How Can One Be Pro-Life And Against The S-CHIP Program? Can Someone Exlplain This Incongruity?

[Yavin4]

Let's use this scenario: A working class couple making $37,000 a year combined income from their jobs which offer no healthcare. They get pregnant. The doctor informs them that the baby will need expensive medical care after it is born or they can abort the fetus. The couple cannot afford the additional medical care with their salaries.

Now, according to the Republicans, it's immoral and it should be illegal for this woman to have the abortion. So, she should give birth to the baby. However, her child should not be allowed to get money from the government to pay for the child's medical expenses.

Can someone explain how the Republicans can reconcile these two illogical positions? And, why aren't the Democrats hammering this point home over and over again and again.

[MNDemNY]

1. "cause Rush said.

[Ian David]

6. Like Rush would ever reproduce.

He's too busy indulging in child sex tourism.

Some people say.

[Yavin4]

10. That's Probably The Best Explanation That They Have

I cannot think of a better one.

[MNDemNY]

22. Thinking is way too hard.

[Yael]

2. I got mine, you're on your own?

Everyone has a chance to live but once you are born you are on your own?

Pro-life until birth?

[Yavin4]

7. A Baby Born With Severe Health Problems Is Own His Own?

It's a baby. Do they expect a baby to get a job with health benefits?

[Yael]

13. It was sarcasm. I can't reconcile the two either.

[gateley]

3. Never been able to figure how they reconcile that with the death penalty, etiher. nt

[Ian David]

4. If your sick child dies, then you may be more likely to create another fetus.

Republicans LOVE fetuses.

[flvegan]

5. They only care about the fetus.

The baby/child can go fuck him/herself.

That's a huge generalization of course, summing up the rabid Pro-Lifers, not just the anti-abortion folks.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. "I Am A Dem Against SCHIP: Let Me Tell You Why"

"I Am A Dem Against SCHIP: Let Me Tell You Why"

First off, I think everyone should have medical insurance. I don't want to see children OR adults suffering and/or dying needlessly because they can't afford health care.

The problem with SCHIP is this: They are proposing a 61 cent tax on every pack of cigarettes. This is putting the burden of paying for healthcare for everyone right on the shoulders of smokers.

Now, you might say "so what?" or "who cares" without giving it any rational thought. Especially the non-smokers, but even worse, the anti smoking 'smoke nazis' who would just as soon shoot you for smoking as they would look at you.

The bottom line is this: The Bill is fundamentally flawed in its conception. Smokers are already a dwindling base of tax support. With the new anti smoking laws going into effect in several states, more people will be trying to quit, many of them successfully.

As this tax base shrinks, they are either going to want to raise that tax again..... or find a new tax base. Why don't they just rewrite the Bill a little and expand the tax to alcoholic beverages too? It would make more sense, to begin with. It gives you a broader tax base and a more stable tax base.

I propose a 10 cent per can or bottle tax on beer and a sliding scale tax on bottles of liquor and wine. Maybe start at $1/half pint and go up from there, topping out at $10 on a gallon of liquor or wine.

If you're going to take on the task of insuring America's poor, you should at least have a plan that will sustain itself for more than a couple of years at best.

I also think that there could be a $100/new car sale tax instituted and it would help out way more than 61 cents per pack of cigarettes. I don't know ANY consumer who would haggle over $100 on the price of a new car. This is something to consider seriously.

As a gun owner, I would also support a $25/rifle & $50/pistol tax to go towards insuring the poor, or even universal health care. I've never complained about rising hunting/fishing license costs due to tax increases because I know *that* money goes into conservation/restoration efforts.

There are just so many ways that could make this Bill stronger & better, and built on a better base.

How does this sound to you? Does it sound reasonable?

Think about it....

http://www.congressunderfire.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=19&mesg_id=19&page=

[Yavin4]

15. You're Against How It Is Funded, Not The Program Itself

Republicans are against the program itself. The cigarette tax was the only way that it could get passed in the Congress. That's a legislative move. I agree that the program should be paid for by taxe straight up.

My post is about the general theory of being pro-life and being against healthcare for poor kids.

