That anti-choice amendment is illegal

It violates Roe v Wade. It's going nowhere.

Discuss.

federal funds from subsidizing it are two different things.

and by the way... I swore I woke up this morning in a theocracy. Since when do bishops run the show?

I'm an atheist.

I expect arguments are going to be made in conference that it is "redundant" as the Hyde Amendment already prohibits fed fund being used for "elective abortions"

I understand that Stupak may go farther than Hyde, but I think that is the argument that will be made when they sit down to reconcile these bills.

Would that make a difference?

It is my opinion that at least 50% of this was Boehner-style posturing.

If anyone is posturing, it is them.

i know it barely had one in the house, but i think it will get one again. the senate? i still think we have 51.

some votes might change, but best believe arms will be twisted.

to make it seem like they are battling insurmountable obstacles. they don't seem to be held account for actually accomplishing anything.

Since Hyde is around, there is no need to have the Stupid-pecker Amendment ~~ maybe there is a conflict between the terms or something, also.

:shrug:

An abortion is between a woman and her health care provider and no one else. Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion, correct? Federal funds = public. Can't have public money for privacy matter, because it wouldn't be a privacy matter anymore. At least that's what I would assume the pro-Hyde argument would be in court, and may in fact put Roe v Wade in peril--we don't want that.

RvW says nothing about federal funds paying for abortions as far as I know.

apparently, repealing either is off the table. :(

Rachel pointed out that this would cause a lot of Dem women to sit on their hands. I believe that. Anybody who tells someone they can't pay for a legal procedure with their own money through some convoluted law can go to hell!

In addition, I'm not sure how much more the Dem women will take.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110818453.html

They have talked big before, but I think it is past time for NARAL and some other big players to put some muscle into calling those Reps. Not all of them are in horrible trouble in 2010.

It's nothing more than reworking of the Hyde Amendment of 1976. The USSC upheld it in 1980.

Congress would have to overturn it. It's not going to happen.