Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:17:17 -0800
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>,
	"full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Software developer looks at CRU code

Just like it is now...  I *do* my own research - I made the assumption that we were talking about new policies where "abortion by choice" was funded by public funds, so my apologies for that. This is no different than it is now in any emergency room in the country not manned by lunatic fringe zealots, and in my opinion, is as it should be.  

Next you'll be telling us about how the bill allows for health care for illegal immigrants and start screaming like Joe Wilson, right?  When someone you love is about to die in the ER because of a potentially fatal complication with a pregnancy, we'll see how well you stand by your "abortion is abortion" schpeel.   

Regardless, the provisions in the bill do not exist for you to cherry pick sections to make your point.  The provision for exceptions is there because the bill does not, on its own (in general), provide for abortions using public money, and use for emergency situations must be stipulated.  It exists so that raging lunatics can't point their finger and jump up and down screaming "no fair" when BOTH the woman and fetus are about to die and someone makes the decision to save at least one life and public option insurance coverage applies. 

Irrespective of your position (or mine for that matter), this conversation is quickly veering off course, so let's take up any further abortion conversations off line, shall we?

t



-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:22 PM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Software developer looks at CRU code

--On December 6, 2009 3:46:49 PM -0800 "Thor (Hammer of God)" 
<thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:

> No provision for funding with PUBLIC money.  Private funds (premiums)
> only.
>

Really?  Page 115 of the GPO copy of HR 3962 has the heading "Abortions 
for which public funding is allowed".

In sec 265 on page 160 the act authorizes funding abortions with federal 
funds for "a woman who suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, 
or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the 
woman in danger of death unless the abortion is performed, including a 
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the 
pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape 
or incest."

This places the judgment in the hands of a physician, some of whom would 
be more than happy to certify a woman for abortion whose life was not 
really in danger.  But even if every case could be certified as true and 
accurate, the fact remains that federal funds would pay for abortions.

The plan fact is that your statement is false, as is made obvious in the 
bill.

Page 117, Sec 1303, Subsection b, subsection ii of the Senate version is 
titled "Abortions for which public funding is allowed"

Need I go further?

The fact is that, in their present forms, both the House and Senate 
version provide public funding for abortions.  No, it's not abortion on 
demand, but it is abortion.

Stop taking the news media's word for the facts and do your own research.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists