Bill Nye: The Science of Abortion

This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific profession felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Dr. Jones wrote:Any thoughts on In Vitro Fertilization?

You mean like in your ass after gay sex?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Those with a bloodlust for unborn baby's blood will be the first to bitch about an eagle's egg being broken. Or some puppy getting run over on a busy highway.

nightlight88 wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Those with a bloodlust for unborn baby's blood will be the first to bitch about an eagle's egg being broken. Or some puppy getting run over on a busy highway.

Coming from someone who will kick that newborn baby under the bus the second anyone asks for any additional money, in the way of higher wages for the parents or food stamps or free healthcare for children, I'll take your comments with a block of salt.

Dr. Jones wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Those with a bloodlust for unborn baby's blood will be the first to bitch about an eagle's egg being broken. Or some puppy getting run over on a busy highway.

Coming from someone who will kick that newborn baby under the bus the second anyone asks for any additional  money, in the way of higher wages for the parents or food stamps or free healthcare for children, I'll take your comments with a block of salt.

I understand your thought process, in conjuction with other bloodlusters.

Your mantra: "Lets kill this unborn, its better than worrying about someone stepping forward to raise it"

Dr. Jones wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Those with a bloodlust for unborn baby's blood will be the first to bitch about an eagle's egg being broken. Or some puppy getting run over on a busy highway.

Coming from someone who will kick that newborn baby under the bus the second anyone asks for any additional  money, in the way of higher wages for the parents or food stamps or free healthcare for children, I'll take your comments with a block of salt.

Thats BS. I don't mind helping children on welfare, but it gravels my ass to pay for some shiftless bastard to get off not paying support for his fun time. Same goes for the mom. You want higher wages then get your HS diploma and some post secondary school training. Besides, the minimum wage is the most inefficient means of lifting people out of poverty. Food stamps are at an all time high. Child healthcare is covered under Medicaid and SCHIP (which wouldn't have passed without the support of Sen Orrin Hatch and a Republican Congress).

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Those with a bloodlust for unborn baby's blood will be the first to bitch about an eagle's egg being broken. Or some puppy getting run over on a busy highway.

Coming from someone who will kick that newborn baby under the bus the second anyone asks for any additional  money, in the way of higher wages for the parents or food stamps or free healthcare for children, I'll take your comments with a block of salt.

Thats BS. I don't mind helping children on welfare, but it gravels my ass to pay for some shiftless bastard to get off not paying support for his fun time.  Same goes for the mom. You want higher wages then get your HS diploma and some post secondary school training. Besides, the minimum wage is the most inefficient means of lifting people out of poverty. Food stamps are at an all time high. Child healthcare is covered under Medicaid and SCHIP (which wouldn't have passed without the support of Sen Orrin Hatch and a Republican Congress).

I wouldn't exactly that the proposal from the "latter-day liberal" was welcomed with open arms by the GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/14/time/carney.htm

And we all know Lil' Bush vetoed it twice, citing that the bill would be a "step toward the federalization of health care."

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Those with a bloodlust for unborn baby's blood will be the first to bitch about an eagle's egg being broken. Or some puppy getting run over on a busy highway.

Coming from someone who will kick that newborn baby under the bus the second anyone asks for any additional  money, in the way of higher wages for the parents or food stamps or free healthcare for children, I'll take your comments with a block of salt.

Thats BS. I don't mind helping children on welfare, but it gravels my ass to pay for some shiftless bastard to get off not paying support for his fun time.  Same goes for the mom. You want higher wages then get your HS diploma and some post secondary school training. Besides, the minimum wage is the most inefficient means of lifting people out of poverty. Food stamps are at an all time high. Child healthcare is covered under Medicaid and SCHIP (which wouldn't have passed without the support of Sen Orrin Hatch and a Republican Congress).

I wouldn't exactly that the proposal from the "latter-day liberal" was welcomed with open arms by the GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/14/time/carney.htm

And we all know Lil' Bush vetoed it twice, citing that the bill would be a "step toward the federalization of health care."

You appear to be confusing/conflating the creation of SCHIP in 1997 with it's attempted expansion in 2007. Bush '43 vetoed that expansion twice when a Democrat controlled Congress attempted to expand SCHIP eligibility to families with incomes up to 400% over the poverty level ($83K) even though the program was designed to provide coverage to low-income families. The $35B expansion was nothing than more than a government giveaway to families already covered by private insurance and to illegal immigrants who would get over $6B. However the tax and spend O'Clowna was more than willing to sign off on the deal in 2009. Thanx O'Clowna.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
This whole manufactured debate concerning "when does human life began" started after Jan 22, 1973 and consists of basically two elements.

One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest.

If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971 the searching completed to date hasn't produced any.

Not sure what you are getting at...

What is confusing to you?

Are you implying that those in the scientific professions felt a more invested interest in accurately documenting the  gestational process post Roe  vs. Wade?  Interesting theory.  Got any data to back it up?

Seriously, what part of

"One element are those who support abortion on demand for convenience and have clouded the issue as when life begins,  (yes Jonesy, your Scott Gilbert got it correct when he stated, "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion.") to justify abortions.

The other element are those who do not support abortion except in those rare cases to preserve the life of the mother and/or cases of rape or incest."

