Actually, that’s exactly what it should do, minus the Pet Project label of course.

If a budget doesn’t specify that X dollars are going for project Y then, generally speaking, X dollars are not going for project Y.

In HR 3200 it specifies that eligibility will be provided for family planning services. Since late-term abortions are incredible rare already, with only 1.4% of abortions occurring in the third trimester (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm), it’s not reasonable to assume that late-term abortions are going to be supported by this bill except so far exceptions for the mother’s health are concerned, which the Supreme Court as repeatedly ruled is grounds for overturning abortion bans which do not have that exception (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib13.pdf).

Well, to start with, you didn’t cite sources. You just said to google it. Secondly, ‘infanticide’ is clearly a more non-neutral term than ‘abortion’. Searching for the clearly non-neutral term produces (unsurprisingly) mostly clearly non-neutral sites. Searching for the more neutral term produces more non-neutral sites. This should be a contested topic. It’s fairly obvious.

“Funny stuff! I never said that late term abortions were in the bill.”

Actually, you did.

I asked for evidence that Obama supported late term abortions.

You played another round of the *I’m not telling you, find it yourself* game, and then said “Tell me how Obama’s health care proposals do NOT conform to these beliefs.”

So you were claiming that Obama’s health care proposals DO conform to his beliefs on late-term abortions, which you believe he supports.

After we clarified that by “Obama’s propsal” you meant HR 3200, we found that the bill indeed does NOT endorse late term abortions.

“I told you to look at Obama’s voting record if you wanted to know where he stood on the subject.”

And I told you that if you want to assert his voting record supports late-term abortions, the burden of proof is on you to produce such a vote. It is not on me to present every vote he ever made and note that none of them match your claim.

“As for the bill itself, I supported my claim that the bill does in fact includes abortion. I even cited a Democrat and Planned Parenthood saying as much. But (sigh!), those are biased sources”

That wasn’t your point of disagreement with me, as you were arguing on August 12 that he supported late term abortions and later that it was in the bill. Had it been your original claim that HR 3200 supports/maintains funding for abortions, I would not have disagreed. I don’t know what you’re sighing so angstily about.

It’s not like it’s a secret. If that’s all you’re trying to say, you could have just cited the bill directly and said “here’s the part that will fund abortions” rather than jumping through the hoops getting tangentially related quotes from Emmanuel and engaging in hyperbole about Obama’s ‘infanticide’.

You might even have had time to argue why it’s a bad thing rather than make inappropriate movie comparisons and act like it’s some big secret that needs to be carefully ferreted out through examining the previous publications of advisors.

Speaking of moving goalposts, like I expected any souce I would cite would be dismissed as “non-neutral”–leaving you and your slants determining what is “balanced”. Get another debate tactic.

You’re trying to shift the goalposts from late-term abortions to any abortions. Please stop.

Funny stuff! I never said that late term abortions were in the bill. I told you to look at Obama’s voting record if you wanted to know where he stood on the subject. As for the bill itself, I supported my claim that the bill does in fact includes abortion. I even cited a Democrat and Planned Parenthood saying as much. But (sigh!), those are biased sources.

But when you’re writing a bill to become law, it actually has to say what you’re trying to legislate.

Yeah. Just like a bill should specify that “x” dollars are going for Senator X’s PET PROJECT in big red letters.

Just leave it alone.

Huzzah! Now we have a chance of finding out what you’re talking about.

Here is a link to the bill:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Note that this is an actual link to the actual document under discussion. Not a link to a blog post talking about an interview with the president about the document in question.

Now the section on family planning services in this bill is Title VII, Subtitle B, Section 1714. There are scattered references to revisions and amendments regarding family planning elsewhere in the bill, but as you mentioned the family planning section, that’s what I will focus on. Feel free to cite a specific other reference if this is not what you meant.

I just finished reading the section and I don’t see any red flags jumping out. Perhaps you would care to quote exactly what you have a problem with?

“I’ve already pointed out to you how you can search for that information if you really want to. That ball is still in your court.”

I’ve already pointed out to you that your search suggestion resulted in partisan attack sites and a more neutral search turned up interviews with Obama saying the exact opposite of what you claim.

