Slate used to be a place about interesting observations, strange balancing acts between extremes, or third ways. Now, it publishes pieces saying "Amendments that seek to restrict abortion should be opposed by people who want abortions to be widely available." That's a robo-call from the left, not an intelligent commentary on anything. Noah should be embarrassed, should hide his face and take a vow of silence for a few years, to do penance and give himself a chance to regain a public voice that ads something to the debate.

Granted your quote (which I didn't see in the piece) is not exactly insightful, but it's clearly true. People who want abortions to be widely available SHOULD OPPOSE efforts to restrict it. And the converse is equally true. All he is saying is that pro-lifers are using health care reform to advance their cause. Of course they are. And I'm sure the pro-choice advocates are also trying. This is neither surprising nor wrong.

I agree that the piece doesn't add much to the public discourse, but it's not really slanted.

I think it's very relative to point out the inherent hypocrisy of an organization like Focus on Family to get their health insurance from a private company that also supplies abortion coverage, who then wants to deny others that same choice when it comes to public health care.

Apparently, if you have money you have choice. If you're poor then you're subjected to private religious organizations moral agenda. I guess it's their fault for being poor.

I'm sorry, am I the only one that sees this huge ass plank in their eye?

The real irony is that Right Wing Abortion foes are trying to insert language banning abortions into a Health Care reform bill that not one of them will vote in favor of anyway.

And spineless Democrats will let them get away with it.

Do not feed.

Don't get on some mythical moral high ground. There isn't any for the pro-abortion side in this argument - each side is trying to take away the choice of the other. The only side that isn't getting a vote is the unborn.

I'm not sure I understand your definition of troll.

BenK when you personally stand up and accept personal, financial, moral and educational responsibility for all the unborn fetuses you so stridently want to protect, I'll accept the premise that you have a say in over how I treat my body. Pro-lifers are not in favor of life in any respect. They are in favor of legislating the morals and decisions of other people of which they know nothing. They favor the death penalty and the reduction of financial and educational benefits to poor families and working mothers. This is not a prolife sentiment, this is a nazi call to control those less fortunate than yourself.

You don't seem like much of a wonk.

For one, be consistent. If you argue that I know nothing about other people - then you know nothing about me or anyone else. In that case, your inference about Nazis is likely to either be because you are extrapolating from your only experience - yourself - or because you are a sociopath, hating everyone other than yourself.

Or perhaps I know something of people... and in that case, if I care for them, I don't want them hurting themselves or others. In that pursuit, I can try to prevent harm by trying to protect them from themselves or from others; this includes mothers and other relatives of the unborn and the unborn themselves.

BenK:

Now, it publishes pieces saying "Amendments that seek to restrict abortion should be opposed by people who want abortions to be widely available.".

Actually this article stated that "Pro-life politicians attempt to use health reform to restrict private insurer's ability to offer coverage in their plans that their female customers want". Didn't Harry & Louise tell us that "choice" was what made the American private insurance based system so great?

Didn't Harry & Louise tell us that "choice" was what made the American private insurance based system so great?

However the core of the argument is that it will always be their choice (the Religious Right), not yours.

>>>>Actually this article stated that "Pro-life politicians attempt to use health reform to restrict private insurer's ability to offer coverage in their plans that their female customers want".

Which is a lie, every bit as crazy as the GOP Birthers. The head of NARAL doesn't seem to know the difference between a PLAN and an insurance company, and Noah jumps into the same hysteria.

Liberals trying to mandate abortion coverage are just as evil as conservatives seeking to ban it. It's called CHOICE, and I'm still laughing at the idea of an anti-choice liberal on this.

http://PoliticallyHomeless.net

opus512:

I think it's very relative to point out the inherent hypocrisy of an organization like Focus on Family to get their health insurance from a private company that also supplies abortion coverage, who then wants to deny others that same choice when it comes to public health care.

Apparently, if you have money you have choice. If you're poor then you're subjected to private religious organizations moral agenda. I guess it's their fault for being poor.

I'm sorry, am I the only one that sees this huge ass plank in their eye?

Yes you are. Like Noah and the head of NARAL, you are confused between a company and a PLAN. They are DIFFERENT.

You also claim to see an attempt to deny abortion coverage to those who want it????

Uhhh, where. Here's what it says:

"No funds authorized under this Act … may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan [italics mine] that includes coverage of abortion,"

Noah puts it in italics and STILL misses the point?

Liberal wingnuts can be every bit as hysteria-driven as conservative ones. Anyone else confused on the difference between a PLAN and a COMPANY?

You forgot to mention those under 18, they have no vote.

Just out of curiosity, how would you register the unborn to vote (assuming motor voter is not an option)?

With good samaritans like Ben, who needs Nazis?