Those Contributions Are Fungible
Are you aware of the logic of the Stupak amendment? John Aravosis explains:
The House passed the anti-choice Stupak amendment last night. Basically, the amendment stops any government money from funding insurance plans that cover abortions. The twisted logic being that any money connected to any insurance company covering abortions is “abortion money,” i.e., profits earned from “killing babies.” We can’t have the government touching that.
So I sure hope that no pro-life members of Congress are accepting political donations from any insurance companies that cover abortions. Because if they are accepting such donations, they’re accepting profits that came from “killing little babies.”
The Blue Dog caucus has taken quite a bit of money from insurance companies.
The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.
At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.
The Blue Dogs have also spoken to a lot of insurance industry lobbyists. Aren’t they also profiting from this horrible money? Do any of these anti-abortion crusaders have investments with insurance companies? Are they profiting off of this terrible money then?
If you’re feeling generous, one of the co-sponsors of the Stupak amendment, Joe Pitts, has a primary challenger. Her name is Lois Herr. You can give money to her campaign on her ActBlue page.
Yes, funding abortions is killing the unborn. I suppose you have a different take on what an abortion accomplishes? Do abortions promote Life?
The government should not be in the business of taking life whether it is abortion or the death penalty.
Remember, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? They are not empty words.
Mike Protack
Either you believe women have sovereignty over their own bodies or you don’t – it’s really that simple. It’s funny how people who spend so much time screaming about government bureaucrats find it perfectly reasonable to have government bureaucrats make decisions about what medical treatments women are allowed.
I know Lois Herr and she is a wonderful person and great candidate. This will be her third run at Pitts, who is aptly named. Thanks for the linky U.I.
Are anti-abortion folks with private insurance refusing their insurance policies at work if the policies cover abortion? After all, their employers are sponsoring the killing of babies. Why aren’t they going after their own policies, instead of going after someone else’s?
Hypocrisy. It’s what’s for dinner.
@DR “Do abortions promote Life?”
They certainly promote life quality.
Think of the benefits to society by reducing poverty, reducing crime, reducing teenage motherhood, reducing overpopulation, increasing educational opportunities,…
There are reasons that the blue states are doing a lot better than the red states.
And if you look at the world as a whole: The less women have control over their own bodies, the more likely the place is a hellhole.
I find it deeply ironic that the splash page at Protack’s site contains the following line:
We must never forget this important phrase in our U.S. Constitution: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
LLPH, of course, is from the Declaration.
LOL apropos! Is this a common mistake for Republicans? At Bachmann’s tea party Boehner read from the “preamble of the Constitution.” There is actually no preamble to the Constitution and what he read was the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Well, book larnin’ ain’t their strong suit.
Women having control over their own bodies? What you mean is, “A fetus should have control, through government, over its production and delivery system.” There. Now you can be a Mom for the GOP.
Well, Geezer, that’s the thing. It really seems to be that a lot of this is motivated by a deep fear of women. The idea is that : “If the personhood of women can be reduced to being “a vessel” of reproduction, and that, in turn, controlled, maybe women wouldn’t be so scary.”
For me, experiencing myself as a person, and knowing other women as persons, it makes no sense.
If the anti-choicers don’t want their tax money going to pay for abortions, fine. Now, somebody remind me when I had the option to prevent my tax money from going to pay for unnecessary wars or tax cuts for the rich. Actually, nevermind. I forgot. They haven’t been paid for, hence the exploding debt.