In response to:

Obamacare Subsidizes Abortions for Women Making $90,000

faultroy Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 9:29 AM
While I sympathize and agree with the author's comments, his comment about right and wrong in the supporting of abortion opens up a whole can of worms. Once we start deciding what is right and wrong in terms of where our tax dollars go in government, that is the begining of anarchy and no government. In addition to abortion, I can think of many governmental activities that I would refuse to fund--like going to war without a declaration by Congress that there is a war for one. This is indeed a slippery slope.
Poesmom Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 5:45 PM
Read the constitution. It is the gov't's role to pay for defense. Whether you agree with a war or not is another question. But it is one of the roles of the gov't. On the other hand it is NOT the role of the gov't to pay for any medical, period. Or food. Or housing.
MG formerly minnesotagrandma Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 10:16 AM
Obama said he did not NEED congressional approval. Was he lying?
badgerpat Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 12:37 PM
Of course Obama was lying.
MG formerly minnesotagrandma Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 1:00 PM
It was kind of rhetorical for fault :)
How rich do you have to be in Barack Obama's America to pay the whole tab for your own abortion? What about a divorced 38-year-old public school principal who has three children and earns $90,000 per year? Would she need to personally pay the full fair to have a doctor kill her fourth child while that child was still in her womb?

Under Obamacare, the federal government will force taxpayers to help her buy insurance that pays for abortions.

Back in March, the Obama administration published the 166-page regulation governing the establishment of Obamacare's state health-insurance exchanges. A few weeks later,...