Is so confusing to you????

To be truthful,

"If there any articles to be found debating the fact human life began when the ovum was fertilized by the sperm and made that first cell division on the way to creating the fetus.dated prior to Jan 22, 1973 or when subject first argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971"

was inserted hoping you would link to articles written in, oh say 1950's or 1960's citing the controversy/problem of determining when a human life begins other then when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell division is started.


You and others regardless of avocation or vocation who support abortion on demand out of convenience maintain it is unknown when life begins to justify the killing a human life within the womb.

Those with a bloodlust for unborn baby's blood will be the first to bitch about an eagle's egg being broken. Or some puppy getting run over on a busy highway.

Coming from someone who will kick that newborn baby under the bus the second anyone asks for any additional  money, in the way of higher wages for the parents or food stamps or free healthcare for children, I'll take your comments with a block of salt.

Thats BS. I don't mind helping children on welfare, but it gravels my ass to pay for some shiftless bastard to get off not paying support for his fun time.  Same goes for the mom. You want higher wages then get your HS diploma and some post secondary school training. Besides, the minimum wage is the most inefficient means of lifting people out of poverty. Food stamps are at an all time high. Child healthcare is covered under Medicaid and SCHIP (which wouldn't have passed without the support of Sen Orrin Hatch and a Republican Congress).

I wouldn't exactly that the proposal from the "latter-day liberal" was welcomed with open arms by the GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/14/time/carney.htm

And we all know Lil' Bush vetoed it twice, citing that the bill would be a "step toward the federalization of health care."

You appear to be confusing/conflating the creation of SCHIP in 1997 with it's attempted expansion in 2007. Bush '43 vetoed that expansion twice when a Democrat controlled Congress attempted to expand SCHIP eligibility to families with incomes up to 400% over the poverty level ($83K) even though the program was designed to provide coverage to low-income families. The $35B expansion was nothing than more than a government giveaway to families already covered by private insurance and to illegal immigrants who would get over $6B. However the tax and spend O'Clowna was more than willing to sign off on the deal in 2009. Thanx O'Clowna.

No, not confused at all.  Just illustrating the pushback from the GOP at all stages of the program.  SCHIP was not designed for low income families.  Medicaid was designed  for low income families.  SCHIP was designed for lower-mid income families to help overcome the crippling effects of purchasing private health insurance.  The increased scope that Lil' Bush vetoed multiple times was due to the fact that children in families above the 200% line were still rapidly becoming uninsured.  Due, in part, to the fact that employers were dumping dependents, if not health insurance all together from being part of their compensation package, because of rapidly increasing premiums.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Coming from someone who will kick that newborn baby under the bus the second anyone asks for any additional  money, in the way of higher wages for the parents or food stamps or free healthcare for children, I'll take your comments with a block of salt.

wow, never saw that one coming......

Speaking of abortion ...

Why is it those who support "on demand for convenience"  killing of human life in the womb will usually attempt to justify their evil actions by stating this when responding to those who oppose abortion on demand for convenience,

Give it a rest. If your so against abortion are you also against contraception? Usually you people are??

Face it, if those who support on demand for convenience killing of human life actually understood the use of ALL available  methods of contraception they wouldn't need to resort to this action.

But, they prefer to fulfill the animalistic urge to satisfy a sexual gratification whenever it appears.

The following is an excerpt of a letter to the editor of a newspaper.

After those who support abortion on demand for convenience read the comments please provide an answer to the simple questions below.

The fact is, ignorant people have the most unwanted pregnancies. Information is really important in this area. If we taught sex education in our schools, people would know what they are doing and what the results can be. Knowledge is always a strong tool in decision making. Why do we want to keep people uninformed in an area that can completely change their lives?

1.  Is the author saying those who have unwanted pregnancies DO NOT know what causes a pregnancy?

2.  Who are those who want to keep people from understanding what causes a pregnancy?

3.  Do you actually know anybody, male or female, over the age of 12 who DOES NOT know what causes pregnancy?

Skeptical wrote:
The following is an excerpt of a letter to the editor of a newspaper.

After those who support abortion on demand for convenience read the comments please provide an answer to the simple questions below.

The fact is, ignorant people have the most unwanted pregnancies. Information is really important in this area. If we taught sex education in our schools, people would know what they are doing and what the results can be. Knowledge is always a strong tool in decision making. Why do we want to keep people uninformed in an area that can completely change their lives?

1.  Is the author saying those who have unwanted pregnancies DO NOT know what causes a pregnancy?

2.  Who are those who want to keep people from understanding what causes a pregnancy?

3.  Do you actually know anybody, male or female, over the age of 12 who DOES NOT know what causes pregnancy?

I have no idea what she is rambling on about. Her letter takes quite a walk in the weeds listing every whine imaginable. Gun control? Check. Government corruption? Check. K-12 education? Check. American history? Check. Teacher  pay? Check. Gerrymandering of legislative districts? Check. Maybe Ms Miller needs some cheese with her whine.

For an educated CNP she certainly doesn't demonstrate much skill at constructing an argument or composing a letter. She even seems ignorant of the fact that the viability of a fetus as put forth in Roe v Wade, makes fetal "personhood" subject to change as advances in medicine has shrunk the window of the 1st trimester.