Specifics, please. What am I being biased about? If it’s being biased about using the text of legislation than one’s worst fears, I plead guilty.

If you can show me a specific provision in this bill whose plain language meaning is “You may pay for your abortion with public funds”, I will concede that is what the legislation says.

(3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION COVERAGE- An affordability credit may not be used for payment for services described in section 222(d)(4)(A).

If this doesn’t answer your concern, please let me know why, referencing a bill section or current law if you can.

Actually, federal money is already indirectly paying for abortions through health coverage by the tax advantages given to companies that provide health coverage. Counting these indirect subsidies, I don’t see the House Health bill making the abortion situation worse.

If I’m not mistaken, this may be the first really big piece of social legislation that a majority of Americans have had the ability to see before getting passed into law. It makes me feel privileged to live in the current times. I wonder whether Social Security and/or Medicare would have been passed in their current from if the text of the those bills had been available to the public at large.

It will be interesting to see how this new level of transparency affects things. I share your view that it is at least useful for combating propaganda and focusing the debate on what is being proposed.

I was standing on a boat. The “Alaska Adventure” if I recall right.

What were you standing on that you were so close to the iceberg?

Seriously, Fox opinionators are just a hair away from sedition. No doubt the U.S. Dept. of Justice is waiting for them to cross the line, and the FBI is already on the job monitoring the loyal Fox stupids who broadcast everything they think on them thar intertubes…