About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Van Susteren allows Stupak to again falsely claim his amendment doesn't go beyond Hyde

March 04, 2010 11:11 pm ET

From the March 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor

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

Previously:

Matthews continues to allow Stupak to misinform about abortion funding in the Senate health care bill

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 04, 2010 11:14 pm ET)
      5  
      Bart Stupak would sell the U.S. to the Taliban in exchange for overturning Roe v. Wade. Another one trick pony, religious fanatic...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by leftofwhat (March 04, 2010 11:45 pm ET)
        4  
        Journalism people,journalism ok?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 12:08 am ET)
          9
        Abortion kills more people than the Taliban. Flushing Roe v. Wade down the toilet should be our first priority.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by soze169880 (March 05, 2010 12:47 am ET)
          4  
          Repealing Roe wouldn't do anything to curb the rate of abortions, it would just lead to more women dying. Which, again, you seem okay with.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
              2
            I am pro-life. I don't want anybody to die. If you don't want to die from a botched abortion, then don't have an abortion.

            Repealing Roe v. Wade would allow conservative states UT, TX, SD, WY to repeal aboriton. THis would make access more difficult.

            I support the Irish abortion law. IF it were up to me I would pass a constitutional amendment banning it in all 50 states.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by soze169880 (March 06, 2010 12:17 am ET)
                 
              IF it were up to me I would pass a constitutional amendment banning it in all 50 states.

              Yay for limited guv'mint!
              Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (March 05, 2010 12:53 am ET)
          4  
          Amazing how your people, and worthy of compasion only during that period of time when developing in the womb.
          After that your on your own Jackie.
          Death by Taliban is pretty rare these days, but who's counting. Besides its a scary word, and we all know how important instilling fear in the populus is to the Goppers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (March 05, 2010 12:54 am ET)
            4  
            Well, any American women who die from having to carry a pregnancy to term because theocratic policies can't get them the help they need is also dying by Taliban, albeit the American version, of which BJ is a proud member.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (March 05, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
             
          I wish abortion killed you - damn you are annoying.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 12:08 am ET)
        8
      Abortion most certainly is covered. Read page 2069 of the bill. Get back to me after you have read it. I normally don't like Democrats, but I respect Rep. Stupak for being a man or principle.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (March 05, 2010 12:53 am ET)
        4  
        If I have to pay taxes for "faith-based initiatives" and illegal wars of choice, I cordially invite you to STFU about your "moral objections".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
            2
          SO you think slaughtering babies is OK. If a woman is eight months pregnant and decides she doesn't like the gender of her baby, you are fine with stabbing an innocent defenseless baby in the head with a pair of scissors? If you, you have no soul. YOu are a cold dark person if you support this.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (March 05, 2010 9:59 pm ET)
               
            Depends. What if the baby might grow up to be a progressive?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (March 05, 2010 12:56 am ET)
        3  
        And hey, look, more posts made during the time you're supposed to be at your imaginary job.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by christopher howard (March 05, 2010 6:37 am ET)
          3  
          "I normally don't like Democrats, but I respect Rep. Stupak for being a man or principle."--BJ Fan

          "I just don't see what is wrong with torture. I really don't. Why do you liberals get your panties in a twist over torture? I really don't get it." -- BJ Fan

          Yeah, like anyone should give a damn about anything you have to say about morality.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 05, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
              1
            I do not support torturing people to death. If the torture results in death, I oppose it.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by aj6525 (March 05, 2010 8:51 am ET)
        1  
        Yea until election time.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (March 05, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
         
      If this was true, there would be no need for the stupak amendment as hyde is already current law.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (March 05, 2010 12:12 pm ET)
         
      The purpose of the amendment was to prohibit the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother,which is being interpreted to mean abortions not included in the exceptions may not be covered in a public option or in any of the exchange's private plans that take subsidized customers which would likely be almost every single health insurance plan in the country or a huge chunk of them especially the ones covering people who would never have the money to privately pay for an abortion.

      The Hyde Amendment, passed on September 30, 1976 by the U.S. House by a 207-167 vote, is a limitation amendment barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services

      One bans federal funds that would directly contribute to abortions funding - I dont agree with it but i understand why many would. The other not only bans federal money covering abortion but bans abortion coverage in any plan that is associated with health insurance programs that receive any federal money. Therefore, it would impact vastly more insurance plans and likely all of them at some future point making abortion coverage nearly impossible to get and definitely impossible for anyone who is not already wealthy.
      Report Abuse