It's kind of sweet that they take the 8 out of 10 thing so literally. Almost like it was a verse out of revelation.

You gotta love that "WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views;" is in the same document.

I imagine the Democratic purity test would be.

(1) We agree to call ourselves Democrats.

I think that's about the extent of what you could do.

We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat; Whatever that means.

We're going to turn a big glass jar upside down over Iran and North Korea and then slide a piece of cardboard underneath to make sure they're contained.

We're going to turn a big glass jar upside down over Iran and North Korea and then slide a piece of cardboard underneath to make sure they're contained.

DOME!

</Homer>

Perfectly reasonable to oppose government funding of abortion

Not wanting to open a can of worms, but I disagree. It's a legal medical procedure. Are other legal medical procedures specifically blocked from coverage under the public option? As others have noted, we as Americans don't generally get to choose where our tax dollars go, or mine wouldn't be going to fund industrial farming, etc.

though I think the current house legislation goes beyond that to blocking private funding too.

My understanding is that the amendment states that if you get any public subsidy, your private insurance may not cover your abortion using public funds. Or something. Which enrages me b/c the whole point is equal access to medical care. But whatever.

Not wanting to open a can of worms, but I disagree. It's a legal medical procedure.

I think the stand is reasonable, it's specific and not hypocritical. Whether a legal procedure should be specifically excluded is another matter.

I think the amendment says that if you get any public subsidy that you cannot purchase a private insurance plan that covers abortion.

My understanding is that the amendment states that if you get any public subsidy, your private insurance may not cover your abortion using public funds.

Under Stupak, if the plan covers abortion, then it cannot accept any participants using government subsidies. Which means that plans have a choice - say bye bye to a huge chunk of the initial market for the exchange, or bye bye to abortion services. In effect, no plans will offer abortion coverage even though they're not specifically barred.

As others have noted, we as Americans don't generally get to choose where our tax dollars go, or mine wouldn't be going to fund industrial farming, etc.

I don't really think that's true. We don't get to choose as individuals, but we can elect people who will enact legislation to change where our tax dollars go. If there was enough support to prevent subsidies for certain types of farming, it could be done.

I think the stand is reasonable

What are your criteria for "reasonable" (serious question)? My personal criteria include logical and fair.

We don't get to choose as individuals, but we can elect people who will enact legislation to change where our tax dollars go. If there was enough support to prevent subsidies for certain types of farming, it could be done.

Right, but the chances of finding a candidate that agrees with every one of any given individual's stances is pretty small, if not infinitesimally so.

In effect, no plans will offer abortion coverage even though they're not specifically barred.

Excuse me while I go have a rage blackout (/Summer Roberts). Talk about government interference in the private market. And Stupak's a Dem, right? I wonder if there was a pro-abortion Dem candidate in his district. See above re: having to vote for candidates who don't support all your views.

Perfectly reasonable to oppose government funding of abortion

In the context of the current health care debate, there's a certain logic to applying the Hyde Amendment (which is what I think of as "opposing government funding of abortion") to government-funded health insurance. Which isn't to say that the Hyde Amendment is wise law, just that applying it would maintain internal consistency with existing government policies.

As others have pointed out, the Stupak Amendment goes much further into areas that shouldn't be gone into.