ANSWERS: 13
  • Waaaay too big a legislative 'bite' for most of 'middle America' to 'chew'! ;-)
  • Absolutely Not!!! This is one of the major reasons we are in the shape we are in. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions. They look to the government to solve their problems for them, Bail-outs, Stimulus bills....etc...You get pregnant..Deal with it on your own dime..Not mine!!! and that doesn't mean I expect women to face this by themselves, the men need to be responsible for this as well
  • No; pregnancy is not a disease, it is completely avoidable/preventable. But if people insist then I want to be able to murder unwanted people to at tax payers expense with out any hassle before or after.
  • Hell NO! Women from even the lowest economic and social brackets have been finding ways to pay to get rid of a baby they never wanted. Let THEM pay for their mistakes. I'm not paying for someone else's ongoing method of birth control. +5
  • Taxpayer-provided funds belong to the taxpayers who earned them. In a republic, the government does govern by consent of the governed. Therefore, if some taxpayers object to their funds being used certain ways that is their right.
  • No, the taxpayers should not have to pay for the "mistakes" of others. If someone wants to kill their baby, let them pay for it themselves. Although I am pretty sure they are going to shove this through whether we like it or not. +4
  • Absolute NOT ! I do not want any of my taxes going to MURDER / Slaughter an Innocent Baby because some little slut couldn't say "No" to a jerk of a horney, oversexed guy ... who isn't man enough to take care of his own child when he creats one ... +5
  • Is it really health care? or will it become a stream lined machine for the pharmaceutical companies?
  • No, tax money should not be used for abortions, cosmetic surgery, and some elected surgeries.
  • Yes. An abortion is my right. Birthcontrol is not 100% effective so there is always a chance I could get pregant no matter how carefull I am. I should not be shakeled by other people's religious of philosophical opinions.
    • dorat
      So people are obliged to pay for your rights? Does that mean that you should be subsidizing newspapers and TV stations? Just a guess, how would you feel about sending your tax dollars to Fox News - I mean since free speech is a right and everything? You miss the irony in your position. You believe that you should not be "shackled" to other people's religious or philosophical beliefs. Yet you are perfectly happy to "shackle" them - through their tax dollars - to yours. You are operating on what epistemologists call the "neutrality fallacy." The idea that I am being totally objective but the other guy is biased. For what it is worth, it has been public policy since the late 1970s - it was called the Hyde Amendment - that tax dollars cannot be used to fund abortions. The Supreme Court in a 7 to 3 ruling, upheld its constitutionality.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Nickname, if you think abortion is a right, why make other people pay for your poor choices? And there is a 100% effective birth control method. It's called keeping your legs closed. And I also find it humorous that you don't want to be "shakeled" by other people's philosophical opinions, but you apparently have no problem "shakeling" other people with the results of your poor decision making skills.
  • No, the coverage is for health care not death care. It will fund an abortion if it needs to be done for health reasons.
  • It will never happen as long as there is a Republican president or Congress is run by Republicans. Its only happened once briefly and the Repubs shut it down.
  • i dont think so

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy