About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

On Dobbs, Donohue claims that the House health care reform bill "explicitly says" that the public option will fund abortion

November 06, 2009 12:10 pm ET

From the November 5 broadcast of United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MeanMrSpicyMustard (November 06, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
      3  
      [citation needed]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (November 06, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
      2  
      It can't. The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funding for abortions.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (November 06, 2009 12:39 pm ET)
         
      Wasn't this featured in one of yesterday's clips?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (November 06, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
           
        Was it ? If so, I don't see any problem in repeating items about conservatives demanding that laws respect their religious establishment. Even out of power, they're trying to shred the Constitution.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 06, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
          2  
          Says the guy that sees the power to establish a federal healthcare insurance program in stated or enumerated powers of the same document.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (November 06, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
               
            A healthy population with decent affordable health care could be reasonably assumed under the general welfare. I'm not saying it's explicitly laid out there, but that's not what the Constitution does.

            There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the people from using the power of our numbers to improve society. There is a specific mention of the prohibition of laws based on religion.

            True, you may be able to find anti-abortion activists who are not religious, but the movement is, for the most part, a faith-based agenda to impose the government on the freedoms of others.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by liberalXtian (November 06, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
             
          They'll shred it when someone tells them the difference between the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by liberalXtian (November 06, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
      1  
      How many of these wing nuts realize that they are probably helping to pay for abortions through their private health care plans.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (November 06, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
      2 1
      How many times do you see this scenario from right wing nut?

      They say a law contains some specific offensive provision.

      You say no...the law says just the opposite.

      They say the law can be interpreted to contain the offensive provision.

      You point out that the purpose of the law is just the opposite.

      They say, "Well you know Obama is lying and he's going to do that anyway."

      It's just more paranoia from the right wing nuts.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NG_Officer (November 06, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
        2  
        My favorite is:
        "In the future it may..." (become socialized medicine, fund abortions, euthanize granny, etc)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (November 06, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
          1  
          If it weren't for the straw man and the slippery slope, right-wingnuts would have no arguments whatsoever.

          Of course, they're both fallacies, but that has never stopped them before.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (November 06, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
             
          I like that too, NG. It seems like about 95% of what wingnuts are furious about and frightened of are things they've invented or imagine may happen sometime in the future.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (November 06, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
           
        One thing I've commented on elsewhere is that each person basically sees the world from their own point of view*, and has to 'stretch' that to be able to understand even the most basic claims from another. Since the Neocons have 'twisted' laws (see: George W. Bush, signing statements), they expect that the Moderates, Progressives, and Traditional Conservatives (Barry Goldwater et al) will use the same techniques.

        *no pun intended.
        Report Abuse