gandolf: A better term that more accurately describes "working to make affordable insurance available to everyone" would be socialism. You can look it up.

So by your statement, YOU get to determine the meaning of the word "socialism Maybe YOU should look it up. Socialism applies to ownership of the mechanisms of PRODUCING and DISTRIBUTING GOODS, not trying to make a particular item affordable. You could say that Social Security, Medicare, FDIC insurance and the national parks system are all socialist programs, but I don't think many people would say they are inherently bad ideas. And why does no one whine about federally available (socialist?) flood insurance, the biggest consumers of which are those stalwarts of capitalism, TEXANS! Don't get hung up on labels, lets just do what works.

And there's one other example of humans who are deliberately killed legally. It's called capital punishment, and it's always overlooked by anti-choice, myopic patriots like yourself.

People who are "pro-life" should also take an issue with the ever-increasing amount of individuals who HAVE been born who are unable to treat their chronic, debilitating, and at times fatal medical conditions because they have been priced out (or forced out) of a backward health insurance industry, which maintains legal rights to remove "undesirable" patients from their rosters, INCLUDING pregnant women. Is it our belief that once a person exits the womb, his or her right to life essentially ends? That seems to be the message that is being portrayed.

Also, if you read the article, you'll realize that a little bit of that "socialism" could actually help your anti-abortion cause.

Before you refer people to the dictionary, you should make sure YOU understand the term. There is no talk of government controlling the means of production.
Also, unborn = not yet a human being with human rights. Where've you been all these years? Can't make an assertion fact, just by saying it a lot.

gandolf wants to protect the unborn but isn't willing to do anything once the "innocents" are born. We've had this debate before:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-16/obamas-catholi c-conversion/

To refresh gandolf's memory

Would I like every pregnancy to be wanted? Yes.

Does that always happen? No.

Did I want women to be punished for having sex? No.

Does the Catholic Church's/Congress's policies on Birth Control and Abortion strive to punish having sex? Yes.

Has it worked? No.

Are there more important issues facing humanity to focus our attention?

YES!!!!!"

While I too oppose abortion, I very much take seriously the tens of thousands of people who die needlessly due to lack of access to healthcare. I don't disagree that there are many problems with the current health care/health insurance debate. But to pretend that there is not a moral obligation to change the way our nation treats the poor and sick is such a distortion of any culture of life that it threatens to destroy any moral high ground gained in other areas. If pro-lifers want to be taken seriously, we have to take life seriously, all the way through to natural death. That means: caring for the sick and poor among us. That means: opposing the death penalty. That means: opposing unjust war. Lets not define ourselves into our little comfort zone here and pretend that the other issues don't require our attention.

And I'm sorry, but the red-scare tactics don't work so well anymore. We've always socialized national defense and many other things we take for granted. We can choose to socialize medicine, too, if we feel it is important enough that our brothers and sisters not die for lack of funds.

I don't understand why only the unborn are referenced with pro-lifers. Most (not all) are so concerned about the rights of the unborn, but what about those who are executed by the state? They have no "right to life"? As scientific techniques improve, we are finding out about more and more people sentenced to prison, and now in Texas, one who was executed who was most probably innocent. Where is the outrage for that life?

Affordable available to everyone is not equivalent with socialism. It is equivalent with a successful democracy based on the rights of all of its constituents. The Constitution says that we established the country "...to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...". Why do you choose to interpret those words so narrowly? I am more likely to die from a premature heart attack than a terrorist attack, so why isn't my health care part of the national defense? My general Welfare includes getting yearly physicals. The Blessings of Liberty are surely only enjoyed if I can take care of my health without going bankrupt.

I propose that it is UN-Constitutional to NOT have health care for all.

Huh!? Connie 47 is right instead of pro-life centered around a single narrow minded issue (abortion) it should apply from cradle to the grave then maybe your issue can start attracting more hearts and minds, instead of making abortion a legal issue which it is not, it is a moral issue and a personal issue.

You both need to think for yourselves!

I hate when good ideas are ruined by unbalanced rhetoric. I am more convinced than ever that we need a single-payer system. If folks like Olbermann, Beck, Schultz, and Hannity have taught us anything, it's that many people are clearly NOT getting the medications they sorely need.

aackc1 Did you even read this great article tax dollers do not go for abortion and they never have.

Idicula... I was responding to the comments, not the article. Did you the comments I replied to or just my comments?

and it would help if I could spell 'seemingly". It's been a long day.