If NRLC is against it, I'm for it:

[jenmito]

National Right to Life Committee statement on new Reid abortion language



WASHINGTON (December 19, 2009, 2:00 PM EST): The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, strongly opposes the abortion language contained in the "manager's amendment" filed today by U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nv.). Reid intends to press for Senate approval of the language during the days immediately ahead, without allowing an opportunity for any revisions to be considered.



The following statement may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson:



The manager’s amendment is light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was approved by the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194. The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.



NRLC will score the upcoming roll call votes on cloture on the Reid manager’s amendment, and on the underlying bill, as votes in favor of legislation to allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, to oversee multi-state plans that cover elective abortions, and to empower federal officials to mandate that private health plans cover abortions even if they do not accept subsidized enrollees, among other problems.


<snip>

http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/Release121909.html

[polichick]

1. That's just silly - Planned Parenthood and NOW are against it too. nt

[jenmito]

5. I know. I started this thread to counter that thread.

[Progressive_Angel]

2. look what ed said

it's a shell game they are playing on the american people

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

4. I try to think for myself instead of letting my political opponents think for me. nt

[jenmito]

6. So do I. And the fact that NOW opposes it doesn't mean WE should.

[girl_interrupted]

7. NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood & the AFL-CIO

the AFL-CIO is the largest union in the country,not to mention, MoveOn, are against it, so am I.

[jenmito]

8. So does the Catholic Church, the entire Repub. Caucus, the FRC,

and even Stupak (of the Stupak Amendment). I'm for it.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Then I don't understand, "If NRLC is against it, I'm for it."

I agree with not opposing something just because allies oppose something.

[jenmito]

10. It was pretty much just a thread to combat another thread. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

11. Will you share the link with me so I can go give them a hard time? nt

[girl_interrupted]

12. The reason Pro-Life Groups are also against it is

because they fear an "opt" out clause....in cases of rape, threat to life of the mother and incest. Which some states may allow, while others won't. They dont want to run the risk of funding any kind of abortion, whatsoever.

Quite different reasons, from NOW, NARAL, & Planned Parenthood. Pro-Lifers are against any reproductive rights for women...they advocate telling women what they can do with their bodies, including, like the Catholics...no birth control. Women to them are walking incubators, not people.

Pro-Lifers are not for healthcare reform to begin with, they don't support public option or medicare buy ins. Not true of the other groups I listed. I have my reasons for not supporting the current bill, it has nothing to do with the reasons of Pro-Lifers. In fact, it is the direct opposite. I may be a democrat, but I am also an individual, just because my party says something, I don't have to agree. And when I look at the bigger picture, my views are the same as NOW, NARAL and the rest. They represent how I feel.

[ZombieHorde]

13. "because they fear an "opt" out clause....in cases of rape, threat to life of the mother and incest"

Sharing a concern with a group is different than blindly going with or against a group.

You make a good point.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. That's quite foolish as an approach to thinking