“Let’s begin on what he told Planned Parenthood back in ‘07″

How about from now on you only link to things that support your argument. Nothing in that video suggests support for late-term abortions. Yes, he supports reproductive health which includes abortion, but you don’t get to make the leap from any abortions to late-term abortions.

“Senator Hatch asked her to specifically mention in her amendment that no abortions would be covered. She rejected and her amendment passed. ”

You’re trying to shift the goalposts from late-term abortions to any abortions. Please stop.

“Looking for the words “abortion”, “family planning”, etc. in the bill? Good luck. You will never find it. However knowing how to say it without saying it is a must have talent one must posses if they are going to play in the world of politics.”

Well there you go. It’s not in the bill. Saying things without saying it might let you slip things by when you’re talking on tv or giving a speech. But when you’re writing a bill to become law, it actually has to say what you’re trying to legislate. Hoping the audience will make a connection that isn’t there doesn’t work when you need that connection for the law to actually exist.

HR 3200 is the bill that is currently being pushed by the White House (listen to his conference call). This is also the same bill that is the most complete out of all the other bills under consideration. So again, let’s not be coy here.

Like any other President, Obama may start off with a Christmas wish list. But it does not get through either the House or Senate unless other goodies are included. It’s all a part of the compromise process through both houses.

Obama made the promise before the election that he would scrutinize the budget line by line and cut wasteful spending. Not only did he not do this with the stimulus, but this also was not done with any of the other bills he has pushed. In fact, he was not familiar with a provision in the house bill that would heavily regulate private insurers (follow the same link above).

Since he isn’t a member of congress, he isn’t involved in the current discussion and negotiation of the plans that may actually be passed.

That does not excuse him from the promise he made regarding scrutinizing these bills. Bottom line, if he did not want something in the bill, like any other President he knows there are many ways he could have it rejected.

So once again, the idea that he supports late-term abortions remains unsupported.

I’ve already pointed out to you how you can search for that information if you really want to. That ball is still in your court.

Let’s begin on what he told Planned Parenthood back in ’07

I already pointed out a couple of the individuals who helped craft this bill and their thoughts. Now let’s take a look at the actual bill itself.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s very vague amendment to the bill calls for “essential community providers” to provide health services for women. You can read about it here and here. Also, both links contain the recorded CSPAN exchange. Senator Hatch asked her to specifically mention in her amendment that no abortions would be covered. She rejected and her amendment passed.

Even on a cached version of their website, Planned Parenthood was not pleased that a Democrat (Senator Casey) voted against Mikulski effort. So if this amendment had nothing to do with abortion, “family planning”, or “reproductive services”, why would Planned Parenthood (whose main (not only, but MAIN) bread and butter is performing abortions) care enough to push voters to pressure Casey? Allow me to repost how Planned Parenthood explained Mikulski’s amendment:

Talking Points

* I am disappointed with the Senator’s vote against women’s health care when he voted against the Mikulski amendment. The Mikulski amendment included two critical things: 1) coverage—with no or limited cost sharing—for women’s preventive health care and screenings, such as family planning and prenatal care; and 2) ensured patient access to essential community providers, including women’s health centers like Planned Parenthood, community health centers (a.k.a. federally qualified health centers), HIV/AIDS clinics, and public hospitals.
* Expanding affordable health care coverage and protecting patients’ access to essential community providers is a critical part of health care reform.
* Preventative women’s health care, as included in the Mikulski amendment, does not include abortion services.
* Women shouldn’t be worse off after health care reform than when they began.
* Please continue your support for family planning and a broad range of women’s health care services.

But again, Obama is above all of this and has no control over what goes into this bill, right? Puhleeze! Obama is a lawyer FIRST, just like the majority of those in the House and Senate. Looking for the words “abortion”, “family planning”, etc. in the bill? Good luck. You will never find it. However knowing how to say it without saying it is a must have talent one must posses if they are going to play in the world of politics.

There are currently 12 proposals for healthcare under discussion that I know of. Each are many hundreds of pages. The adult way to have a discussion is not to say “There’s something bad in one of those plans, but I won’t say which one or where to find it.” The fact that you continually mention “the bill” makes me wonder if you were even aware there were multiple proposals.

The adult way to have a discussion is to show what evidence you have to support your beliefs. You have not done this.

