Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama quietly signs abortion order
MSNBC ^ | 3/24/2010 | AP staff

Posted on 03/24/2010 3:38:46 PM PDT by KTM rider

20 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Anything but jubilant, President Barack Obama awkwardly kept a promise Wednesday he made to ensure passage of historic health care legislation, pledging the administration would not allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions covered by private insurance.

Unlike Tuesday, when a beaming Obama signed the health care law in a nationally televised ceremony interrupted repeatedly by applause, the White House refused to permit coverage of the event. It occurred in the Oval Office in the presence of a small group of anti-abortion Democratic lawmakers who had extracted the commitment over the weekend. The president supports abortion rights.

The political maneuvering occurred as the FBI announced it was investigating threats received by about 10 Democratic lawmakers in recent days in apparent connection with the intensely controversial health care law.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; behidecloseddoors; benishek; coward; fraud; metrosexual; obamacare; stupak; tranparency; transparencymybutt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: KTM rider

No cheering throngs?

No vice president proclaiming it a “big f-ing deal”?

I’m sure it will be repealed next week even more quietly than it was signed.


61 posted on 03/24/2010 6:41:35 PM PDT by OrangeHoof ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Bend over suckahs".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnChained
“pledging the administration would not allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions covered by private insurance”

This means that federal funds will pay for for any abortion that isn’t covered by insurance. Therefore all abortions will be paid for.

Exactly the way I read it. Medicaid Abortions.

62 posted on 03/24/2010 6:48:04 PM PDT by taraytarah (Stupak is as Stupak does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: caww

Thanks. Then I wonder why MSNBC would have made it sound the exact opposite?


63 posted on 03/24/2010 6:49:19 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

Apparently hussein does not want to be photographed next to jewish leaders either.

Don’t want to offend his brothers don’tcha know.


64 posted on 03/24/2010 6:52:40 PM PDT by mowowie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsinlady
That's why folks here always say confirm, and they want links...and then read the links, otherwise we can fall for the framing and spin media puts on things..they want an audience..it's a numbers thing..and also often like drama they want to lead us from one episode to the other..

MSNBC is well known for more than slanting the news...even against the demos when it will entice a listening audience.

65 posted on 03/24/2010 7:01:08 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah

Where does it mention medicaid abortions?


66 posted on 03/24/2010 7:03:00 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsinlady

The complete text of the current HYDE AMMENDMENT:

Public Law 111-8
H.R. 1105, Division F, Title V, General Provisions

SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

(c) The term `health benefits coverage’ means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

SEC. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion—

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).

(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).

To go to the Abortion in Health Care index, click here.
To go to the NRLC Home page, click here.
To go to the NRLC Legislative Action Center, click here.


67 posted on 03/24/2010 7:08:59 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

Ubanga is a coward.


68 posted on 03/24/2010 7:10:55 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59

If the Ex. Or. cannot override the fed. law then wouldn’t it be up to the Pro-abortionists to file suit? Then the Senate bill would stand as it is. But that would mean they’d have to sue BO.


69 posted on 03/24/2010 7:14:19 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
Not worth the paper it is written on. An EO never ever can override a Congressional STATUTE.
70 posted on 03/24/2010 7:20:36 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barack Hussein 0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio; All

That Executive Order isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Stupak's an idiot.

Obama has strongly supported government-funded Abortions since he first ran
as an Illinois New Party Socialist in 1996 (Candidate questionnaire below, answer 24):

Photobucket Photobucket

Photobucket


Yes, Bill O'Reilly ... Obama's a f*cking Socialist!


71 posted on 03/24/2010 7:33:10 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

But what about his promise to Planned Parenthood?

http://www.fightfoca.com/


72 posted on 03/24/2010 7:43:16 PM PDT by LayoutGuru2 (0BAMAC0RN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caww

It doesn’t. Read between the lines. All abortions not covered by private insurance will be paid for by the taxpayer. Thus, Medicaid Abortions.


73 posted on 03/24/2010 7:45:48 PM PDT by taraytarah (Stupak is as Stupak does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

Did you see a copy of it and read it?


74 posted on 03/24/2010 7:51:17 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Photobucket

75 posted on 03/24/2010 7:52:24 PM PDT by timestax (CNNLIES..BIG TIME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
I am pretty sure they will find a loophole to wiggle around this

Of course, it's easy. The operative word is "elective." Get an abortionist to say it's in the best interest of the mother's "health" and... viola: instant abortion courtesy of the government (aka, you and I, the taxpayer.)

76 posted on 03/24/2010 7:54:11 PM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

All of these “pro life democrats” will be gone soon enough, then he will issue a new executive order.

Besides EO’s are not law.


77 posted on 03/24/2010 8:07:42 PM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah
I have learned to be cautious when attempting to read between the lines for something that could or not be there, especially in legislation or legalities... aware of possibilities yes, of course. But there are just that..possibilities.

But saying something which might be possible as a statement of fact, when it is not presented as that, is risky until one can establish that it is so or there is further clarity of that what could be assumed so. It is as if saying something is so by ommission, which is not often the case nor can it necessarily be established as a truth..

Particulars and clarity are better and understood as so. I am sure this will and needs to be clarified as the status of the Executive Order either stands or is challenged. Until then I will assume the Hyde Amendment will be adhered to and to my knowledge no government funding of abortions have been granted because of that amendment.

78 posted on 03/24/2010 8:27:06 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

It will happen anyways. How do you take an executive order to court?


79 posted on 03/24/2010 8:33:19 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
I am pretty sure they will find a loophole to wiggle around this

Sorry, an EO cannot override a STATUE. There is nothing to get around - it has not more substance than the man signing it. Boy king just got through signing the REAL LAW and this EO does NOTHING to repeal or supersede that LAW.
80 posted on 03/24/2010 8:46:25 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barack Hussein 0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson