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.

Star Wars characters on Facebook: [link]

I was making calls for the Senate special election here last night, and someone asked me what my candidate thought about abortion. I said he's pro choice, and she said then she wouldn't vote for him. Um, if you're voting in the Democratic primary in Massachusetts, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to pick on that.

What are your criteria for "reasonable" (serious question)?

I'm guessing internal consistency, since that's what his earlier critique of their platform was about.

But Gud can speak for himself.

I do not believe that it is reasonable to oppose government funding of a legal procedure based on a personal belief.

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.

No, there isn't. Because this is the first instance in which the issue has hinged on fungibility. Normally, you could say that no subsidy dollars could be directed to abortion services. Those funds would have to be segregated in separate accounts and funded out of private dollar premiums. It's a bit of an accounting fiction, but it's the reason that, let's pick a random example, the fucking Catholic Church is able to take in millions in federal and local funds to finance their (generally very worthwhile) social service activities while not running afoul of church/state.

This is how virtually every religious institution operates - the funds are kept separate, but in reality, every federal dollar financing a church program is a dollar from the collection plate freed up for strictly religious activities.

Now, suddenly, when it comes to women's health and reproductive services, that's not good enough? Fuck them and the sanctimonious, hypocritical horse they rode in on.