Here is what Obama originally proposed:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

Since he isn’t a member of congress, he isn’t involved in the current discussion and negotiation of the plans that may actually be passed. However, since you want to play games instead of telling me what bill you’re talking about, I looked to see if Obama originally proposed something similar to what you’re talking about.

Turns out ‘abortion’ or ‘reproductive’ or “family planning” are not even mentioned in the plan at all. I didn’t bother searching for infanticide. So once again, the idea that he supports late-term abortions remains unsupported.

It seems that the most you have is a narrow cross-section of opinion from one person who is one of Obama’s 15 advisers that deals with the artifical situation of who he would save if he had to pick one group of people or another. Now, maybe Emanuel actually does support killing the eldery and infirm. Nothing you’ve quoted supports that, but lets grant it for the sake of ‘adult discussion.” It still doesn’t follow that any of the 12 healthcare plans will include that opinion. It still doesn’t mean that Obama would listen to him rather than the other 14 advisers. It doesn’t even mean that Obama picked him because of those beliefs rather than in spite of them.

In short, you still haven’t substantiated any of your claims about Obama’s beliefs or their impact on health care reform.

As far as pulling up family planning in “the bill” or discussing the role of personal information and a UHC commissioner, those will have to wait until you specify which bill you want to examine the section of and which bill contains the definition of the commisioners mandate and the role of shared information.

“I’d need to see some evidence that Obama supports late term abortions.”

You gave yourself away here.

You have already given yourself another hint on how to search for it and yet you want to continue this long walk in the park. Just copying and pasting the section of the bill is way too easy here. I like watching this whole performance you are putting on. When you are ready to have an adult conversation, you can start by first proving anything I said in the post as wrong. Lay the evidence from the bill you believe that I am just asserting my own opinion. I’ve provided for you the background of some of the architects of the bill and what they believe. Tell me how Obama’s health care proposals do NOT conform to these beliefs.

After you do that, let’s talk about the IRS (a point you raised). Make the case how there is really not that much difference in submitting your tax information to IRS vs. the Health Choices Commissioner. “I suppose if there were some sort of need-based component that would make sense”.

Lastly, pull up all you know about “family planning” in this bill. I will be more than happy to point out to you how funding for family planning does include abortions. I will also be more than happy to also provide the text of Obama’s speech to Planned Parenthood.

The blogosphere is mostly populated by folks who have at least a working knowledge of how to research for the things they want to know about. What you have demonstrated here includes you in that number. So again, I doubt you need my help pointing out anything for you. Finding info on the Netherlands apparently wasn’t a problem for you, so I expect no different from you in this case.

“This is not what I think, but what is in the actual bill.”

As I said previously, if you can cite the section of a bill that proposes this, I’d be happy to be corrected. But you haven’t even told me which of the several proposed bills has this supposed IRS-UHC record merger, let alone provide a link to the source.

“Wow! So a site that simply shows his voting record ONLY is considered a “hate site”?”

When I google “Obama infanticide” I do not get sites which ONLY show his voting record. But you already knew that.

This is not what I think, but what is in the actual bill.

As far as being serious about researching, searching the hate sites for scaremongering doesn’t count in my book.

Wow! So a site that simply shows his voting record ONLY is considered a “hate site”?

@Saudia

However, if it wasn’t for the stimulus bill I wouldn’t have health care.

Says who???

I can get healthcare for my child through Medicare but not for myself unless I have diabetes or get pregnant.

Someone is really misinforming you because we were on welfare some years back and had medicare. Neither one of us has diabetes and my wife was not pregnant.

While politicians, pundits and bloggers debate, Americans are suffering.

Waitaminute! Which Americans? You started off by suggesting that you were laid off and could not afford health insurance. And later you come back and say that you are straight. So unless you know of some specific examples of Americans who are unable to get health coverage at all, just keep it movin’.

No seriously, I am in an okay position financially and homeless is far off in the distance. However, if it wasn’t for the stimulus bill I wouldn’t have health care. I can get healthcare for my child through Medicare but not for myself unless I have diabetes or get pregnant. The stimulus will cover about 40% TO 50% of my Cobra and my son is eligible for Medicare and in September he can get on his father’s insurance during open enrollment. But my point is. The healthcare system is outdated and overly expensive for the average person. While politicians, pundits and bloggers debate, Americans are suffering.