[TahitiNut]

48. Let's be clear on the on the sleazy tactics, OK?

In order to pass the House on a simple majority vote (less than 2/3rds), legislation must be "revenue neutral." This is a matter of agreement in the House Rules Committee, not law, in setting up the Rules of the House for the current session of COngress. If legislation is brought to the floor that's NOT revenue neutral, a 'point of order' can be made and block the consideration of the legislation. Therefore, such legislation must be embeded in a "Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass" it - and that requires the 2/3rds majority of those present and voting.

They didn't have the 2/3rds majority. Therefore, the sponsors of this legislation had to put SOMETHING in it to make it revenue neutral. That's why the increase in the cigarette excise tax was plugged into it ... the handy "social lepers" (those EVIL smokers) take the knife again because the House Leadership was too fucking cowardly (or corrupt) to put politicians on the record as being for or against a CLEAN piece of legislation.

What then happens in the confrontation is set up ... a Presidential veto. The veto requires the 2/3rds of the membership of both chambers to override ... but in BOTH houses of Congress. Thus, the hurdle is set in the Senate as well as the House ... a hurdle they couldn't clear in the more straightforward way of merely embedding it in a suspension of the rules.

In choosing this approach, the "leadership" in the House has both made it more difficult to pass the legislation AND (if it does pass) don't get a clean win but a REGRESSIVE tax. That's NOT a "win," imho.

At least that's MY read on it.

[Yael]

17. Or just launch HR 676 and be done with it

[Kajsa]

34. I'm with you, Ghost.

Personally, I think everyone should contribute to children's healthcare.

[Totally Committed]

9. You're only "alive" to Republicans when you're a fetus.

Once you're born, you're a burden to society, and on your own.

TC

[Rhythm and Blue]

11. Because you believe in "personal responsibility"

for all people, to the point where government does not interfere with private matters of healthcare and the like. If you can't afford it, take out loans or something. Not society's fault you were irresponsible with your money or education.

At the same time you believe that personhood begins at conception and that killing a person of any size is murder and thus ought be illegal.

Not my opinions, but you asked what they thought about it.

[Yavin4]

19. Again, We're Talking About Children

How can a Child take personal responsibility?

[kdmorris]

26. Well, to people who think like that

It's not the child that was irresponsible, it's the parents. Just look at the utter shit they are saying about that little 2 year old. It's all about her parents and how "the chose to bring a child into this world anyway".

I don't understand it, but what he/she posted IS how they feel about it. To me, it's distorted, selfish and inhumane, but it's how they sleep at night.

[Rhythm and Blue]

28. They believe children are the exclusive responsibility of parents.

The State only has the responsibility to ensure you don't murder them. They don't believe the State has the responsibility to make sure parents provide for their children beyond that.

We disagree with this, of course, but it is what they think.

[gatorboy]

35. Sure they do.

Suggest taking away Medicare from this crowd and see what happens. :eyes:

[Rhythm and Blue]

36. No, you see, that only applies to

other people.

[gatorboy]

38. How do you feel about it?

[Rhythm and Blue]

39. How does anyone feel about

those who would deny others what they would take for themselves? "I got mine" is not good policy.

[meow2u3]

44. They have to fill the for-profit prisons

The State only has the responsibility to ensure you don't murder them. Denying kids health care is a surefire way to scapegoat poor parents whose only real crime is being too poor to provide medical care for their kids, so the state can frame mom and dad for endangering their kids' welfare.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Because pro-lifers aren't really pro-life.

[Yael]

14. They are pro-birth

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. No, they're not that either.

I'm betting most of them are like John McCain. Perfectly happy getting abortions for their family members if they want them.

[Yael]

18. Point taken

[TahitiNut]

20. I'm in favor of Single Payer health care based on equitable, progressive taxation.

I am NOT in favor of imposing regressive taxes on social lepers in a "double-dip" orgasm of self-righteous zeal.

It's an abomination. The ends NEVER justify the means. That way lies tyranny.

[Yavin4]

31. Point Taken, And I Agree, But The "Pro-Lifers" Are Against The Concept

of health care for children, not just its funding.

