Re: Software developer looks at CRU code

[Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists () tx rr com>]

--On December 6, 2009 3:46:49 PM -0800 "Thor (Hammer of God)" 
<thor () hammerofgod com> wrote:

> No provision for funding with PUBLIC money.  Private funds (premiums)
> only.

Really?  Page 115 of the GPO copy of HR 3962 has the heading "Abortions 
for which public funding is allowed".

In sec 265 on page 160 the act authorizes funding abortions with federal 
funds for "a woman who suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, 
or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the 
woman in danger of death unless the abortion is performed, including a 
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the 
pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape 
or incest."

This places the judgment in the hands of a physician, some of whom would 
be more than happy to certify a woman for abortion whose life was not 
really in danger.  But even if every case could be certified as true and 
accurate, the fact remains that federal funds would pay for abortions.

The plan fact is that your statement is false, as is made obvious in the 
bill.

Page 117, Sec 1303, Subsection b, subsection ii of the Senate version is 
titled "Abortions for which public funding is allowed"

Need I go further?

The fact is that, in their present forms, both the House and Senate 
version provide public funding for abortions.  No, it's not abortion on 
demand, but it is abortion.

Stop taking the news media's word for the facts and do your own research.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/