RogerN wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message


...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.


Did you believe
Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
executive order, that he can remove any time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the
facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by
taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
there is no question. They refuse to give it to him in writing, why?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

Why does Planned Parenthood say it is a victory that it is without
the Stupak abortion ban? Sorry to say but I'm afraid that your party
had duped you.

You are indeed sorry. In an earlier post you demonstrated that you don't
even have a grip on what actually happened Roger.
The Senate passed their version of the bill. The House passed theirs.
Rather than conference the bill, it went to reconciliation. The House passed
the Senate bill and then the budget reconciliation.
The reconciliation package went to the Senate and while every attempt to
amend the bill was voted down, the Parliamentarian found two technical
flaws. The reconciliation package, with the flawed language removed, was
then passed by the Senate and the House will take it up tonight. Pelosi has
indicated that it will pass and if it does, Obama will then sign it into
law.

HTH
But I doubt it.

--
John R. Carroll