# Liberals: Would You Support An Abortion Ban In Exchange For A UHC Bill and Immigration Reform **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276 "2010-03-21T22:45:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/121 "2010-03-22T16:35:52Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > In response to a thread about how many religious conservatives object to a UHC bill because they believe it will fund abortions would you support a deal with religious conservatives to support an unilateral ban on abortion by constitutional amendment except if the mother’s life is threatened in exchange for a comprehensive universal health care bill and immigration reform? Fuck no. I plan on making repeated donations for the defeat of a guy named Stupak next time the primaries come along. And if that doesn’t work, for his defeat by the Republican challenger. “Fair compromise” is a zone approached when we continue to allow the restrictions on abortion allowed by _Roe_ and _Webster_ while mandating that an abortion _provider_ must be present in every hospital if Medicare, Medicaid, or UHC reimbursal or any sort of federal funding can be applied there. (I’m OK with the abortion services being ‘provided’ by external referral to an organization across town, but it should have to be within 30 miles or so). ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/122 "2010-03-22T16:51:58Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Nope. You get a choice. Either enter into the contract OR pay an extra tax. The income tax code does this type of thing all over the place. If I don’t get a mortgage, I pay extra taxes. If I don’t donate to charity, I pay extra taxes. There’s no difference between that and what is happening with the health care bill. And this has already been covered in this thread. Obviously, and I can’t believe I have to point this out, the difference here is a tax on income, vs a tax on the person. For this to be constitutional, it would have to be evenly distributed across the population, as per the 16th amendment. If a state has 10% of the population, they’d have to pay 10% of the tax. This bill isn’t written like that; it exempts individuals under 100% of the poverty line, exempts illegals… ie constitutionally fatal to this bill. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/123 "2010-03-22T16:57:41Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > I will only say this: Curtis LeMay, you are dreadfully naive if you think outlawing abortion is going to curtail abortions in anyway. > > I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again. People want there to be less abortions? Education, easy access to birth control, less stigma for using birth control. > > That is the ONLY way you are going to get less abortions and it won’t happen for a couple of generations. We have to think long term. And this is what most pro-life people can’t seem to understand. See, I’m not in favor of abortion. But the problem is that making abortion illegal won’t do much to prevent abortion. And if abortion is made illegal, what penalties for procuring or performing an abortion does Curtis imagine? The death penalty? As for the notion of a costitutional amendment banning abortion, that’s just impossible. How are you going to get that to pass in 3/4ths of the State houses? Thing is, we have legal abortion in this country, and most people are pretty much in favor of the status quo. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, that still wouldn’t illegalize abortion, it would just make criminalization of abortion constitutional. You’d still have to actually criminalize it state by state. And while you’ll find some states where this is possible, in most states it won’t be. You think New York and California are going to criminalize abortion? You can find plenty of people who are against abortion (like, say, me), but don’t think the best way to oppose abortion is criminalization. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/124 "2010-03-22T16:57:54Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > What are the odds. I just started a thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556773) about this. ha, guess I’m in the wrong thread. I hope Elvis and Toddler and Whack have their ears on this thread. They’re wrong. **NotreDame05** has got it right, in your thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/125 "2010-03-22T16:59:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Your response is uneducated and incorrect. That’s what happens when you get all your information from Sean Hannity. The federal government’s right to do this has already been adjudicated. The state “laws” and threatened lawsuits being proffered by pandering politicians in redneck states are just so much empty theater and grandstanding symbolism. You’re welcome to believe it course, just like you’re welcome to believe in elves, but these lawsuits will go nowhere, the state laws will mean nothing, and people who can afford health insurance but don’t buy will pay their penalties. _Tetelestai_, bro. You can kick and scream all you want, **Dio** , but unless you plan to offer a link to the aforementioned adjudication, you’ll forgive me if I continue to doubt you. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/126 "2010-03-22T17:02:27Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Obviously, and I can’t believe I have to point this out, the difference here is a tax on income, vs a tax on the person. For this to be constitutional, it would have to be evenly distributed across the population, as per the 16th amendment. If a state has 10% of the population, they’d have to pay 10% of the tax. This bill isn’t written like that; it exempts individuals under 100% of the poverty line, exempts illegals… ie constitutionally fatal to this bill. Oh, not this capitation nonsense. I can’t believe anybody is actually making this argument. The government has the power to raise or lower your taxes based on your individual behavior. It does it all the time. This is being implemented as an income tax, pure and simple, and as such, does not have to be evenly distributed across the population. And I can’t believe that I have to point this out too, but the 16th amendment doesn’t require even apportionment. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/127 "2010-03-22T17:02:52Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Obviously, and I can’t believe I have to point this out, the difference here is a tax on income, vs a tax on the person. For this to be constitutional, it would have to be evenly distributed across the population, as per the 16th amendment. If a state has 10% of the population, they’d have to pay 10% of the tax. This bill isn’t written like that; it exempts individuals under 100% of the poverty line, exempts illegals… ie constitutionally fatal to this bill. Huh? You’ve got it backwards. The 16th Amendment was passed explictly to defeat this type of argument, that income taxes were unconstitutional because they weren’t apportioned equally among the states. Since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution allows taxation without apportionment, and the 16th Amendment is part of the constitution, then taxation without apportionment is constitutional. Just in case you missed it, here’s the text of the 16th Amendment again: > [@](#): > > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. US Constitution Amendment 16. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/128 "2010-03-22T17:10:31Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > And I can’t believe that I have to point this out too, but the 16th amendment doesn’t require even apportionment. No, the Supreme court did immediately after it’s passage in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206. Edit for some clarity: They were discussing the differences between income tax a la 16th amend vs a capitation tax, which is what we’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/129 "2010-03-22T17:13:24Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > No, the Supreme court did immediately after it’s passage in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206. > > Edit for some clarity: They were discussing the differences between income tax a la 16th amend vs a capitation tax, which is what we’re talking about. No, you don’t get to declare a tax you don’t like a capitation tax by fiat. There is no legal difference between this and any other way our income tax code is used. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/130 "2010-03-22T17:23:45Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > No, you don’t get to declare a tax you don’t like a capitation tax by fiat. There is no legal difference between this and any other way our income tax code is used. I didn’t label it by fiat. I used it correctly. If you don’t like it, take it up with [the authorities](http://www.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/capitation-tax). > [@](#): > > Capitation Tax: An assessment levied by the government upon a person at a fixed rate regardless of income or worth. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/131 "2010-03-22T17:28:25Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > I didn’t label it by fiat. I used it correctly. If you don’t like it, take it up with [the authorities](http://www.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/capitation-tax). I have no idea what you’re talking about here. The tax is clearly tied to income. It’s capped at 2% of income. ETA: It’s capped at 2% or $2250 (adjusted annually). ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/132 "2010-03-22T17:32:14Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I have no idea what you’re talking about here. The tax is clearly tied to income. It’s capped at 2% of income. ETA: It’s capped at 2% or $2250 (adjusted annually). No, the \*exceptions \*are tied to income plus a bunch of other stuff (illegal aliens, etc). The tax is tied to the forced entry into a private contract. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/133 "2010-03-22T17:40:25Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > No, the \*exceptions \*are tied to income plus a bunch of other stuff (illegal aliens, etc). Right. If the tax is tied to 2% of your income, that is somehow not tied to your income. These arguments have reached a point of nonsense. > [@](#): > > The tax is tied to the forced entry into a private contract. Optional entry. You get the choice of paying additional tax or buying insurance. Just like you get the choice of paying additional tax or buying a mortgage. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/134 "2010-03-22T17:46:14Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > In response to a thread about how many religious conservatives object to a UHC bill because they believe it will fund abortions would you support a deal with religious conservatives to support an unilateral ban on abortion by constitutional amendment except if the mother’s life is threatened in exchange for a comprehensive universal health care bill and immigration reform? Whoa, what? See this: [Induced abortion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Induced%20abortion) from Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as therapeutic when it is performed to: > > ``` > * save the life of the pregnant woman;[12] > * preserve the woman's physical or mental health;[12] > * terminate pregnancy that would result in a child born with a congenital disorder that would be fatal or associated with significant morbidity;[12] or > * selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.[12] > > ``` > > An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman “for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease.”[13] (Note that there is a usage variance; some will call any induced abortion “therapeutic,” in contrast to spontaneous abortion.) “Life of the mother” is far too narrow. I could live with a **law** , not a constitutional amendment, prohibiting elective abortions, but not medically indicated therapeutic abortions. As for immigration reform, that depends on what it is. It might be something I want or something else I don’t want & have to put up with. In fact, the OP sounds like a bizarre kind of extortion. “We’ll let you have health care (which benefits everybody) in exchange for immigration reform (which we want) & banning abortions in most cases (which only some of us & practically none of you want), ain’t that a deal?!” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/135 "2010-03-22T19:11:49Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I honestly have no idea who newsmax is or why it’d be funny but ok. They are a very far right “news” site, known for outright lies and publishing such things as as an article calling for a military coup against Obama. They don’t qualify as a cite for much of anything but how loony the Right is. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/136 "2010-03-23T02:07:31Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I heard somewhere that 30 million of the 40 million currently uninsured can AFFORD healthcare, they just choose to do without. Who decides what “afford” means? The last quote I got for a policy (which I was ultimately denied for pre-existing conditions) would’ve run me $10,600 a year. For me, a single individual. That’s about 1/3 of my take-home pay every year. I _could_ afford that if I sold my car and rode a bike everywhere (not physically possible) and took in two boarders to help pay the mortgage and never bought new clothes or ate a meal in a restaurant. Ever. But technically it’s less money than I earn, so I could afford it. > [@Kearsen](#): > > I honestly have no idea who newsmax is or why it’d be funny but ok If you don’t know anything about the source of your cite, you shouldn’t use it as a cite. > [@AHunter3](#): > > I plan on making repeated donations for the defeat of a guy named Stupak next time the primaries come along. And if that doesn’t work, for his defeat by the Republican challenger. He has a democrat challenger already in the race, Connie Saltonstall. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/137 "2010-03-23T02:40:44Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Incidentally I do support ERA because in my opinion the wording of the document which gives total equality for both sexes explicitly gives one of two choices: 1) neither men nor women can have the right to choose abortion or 2) men can have say in making women have abortions. I already have the same abortion rights as a woman has. A woman who is not pregnant has no say in any abortion, just like I have no say in any abortion. If I want to get an abortion, or to make a meaningful decision not to have an abortion, I better figure out how to get pregnant, just like a woman does. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/138 "2010-03-23T02:46:33Z")
[QUOTE=tumbleddown] He has a democrat challenger already in the race, Connie Saltonstall. [/quote] And her campaign already has some of my donation money. I’ll probably wait a while to see if she looks like the strongest Dem challenger before repeating the process, but if I don’t give her more it will be because I give it to another challenger. ---
**Author:** ![Tinkertoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f19dbf/32.png) [@Tinkertoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tinkertoy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/139 "2010-03-23T02:51:29Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Well, duh. > I’d buy coverage before I started racking up the bills. Rocket science this is not. So on your way home from work you are hit by a drunk driver with no insurance. You suffer head trauma as well as a punctured lung and spleen, multiple fractured bones and lacerations. After many hours in several surgeries you are in a coma for 6 weeks. When you wake up you are handed a bill for over $400.000. When was it you planned on buying insurance? Not rocket science indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/140 "2010-03-23T02:56:31Z")
No. I don’t believe that the Religious Right’s view that a clump of cells constitutes an American citizen whose rights supersede a pregnant adult American citizen. If a ‘deal with the devil’ could be struck for the betterment of most Americans I still wouldn’t want to do it at the expense of the few. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276.md?page=8)