I suppose if there were some sort of need-based component that would make sense, although in the plans I’d prefer, needs-testing would be one of the things cut back to decrease the bureaucracy. I haven’t seen text in any of the plans that would consolidate UHC and IRS records, but if I’ve missed it, feel free to point it out.

As far as being serious about researching, searching the hate sites for scaremongering doesn’t count in my book. So I won’t be searching for “Obama infanticide” “Obama secret Muslim” “Obama Kenyan conspiracy” “Obama hates America” or anything else in that direction. If that’s what’s required for you to consider me serious, I’m afraid I’ll have to disappoint.

Saudia, I hope things get better for you.

@duane

The search on “obama infanticide” turns up (unsurprisingly) a list of the “Obama eats babies!!” style sites. Nothing that stands up to a minimal fact check, but plenty of quote mining, misrepresentation, fabrication, and speculation.

I found an interview with relevant magazine (http://www.relevantmagazine.com/features-reviews/life/2726-qaa-with-barack-obama) which had a relevant exchange:
————–
Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.
————–

As for the IRS information, I’m pretty sure the government already has that. I send it them every year, occasionally accompanied by a check.

Another thing, have you tried Medicare?

Do a search on Obama, infanticide. You can find it just as easy as you found the other info in your comment.

Further, I’m not sure why I should be scared of the government knowing my medical conditions, since they are the ones who’d be directly paying for it in this plan.

Then you also must not have a problem with your IRS information being shared along with your health information. Sorry, but the only major thing that has changed in Washington is that Obama is now President. Everything else is the same ol’ wasteful bureaucracy that can’t even sell cars unless they are giving people money to buy ‘em. And we are to simply trust government with this personal information?

The Netherlands comparison doesn’t scare me, as I opted to dig deeper than your link which states it’s purpose as “committed to the fundamental belief that the intentional killing of another person is wrong.” So I expect them to slant even if they try to be honest, which I couldn’t tell because your link didn’t cite sources for its statistics.

It turns out that euthanasia is still a criminal offense in the Netherlands unless a doctor meets a strict set of conditions. According to the Dutch government’s website (http://www.minbuza.nl/dsresource?objectid=buzabeheer:58796&type=pdf), they must:
• be satisfied that the patient’s request is voluntary and well-considered;
• be satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable and that there is no prospect of improvement;
• inform the patient of his or her situation and further prognosis;
• discuss the situation with the patient and come to the joint conclusion that there is no other reasonable solution;
• consult at least one other physician with no connection to the case, who must then see the patient and state in writing that the attending physician has satisfied the due care criteria listed in the four points above;
• exercise due medical care and attention in terminating the patient’s life or assisting in his/her suicide.
Further, I’m not sure why I should be scared of the government knowing my medical conditions, since they are the ones who’d be directly paying for it in this plan. I can see why I’d be scared of my insurance company knowing, since they could deny me coverage if they thought I was getting too expensive.

It’s not correct to say that the government will be controlling my medical decisions, as they are only replacing the insurance component of healthcare. Medical decisions will still be made between me and my doctor, but having a government plan involved allows be *more* control because the government bureaucrats will be paid to get the payments to the hospitals as opposed to the insurance company bureaucrats who are paid to prevent as many payments as possible. So I can make choices without being concerned about my coverage.

And in the worst case scenario, where the government plan doesn’t offer enough coverage, I’m no worse off since it doesn’t outlaw any existing insurance companies and I can just get one of those instead.

As for ideology – Obama doesn’t eat babies, but he does defend the ‘right’ of mothers to slaughter them at any point in their pregnancy (FOCA) and is on record defending the ‘right’ of hospitals to let those babies who survive such violence to die without medical care on a hospital table. No lie. Here, Duane is doing better research than most the AP. Also, no lie.

Obama’s talking points to Planned Parenthood – FOCA is top priority
Obama’s talking point to AFL-CIO – ‘I’d like to see a single payer system – but it’s not going to happen overnight’

Video doesn’t lie. Obama – that’s another story.

So, who exactly is repeating talking points and not doing basic research? It’s alright – you can still plead the 5th.

Couple of great quotes I found doing basic research:

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
- Albert Einstein

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
- George Orwell