4th Generation Atheist

Just to fan the flames ( ), I'll point out that it isn't just an abortion issue that's touched on here, but an immigration one. The mothers would be covered if they have been here for five years; hm. It's not like illegals are going to find it easy to qualify anyway; this is about legal immigrants. In other words, our "home" mothers who happen to be poor are ok; those immigrant women, even if they're working hard at our bottom-level (uninsured and poverty-wage) jobs in an honest, legal matter, don't. The "unborn baby", or whatever you call it (insert term here that won't send 4th to jail! ) qualifies because, if born, it will be an American natural-born citizen. So much for "give me your tired, your poor..." but of course if you still believe that old saw you have a little waking-up to do.

Pomp

brighid,

Furthermore why must a fetus or embryo be defined as anything in order to extend a MOTHER better health care?

That's the real question here. Until the supporters of this plan provide some compelling reason that better coverage for women would not solve the perceived problem, this will stand among the most underhanded schemes by which religious dogma has been illegally imposed on the American people.

fromtheright

Corey,

I rely on Madison's strict interpretation of the clause from The Federalist (number 44 or 46, I think), in which he argued that the "general welfare" is a general objective of the Constitution for which the specific powers were listed below in Article I. It is an argument that he also made in the debate on the National Bank, an argument for which Hamilton had an answer but one I think disingenuous given the appeal made in the ratification debates that the Constitution would not endanger state powers or sovereignty.


Toto,

Your argument remains fallacious. Because I don't favor all means of promoting life doesn't mean that I don't favor life. Because I don't favor having Army MP's in tanks controlling intersections doesn't mean that I oppose orderly traffic.
Also, please don't mis-state my position. I didn't say that I "oppose providing social services that promote life", I said that I oppose federal government involvement. And it really has nothing to do with a taxing scheme, it has to do with public policy and spending.