Why would an admittedly anti-abortion President reject legislation to provide children with healthcare?

The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.Why would an admittedly anti-abortion President reject legislation to provide children with healthcare?Because nobody connects the dots. It's like opposing abortion, but having no financial plan to deal with the 2-3 million unwanted children who are going to be born every year and dumped into the child welfare system. Nobody is thinking anything out. Ridiculous, isn't it?Why would an admittedly anti-abortion President reject legislation to provide children with healthcare?
Notice, more costly. And you people ***** about the deficit. Republicans spend more my foot.Why would an admittedly anti-abortion President reject legislation to provide children with healthcare?Because he doesn't really care about babies or children. He's anti-choice because he believes women need to be controlled.
Because it extends government coverage to those who should be able to afford it on their own for one.Why would an admittedly anti-abortion President reject legislation to provide children with healthcare?the program was not intended to become that large and cover that much.Why would an admittedly anti-abortion President reject legislation to provide children with healthcare?
If you do not understand why he would it is because you ignorant of why he is anti abortion.

Most anti abortion people believe that a fetus is a human life. As a human life it is protected by the Constitution.

The constitution protects people from the Government. That is why it was written.

Now health care will not protect children.

You can go into any hospital and you will not be refused health care no matter your income.

Government health care will be less beneficial to more people.

If you do not believe me you can test it. Go to inner city free clinics and see if you would like to be treated there. I wouldn't let my child walk in there unless it was absolutely necessary. Why would I want that to be the only place available to him
The purpose of the proposed SCHIPS expansion is to further socialize medicine in this country by extending FREE HEALTHCARE to children in families earning up to $82,000 per year.



So, there's mom, dad, the two kiddies, and $82K in annual income. If you think that a family like that needs FREE HEALTHCARE I'd start by telling you that NOTHING IS FREE. Duh!Why would an admittedly anti-abortion President reject legislation to provide children with healthcare?
Because Bush does not give a flying bag of monkey s**t about anyone that is not part of the financial elite. Bush could watch a baby die and go right on eating. He is cold and indifferent to the people that work hard to make this country run.
There are other avenues available besides socialized medicine.
How much of this legislation is laden with "pork" for Democrat special interest groups to get it passed and how much of it would actually go kids healthcare? I'd be willing to bet that is the reason for the rejection. Welcome to politics.

nada boats

money games