[TahitiNut]

49. IMHO, the hypocrisy is more complicated and widespread. See ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2062107&mesg_id=2063069

[sniffa]

21. how can one have a fetus fetish and be pro-death penaLty and pro war?

[terisan]

23. They do not care about the fetus or the child; they are not pro-life, they are anti-women.

The use of the term, Pro-Life, was simply brilliant marketing-the religious right is good at marketing.

The movement is grounded in being against the right of women to control reproduction and their bodies.

[sweetpotato]

53. This is the correct answer

They are anti-women.

"Pro-Life" is the code word for "slut had sex, got pregnant and now must be punished."
If she can't afford to raise the baby, then she should give it up for adoption.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

24. Better keep all those S-CHIP kids healthy.

We need every one of them to pay off the trillion dollar Iraq war cost.

[debbierlus]

25. They aren't pro-life. It is a talking point. Eom.

[Booster]

27. It's not really about babies or kids; it's about controlling other's lives.

[DaveJ]

29. I've also wondered if they would be prepared

In addition to health care, are they prepared to pay the cost of orphanages to house millions of unwanted children? Of course not. They'd just put the kids on the streets. But at least they'd be happy to pay for the prisons the kids would end up later. I guess they feel like what't the difference anyway with the rapture coming and all.

[area51]

30. You can't be pro-life and against SCHIP.

Not to mention, you can't be pro-life and be against the one thing that would save thousands of American lives, single-payer, universal healthcare. The republinazi party is anti-child and anti-human.

[MiniMe]

32. Because being pro-life isn't an "entitlement" program that will cost them money

[ThatsMyBarack]

33. Repukes like to brainwash people....

....into joining their little cult.

[spanone]

37. when you're 'pro-life' and for war and the death penalty congruity means nothing

[silverweb]

40. One can't.

n/t

[petronius]

41. They're not pro-life: they're anti-choice and particularly against the idea of women making choices

[meow2u3]

42. That's because Repunks aren't really pro-life

at least not in the strict sense. They obviously didn't get the memo that you can't be pro-life before birth and anti-life after birth.

The un-Christian Right think pro-life is merely a code phrase for "keep the little woman at home, barefoot, and pregnant, and to hell with her and the kids after they're born."

[The Straight Story]

43. A total slight of hand - one can be against HOW schip is funded but be for it

Which I think is the case for some of us dems.

If we want to TRULY fund schip why use a regressive tax on something mostly poor people buy, and who we demoninze for buying it (ie, smokes)?

[The Straight Story]

45. PS - if you are pro-Schip you are pro-death

because it is funded by cigarettes :) Go fucking figure....

[HughMoran]

46. Republicans like cell globs, feutses and the afterlife. They HATE everything in-betweeen

It's true - just look at their political stances.

[Dark]

47. Conservatives on abortion: "Every aborted fetus is a worker we could have exploited!"

n/t

[Iris]

50. "because the gov'ment can't do nothing right. Why would I trust the gov't. for healthcare?"

This was from a caller on Randi Rhodes' show while Same Seder was sitting in for her. The man was an idiot - full of rhetoric from the right about the gov't.'s inability to get things done. He'd never be able to put 2 and 2 together to come up with the very question you are asking.

[Misc]

51. Whoa, whoa, whoa...

What is this generalization that "Republicans" think it would be wrong for a woman with a low income to have a child with medical problems? You heard people actually say this?

If you're making a reference to the Wilkerson family, I have only heard talk that they shouldn't have decided to have a child (before they conceived) when they knew that they had no heath insurance.

If you're speaking in more general terms... I still haven't heard any Republicans saying anything like what you've claimed. In the situation you described, the family would be covered under the current program (like the Wilkersons are.) Bush isn't trying to erase SCHIP, he just wants to veto the part that would raise the age and income level.

[Iris]

55. Why do you feel the need to come to a place called Democratic Underground and defend Republicans?

I just don't get it.

[Didereaux]

52. Noabortion+No SCHIP=INFANTICIDE...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/

[iamthebandfanman]

54. how can they send young people to die in a false war ? n/t