CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 20, 2014 08:15 AM UTC
16 Comments
I'm sure they'll stop lying about this, right after they stop lying about guns, health care reform, Benghazi, the stimulus…Reagan…
Yeah. Good luck with that.
What's the problem for you libs anyway? Don't you support taxpayer funded abortion on demand?
The problem, as usual, is that your side is full of shit.
I do support that, and I wish that that was how it worked.
What I support is that all legal medical procedures should be covered under the same rules. The fact is, like it or not, abortion is as legal as gall bladder surgery. I don't understand why it shouldn't be covered like any other legal treatment, surgery or procedure.
Either a medical procedure is legal or it isn't and if it is it should qualify for whatever coverage is available for any legal procedure. After all, there are religions that teach the belief that any medical intervention except prayer is against God's will and we don't therefore say there can be no public funding for any medical procedures because it offends some people's religious beliefs to have their money spent that way.
Our tax money gets spent on wars some of us oppose and to subsidize the top fraction of a percent whether we like it or not. Why should tax payers get to pick and choose how their money is spent on legal medical procedures when they aren't allowed to do so for other tax payer funded programs? It makes no sense.
+1000 BC. This also, I believe, ahould be the standard around contraception re ACA. Religious beliefs should hold no sway re health care. That is not religious "freedom", it is religious slavery
I did a little reading and this is what I found:
Expanded taxpayer funding for abortions through ObamaCare
First of all, there is no language in ObamaCare that prevents tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions. The proposed amendment to ObamaCare that would have prevented all taxpayer funding for abortions that was debated in Congress, known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, was not included in the final bill signed by President Obama.
In fact, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress worked considerably to keep the Stupak-Pitts Amendment from being included in the final bill. To be clear, they would have rather had a no health care law than allow ObamaCare to be passed with language preventing taxpayer funding of abortion. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment simply said: “No funds authorized or appropriated by [ObamaCare] may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion ….”
Second, the Hyde Amendment – the yearly amendment to appropriations bills that prevents federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions – does not apply to ObamaCare.
Third, as we have previously explained in detail, the Executive Order signed by President Obama, which he claimed would “ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services,” did not prevent taxpayer funds from being used for abortions – and then Solicitor General Elena Kagan and the White House knew it. This Executive Order does not stop ObamaCare from funding abortion because an executive order cannot trump a congressionally enacted statute.
As our legal analysis of a the bill that would become ObamaCare concluded, there is nothing to “prohibit federal dollars from funding plans that include abortion services.” In fact, the law has a section describing “ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.”
By forcing states to create and run health exchanges and by forcing them to expand their Medicaid rolls which can, and in some case must, include abortion funding, more tax-payer dollars will go to fund abortions.
One example: the Department of Health and Human Services has already used powers granted under ObamaCare to force insurance companies and employers to fully cover an abortion drug.
ObamaCare also provides tax credits and incentives to businesses, insurance companies, and individuals without effectively limiting their being to applied to abortion. Prior to ObamaCare the tax code allowed people todeduct the amount they pay for an abortion from their taxes. Now, under ObamaCare, individuals can not only deduct what they pay for an abortion, they may be able to receive a tax credit to buy insurance policies that cover abortions. The section of the law that purportedly excludes federal dollars from being used to subsidize abortion coverage merely “sets up accounting gimmicks to, supposedly, segregate federal funds from funds being used to pay for abortion services.”
The bottom line is because the law fails to contain any provision actually preventing federal funds from being used to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions, ObamaCare greatly increases taxpayer funding for abortions. And because every American is required to purchase health insurance that in many cases covers, or is even required to cover, abortions, the abortion industry stands to receive windfall profits from ObamaCare.
Regardless of what some in the media, representatives of the abortion industry, or legislators that support abortion say, ObamaCare does provide taxpayer funding for abortion and greatly expands access to abortion. We must stop this pro-abortion law once and for all at the Supreme Court.
http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions
There seems to be a difference of opinion about the scope of taxpayer funding used for abortion services.
@AC;
O.K., you can read—BUT do you understand what you are reading? Obviously not.
I guess AC thinks if you post a bunch of links from kooky right wing blogs then somehow the overall post will appear legitimate, and people will believe it without ever considering the source.
Look at my research, I linked a bunch of info !
What a bunch of crap.
Troll.
Shouldn't big blocks of someone else's work be in a quote box. Is Scooter or Rand Paul turd's mentor?
Just as a point of information, no special language banning tax funding of abortion in ACA was needed because long go legislation already banned tax funding of abortion services. I bet there isn't anything in ACA declaring car theft to be illegal either.
ACA covers car theft? Cool.
Uh-oh. Now some rightie will make that "shocking" claim and say it must be true because he saw it on the intertubes.
I was wondering what other revelations you might have about things that the ACA obviously will allow because they're not explicitly banned.
Right to Life voters, like Gun Rights voters (and there's quite a bit of overlap) are reliable, enthusiastic voters and volunteers.
The only problem is, candidates have to lie to their base in order to get them worked up enough to volunteer, donate, and vote.
Hence, the continual promotion of the "no tax dollars for abortions" meme. No tax dollars have been able to be spent for abortions since the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976, and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980. But every year, they try to ban it again, because they have to look as if they're actually doing something about abortion.
Brophy, Hill, and Colorado RTL could have chosen to tell the truth, that there's no point to banning what has been banned for almost 25 years. Instead, they took the liar's way, disrespecting their constituent's intelligence. Kudos to Spence for having faith in people's abilities to deal with areas of gray.