare by capping the employer tax exclusion, and making a standard deduction for health coverage available to everyone. A similar plan proposed by George W. Bush in 2007 would have expanded coverage by 11 million, compared to the pre-Obamacare status quo. The best thing about this approach is that it would reduce spending and reduce the deficit; Obamacare is deficit neutral, but it substantially increases federal health spending, along with its massive expansion of federal health-care regulation."

BUT this plan needs to address that OBAMACARE that does not take affect until 2017 has a 30 million number which will be hard to get...note the date of the in effect of this massive spending bill.

"A separate cohort of Republican health plans has taken a different approach. They aim to offer universal coverage—though they rarely use that term—by ensuring that every American who needs one can get a federal subsidy to purchase health insurance. These plans include the Patients’ Choice Act of 2009, introduced by Reps. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) along with Senators Coburn and Burr; and the Empowering Patients First Act of 2013, developed by Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.).

And finally because all you liberals have stopped reading...you are not interested in the country which will need to absorb this massive spending when Obama is gone but I hope it will at least open your eyes to the fact that all that garbage about nobody working on alternatives is just that...garbage.

"The latest entry into this field—and thus far, the best—is the new Coburn-Burr-Hatch proposal, called the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act. (They abbreviate this as the “Patient CARE Act”; I’ll call it Coburn-Burr-Hatch, or CBH.)

CBH would repeal Obamacare, and replace it with a set of more market-oriented reforms. One key point right at the start: the authors “believe our proposal is roughly budget neutral over a decade.” That is to say, for all the reconfiguring it does to the health-care system, it doesn’t substantially reduce the deficit. It may modestly reduce the amount of federal spending and taxation. The Senate trio aims to have their proposal fiscally scored by an outside group of economists, most likely Doug Holtz-Eakin’s Center for Health and Economy.

While the plan would repeal Obamacare, it would preserve some of the law’s most popular features, such as its ban on lifetime limits on insurer payouts, and its requirement that insurers cover adult children younger than 27. It would replace Obamacare’s premium hike on young people, known as age-based community rating, with a more traditional 5:1 rating band."

I am just so sick and tired of hearing all this crap that comes on here about no alternatives.

I hope you people some day will read before you post and at least stop with the party talk. There is a lot of work to do because our President put this in on purpose to not kick in until he is gone.

It is difficult for me to have much respect for folks who laud a bill that does the opposite of what it was intended to do....cut health care costs, and with such a massive spending to be done and it has not yet begun folks.
could not even get their own party to back it 100% and had to manipulate the senate rules in any case.

THAT to me is just plain dishonest and inexcusable.

The same poster keeps talking about the repeal of Obama care, etc mocking the Republican party and I hope the facts I just gave will appease her in some way.

The states involved know what is coming....know the costs. I suggest you read the bill someday instead of touting it when you do not even understand it...understand the cost to you....understand what is going to happen to your costs and your health care.

Yes....the Republicans talk repeal and replace.

Yes....it is necessary to save us

Yes...the Republican party is working hard to come up with something for the country, not the party, nor any individual.

Why do you think all the states are going Republican. Read please

So, now we get it. I finally get it. You are saying that the babies being killed and dismembered and sold like auto parts, is the fault of the Republicans because they didn't support Obamacare? I mean, you are talking about Obamacare now instead of the despicable act of dissecting and piecing out baby body parts, right?

I see how you diverted the subject from the maiming of dead babies to a political debate over Obamacare.

So, the theme of the thread is that the liberal media and Internet blogs were showing more emotion at the hunting and killing of a lion in another country, then the maiming and selling of baby body parts, by the thousands. I guess we don't have to guess at someone's priorities, huh?

I will apologize now for my long posts on the repeal of Obamacare, but...

we have one poster who over and over brings this up...she does not like our Gov because he is a Republican and she tries to make it personal by bringing up Florida yet he joined many others in knowing it is NOT AFFORDABLE...not even close and when it fully takes affect (after Obama leaves) we are stuck with it.

She also posts constantly that the Republican party should have could have, et and I just wanted her to understand how shockingly un-American this entire process was....secret deals...secret negotiations, etc and hopefully the new congress can get some of this stuff passed before the 2017 full implementation.

So sorry for the long posts, but so much tripe and you just explode. These people are fed a bunch of blarney and never check to see if it is true.

HAS the poster who said...

this thread was full of lies

this thread had only 4 people posting

EVER COME BACK after being challenged to even tell what was a lie and how he knows about the 4 posters ?????

I guess I probably responded to the wrong post. Kind of hard to know who you are conversing with when everyone has the same moniker..ha,ha.

Who would know? After all, the only moniker I see is "guest".

They're not babies, they're fetuses. Why can't you understand that. A woman can donate her placenta or her removed kidney to science. She can also donate her removed fetus. It's hers to dispose of in any way she consents, including allowing the agency that removes the unwanted fetus to dispose of as it sees fit within the law. So you don't like the optics, well all you saw was an edited piece of a sting operation. Effective propaganda, not truthful.

Does the above translate into they do not do what is portrayed in the videos?

Just guessing that if you come on and made serious accusations as this particular GUEST did....ie., this thread is full of lies, and also that only 4 posters were using it.....and then get called on it....please allow what lies and how you know how many posters there are...

Well, just an assumption that maybe that poster who took the time to make the accusations just might show up to answer the questions, but I suppose I erred in my judgement.

Have you watched the unedited versions ?

Have you read the law concerning the procedures used that cannot be changed to save certain parts ? Then hear them discuss how to save the head, etc.

Listen, they will not be defunded but I sure hope there is an investigation.

We have so many federal agencies that just flat out do not follow the law and either change the law or enforce it........you cannot pick what laws you like.

You have an immoral and demented view of right and wrong .... thus you're hopeless

To complete the image one just needs to visualize someone with a bullhorn standing on a soap box with nobody around.

They say ignorance is bliss, so.......

They are babies. The definition of a fetus is an unborn child, a baby. You can argue all you want, to justify your guilt, but you can't convince those with logic and common sense, that the sky is green when it's blue.

Edited? The whole video is on line, if you have enough motivation to google it. Oh yes, you have been told that it is all a hoax, perpetrated by those mean spirited, women hating, bigoted, racist, sexist Republicans. That says an awful lot about a person and how they can be led around without questioning what they are told. Me? I don't believe anyone so I do my research. I've been wrong before. I just can't remember that far back...ha,ha. Any reasonable person can't refute the facts when they come from a multitude of sources.

One of your perpetrators of lies (Wasserman Schultz) was asked on two different occasions, the difference between a socialist and a Democrat. Not only could she not answer, but she had a long time to research in between being asked the same question. And she presents the Democrat party.

Exactly. Couldn't say it better.