YOUR COMMENTS

The bottom line is these people we have who are suppose to be representing us in Washington must go. They are a disgace to the people of this state. Hodes is a coward. Anyone but Hodes in 2010.
- John D., Danbury

Mr Tarr, I don't want to fund religious organizations, but I'm forced to indirectly due to their tax exempt status. For instance, the Bishop in RI told Kennedy he can't participate in a religious ceremony because of his support of abortion rights. That's fine, it's his church...well, his church is in my country, and I say it's time to end the tax exempt status for churches who play politics.

That new taxable income would sure help pay for a lot of abortions.
- DM, Hampton

2010 CAN YOU HEAR US NOW1
- Linda, Derry

I don't agree with abortion so I adopted.
- G.B., Merrimack

Abortion is elective, pay for that, pay for my new boobs!
- R U Kidding?, Merrimack NH

Hodes does not represent the people of New Hamshire. He got elected from a wave of anti-Bush sentiment. He is an embarassment to this state and will be thrown out of office in the next election.
- William, Dover

"The people who complain about paying for abortions are the same people who will complain about paying for the welfare that some of the un-aborted receive. Abortions cost less. And I don't care what you think your god thinks about it. - DM, Hampton". I completely disagree with your statement DM. A life, where it is an unborn child or a senior citizen, you can't put a price tag on it! Choices we all make, and for this reader, my choice is NOT to PAY for someone's choice to take a life, willingly or unwillingly. If they choose to do such acts then they should pay for it themselves, through their own pocket and the insurance they pay into not from mine. I don't pay for a person to get drunk at a bar, I don't pay to put gas in the drunk drivers car for him to drive it, and I certainly don't want to pay for someone taking another person's life. That IS my choice afterall. Mr. Hodes is wrong on all accounts. Thanks goes to Mrs. Ayotte for her statement, people pay for their health care and/or abortions, not someone else.
- Robert M Tarr, Manchester

Texter,

What is next kill people over 30 because they are a burden? kill a child because he/she may be challenged in some way? Please the gov't has no right, yes no right to pay for abortions. Now if a woman chooses to abort, which to me is her right, although I personally don't agree with it, she should pay not me.
- Mike, Manchester

Marc (Derry),

Your position, favoring neither abortion nor capital punishment, is a reasoned and humane one that exemplifies your spirituality. I hope that most abortion foes share your sentiments.
- Dan, Auburn

Dennis (Merrimack),

My comparison of abortion and the death penalty was made to show the hypocrisy displayed by many "pro-life" supporters.

If life is so sacrosanct and god doles out ultimate judgment, what place does anyone have in taking any other human's life?
- Dan, Auburn

To Dave from Hudson: I work in a pharmacy and most insurance companies do cover birth control. Where did you get YOUR info? Anyways, when it comes to the abortion issue, Roe V. Wade will have its life terminated when the Republicans gain the majority in the mid-term elections coming up in Nov.2010 and the presidential election in 2012. Liberals are so out spoken about abortion now because they know this so called "right" is doomed. People who oppose abortion should continue to work hard and make sure people like Congressman Hodes don't get re-elected. The day will come when the people of this country, through their state reps., will finally have a say on whether or not abortion should be legal. Abortion is not about an individual's right to choose. Abortion is a state's rights issue. Decide the issue in our state legislatures, not in Congress or at the Supreme Court!
- Nathan Morin, Berlin

When abortion was passed into law it was to terminate an estimated 500 illegal life endangering abortions a year in the USA. At the time some over estimated abortion at 1,000 or more annually. Since Roe vs. Wade over 50 million plus abortions have occurred with the most having been paid for by our government. Now with liberalization of abortion laws and government payment, 1.1 women in the USA have abortions. Many (20 to 45% plus depending on the geographic area) of women who have abortions are repeat offenders. Women who have abortions have a higher risk for breast cancer and other conditions. They have greater medical issues with subsequent pregnancies and birthing. Additionally and not the least most have psychological problems that affect their families, i.e. used abortion as after the fact pregnancy/birth control. With the life expectency of women, these medical issues are significantly costly to government and medical insurance companies. Life begins at conception. A fetus is a baby. Government sponsored and paid for abortion is genocide and population control. A meager estimate of $1,200 per women for medical expenses times 1.1 million lets you know the cost is gigantic to our government. Now if the vast majority of those 50 million human beings were alive, working, and paying their taxes, we would be in a far better place econoically and otherwise in this country. Also, consder this, when cats and dog overbreed, cities and town SPCA's don't pay for or encourage abortions of pregnant pets, they promote spading and nueturing. If a person kills a pregnant animal it is considered a crime--subject to imprisonment. So what is "Representative" Paul Hodes saying and prmoting here? Now if he is for abortion on demand regardless of the reason, why as a fiscally responsible "representative" is he for govrernment paying for it? Last example for thought, if I need my appenex taken out or I will die, I am entitled to do so--at my and my health insurance expense. Why the different standard regarding abortions--what purpose and goals do government paid abotions achieve?
- Jan, Londonderry, NH

It is important to remember how our representatives voted when the next election comes around.
This guy Hodes, as well as Porter must go. They are there not for New Hampshire, but rather for Pelosi.
- Ed, Londonderry

Mr Hodes apparently doesn't like to make choices based on facts and logic. Less than 1% of abortions performed in the United States are performed as a medical necessity (rape, incest, imminent danger to the mother etc.) 90% of abortions are performed on Blacks. That fact should be of more concern to all of us, including Mr Hodes. Instead he, like carol shea-porter is more concerned with funding racially based infantacide.

Not paying for abortions does not prevent any woman from paying for an abortion herself. No one is denying any woman the right to choose. The arguments for saving money on welfare are missing the point. Welfare is a failed government program. The percent of Americans living in Poverty today is no less than than when welfare was started in the 1960s. It is a failure, a very costly failure which should be eliminated or greatly reduced. Payying for abortions will not save America a single dime. Instead will allow us to continue the sick and wrong idea of shared responsibility rather than self responsibility.
- Michael Layon, Derry

David:

I read it as Kelly is now pro choice and thinks the Government should fund abortions. I guess it's one thing to be pro-choice, but to have the Government pay for it may be difficult for some to support as conservatives.

Isn't this the real issue here? Of course Hodes is pro choice, pro government, pro send our money on anything.... It's where do the Republican candidates stand that is the issue. do all of them support Government payment of abortions?
- john b, Bow

Dan, from Auburn, how many are against abortion *and* the death penalty? Check into the Roman Catholic position on both. While there are probably plenty Catholics who are against their stands on either case, there are 100's of thousands, maybe even millions, who agree that both abortion and capital punishment are wrong. There are also plenty of non-Catholic Christians, myself included, who are against both.

There are plenty who support the death penalty and oppose abortions, but there's a big difference. One is an innocent baby, the other has killed one or more persons. I'm against the death penalty for religious reasons, but sometimes it's real hard not to want for the death of someone like a child-rapist/killer. I can't ever, ever, think that any baby *deserves* to die.
- Marc, Derry

Now here's a guy, Dan of Auburn, who believes that saving an unborn innocent baby is supported by those who believe in Capitol Punishment implying that each incident is not mutually exclusive. Can you believe that? Saving the most innocent versus favoring the execution of a premeditated killer? Unbelievable lack of "common sense". That's the argument these liberals always make. DAH!
- Dennis, Merrimack, NH

How many people who don't want to support the funding of abortions have no problem supporting the death penalty?

From a financial stanpoint, death sentences costs the taxpayers far more than life sentences.

From a moral standpoint, both seem to take, or at least prevent, a human life.
- Dan, Auburn

I am a little unsure as to the meaning of Ayottes quote, as it seems to be taken out of context.

What does Ayotte mean in this quote.

"As a mother and a daughter of course I support coverage for women for these important procedures."

Is she talking about state funded abortions or some other medical procedures?
- David, Manchester

The Stupak-Pitts amendment most certainly does *not* restrict women from getting their own insurance to pay for abortions. Read the real thing, not Planned Parenthood's lies about it, online. It's not long at all.

In it, they specifically state that this amendment *does not* restrict any non-federal spending on any insurance that covers abortion. What it does is the obvious - ban federal spending on the operation itself, and also ban spending on any *federal* funding of only the portions of health care plans that cover abortions. It's extremely clear that anyone else, including state health plans, can pay for it if they want.

I was able to understand that language completely, and I'm no lawyer or lawmaker. It's plain English. Planned Parenthood and others are purposely misleading in their releases. It's not even twisting or spinning the facts. They purposely ignore a large section of a small amendment to make their case.

Check out the *facts* yourself before believing any political entity with their own agendas.
- Marc, Derry

I'm for women's rights - legalize prostitution. Afterall, it is their body and the Gov't can tax it.
- CJ, Manchester

I don't like that my precious tax dollars where/are being used to fight pointless wars started by the repubs.
- Ed, Manchester

Does Mr Hodes also believe that if a woman has a right to chose abortion and have it paid for by taxpayers than that same woman should be able to chose to earn a living with that same part of her body and pay taxes on her earnings?
- what is choice?, Plymouth, Nh

Hodes and Porter What is the true number of illegals and immagrants in this country that are being taken care of now? I would like the true number not the rent a ID number that has become a tax exempt business in our country. Are we making room by killing our future leaders for the Globel way of life. Do you know we have more abortions a year in this country then the number of troops killed in the last eight years. Yes our troops will give their lives to save the unborn. Do the math.
- dnl62, Derry

Hey alocalgal-you really are clueless, what does government funding of abortions have to do with a woman's right? Last I checked, a woman can go to a clinic and pay for her own abortion. What about my rights? Why do my tax dollars have to pay for something I am strongly against? Could someone please tell me how I am wrong here?
- Josh, Manchester

Local Gal in Derry.
Abortion isn't an issue of women's rights, anymore than slavery was an issue of Southern rights or plantation owner's rights. In this later example a large number of people considered blacks to sub-human, able to be held as property, mistreated, and even killed with impunity. Another large number of folks disagreed and said blacks are humans to and should be accorded the rights of all US citizens. Slave owners tried to paint the issue as one of southern rights, but later we found out it was an issue of civil rights for all humans. That’s pretty much the situation with abortion. Some people believe, insupportably, that unwanted fetus are non-human and that mothers should have a right to privately terminate them like some malignant tumor. The reality is this is an issue of civil rights for fetuses.

The fetus inside a woman has its own set of genes, its own organs and it’s body. Saying a fetus is part of a woman’s body is like saying humans should have 2 hearts, 20 toes and 2 fingers, 2 heads etc… Its simply unsupportable.
- Jim, Manchester

Harry in Atkinson,
So it's all about money? And you've concluded that a human life is worth less than $399,600? Nice.

Not to mention that the 'taxpayers' are not tasked with raising every unaborted baby...unless you also believe that only "poor" people have abortions.
- Eric, Manchester

Texter you seem to not like government intruding on your phone conversations in the name of security, and I agree. Then you justify the same intrusion on your liberty because you claim parents who don't teach their children what you feel they should deserve to have government do their job for them. I on the other hand feel people have the right to choose for themselves and even be stupid in those choices and also live with the choice or correct it themselves. I must have been a genius to know getting pregnant before marriage would mean hardship in my life and that of the child, and even if I did I would not go crying for everyone else to take care of my problem for me because the next thing you know they will be paying for my next brilliant mistake also and I'm sure my neighbors have enough on their plates just trying to raise their own famillies and don't need to be burdened by my poor choices.

I have written my representatives many times over the years and so far the only one who seemed to listen was Judd Gregg, as I knew this by his hand written reply back to me. Unlike the generic replies I get back from Shaheen, Hodes, and Porter sent to me by one of their staff telling me they are doing what they feel is best for me, even though they never talked to any of us about their plans before being elected.

It's bad enough government gives money to unwed mothers claiming to be helping the poor and turns it's head when those same people get pregnant again and get even more money. Some will say that is a good reason to pay for abortion but those who use the system in such a way don't get abortions as getting more money is the goal. Unless of course those who back this also want to give government the right to forced abortions.

So who here believes in government forced abortions?
- Deb, Derry

Sandra in Bradford,
Yes, a very small number of people may consider those acts you cite to be evil. However they are all RISKS people take. I'd agree with your point if there were a 100% chance, or even a 95% chance, of breaking your leg every time you wen skiing, or getting liver disease when you drank alochol. But there isn't.

When a woman choose to abort her child, there is nearly a 100% chance he/she will be killed. There is a large minority, possibly even slim majority that finds this act morally reprehensible.
- Jim, Manchester

Hodes does not CARE about the rights of minorities. Thats what this move says to me. There is a significant minority the believes ABORTION IS EVIL, and Hodes wants forcibly take our moeny and use it for these EVIL purposes. That makes Paul Hodes and EVIL PERSON.
- Jim, Manchester

You know, proper posture also plays a part in good health too. It can lead to knee and back problems in the future as well as arthritis. So where is there any mention for proper footwear in this health reform bill?

Who cares if our grandchildren are being saddled with this enormous debt? We'll all be dead and they can figure out how to pay off the bill or maybe they will just declare bankruptcy and start over again. Of course, the entitlements must still be maintained for the crybabies who feel they are "owed" something just for the sake of being born.

I find it funny that the people who argue so strongly for having the government OUT of the bedroom are the same ones forcing the taxpayer IN the bedroom!

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain
- Jim D, Hillsboro

Melanie from Manchester - I don't know where you got your information, but birth control has NEVER been covered under any insurance plans I've been under (and I've been under a few in 30 years of working). They have always dismissed it as "elective medication". When I was 20, my wife and I paid $10/mo at Planned Parenthood (was all we could afford). My 22-year-old daughter now has to pay some 3 times that even though she was covered under BC/BS until earlier this year.
- David, Hudson

Deb, Derry,
Yes, like sex change operations for prisoners, or tax incentives to by vehicles with GVW's over 6K lbs to artificially drive up sales of heavy vehicles, or giving mining rights to companies for far less than their true value, to conspiring with the MPAA, RIAA, and others to reduce my fair use rights for media I have rightfully purchased. The list goes on and on, and includes warrantless wiretapping of my conversations in the pursuit of 'security'. Have you written any letters to your elected representatives in this regard, or is this one liberty you're willing to give up?

I don't know what Liberal Democrats will do, as I am an Independent, but if parents are unable or unwilling to teach their kids the facts of life, whatever the reason, then yes, I am for it, for various reasons. Again, I'd rather have birth control handed out like candy (because it doesn't increase the level of sexual activity of teens like some would like us to believe) rather than having more unwanted childeren. Look at the rate of STD's amongst teens in the US today. It's increasing, despite teaching abstinance. Knowledge is power, and the truth shall set you free.

Ron, Manchester --I don't pay additional taxes, nor to I cheat on my taxes as I am sure some posters here do.
- Texter, Newfields

Don't want it? It's called adoption and there are many loving families available to adopt. Nobody has to keep a baby they don't want; therefore, we shouldn't have to pay welfare if the right, sensible thing is done. ADOPTION is the best alternative not abortion.
- judy, bradford

Abortion - $400
Unwanted child taxpayers raise - $400,000
- Harry, Atkinson

Once again the many clueless commenters fail to grasp the issue.

The issue is that the Stupak amendment prohibits ANY coverage for an abortion procedure regardless of who pays for it. So, even if private funds are set aside to pay for the procedure, patients would not have coverage.

I've no problem with not using public funds and the existing Hyde amendment covers that prohibition so the Stupak amendment is not necessary.
- Bob V, Manchester

It would be interesting to see how many insurance companies Paul Hodes was retained by in his former practice as an attorney.
- Rick Olson, Manchester

Tony G from Pembroke,
Someone went to jail for saving a baby? Why? How?
- Marty P, Milford, NH

Birth control in all forms is covered by health insurance. Condoms are available for free at clinics and Planned Parenthood. With those options out there, why should we have to fund killing babies?

If people are not responsible enough to protect themselves, and then choose to eradicate (or kill) the results of those actions, they should be responsible for the costs, not me.

Those of you spouting about having to pay for welfare benefits for the unwanted and jail stays for the unwanted, adoption is always a viable choice. We do not need to kill babies or raise them poorly because they're not wanted. There are thousands of families that will take the unwanted off your hands.

Enough is enough. You make the choice to abort your baby, you make the choice to pay for it.

As for the interstate insurance issues... why shouldn't this be an option? By all means, keep the prices higher by weeding out the competition!
- Melanie, Manchester, NH

Hodes is a good example of the run-of-the-mill liberrals that are taking this country to oblivion with their continuous support of baby genocide. What a disaster this issue is - 40 million babies and counting. Disgusting!!!!
- Dennis, Merrimack, NH

Texter, you are a frequent commenter and you routinely advocate for more and more government programs, ie: fed controlled healthcare. Do you pay extra taxes voluntarily?
- Ron, Manchester

Our taxes are used to pay, every day, for things some of us don't like. I wish that some of you who are so vehemently against abortion would voluntarily increase your tax payment so that I don't have to pay for the upkeep of those who are born unwanted.
- Texter, Newfields

You mean like sex change operations for prisoners Texter?

Also will Liberal Democrats also seek to have these abortions done without parental consent through the schools like they keep trying to do with birth control?

Yes government knows best Texter, just not for me. I like holding on to my individual liberties.
- Deb, Derry

Thank you, Hodes, for standing up for the rights of women.
- ALocalGal, Derry

Hm.. let's see, you all, why should you pay for
1. a drinker who gets cirrhosis.
2. a smoker who gets lung cancer.
3. a skier who breaks his leg -- or for that matter any injury by any athlete -child or adult.
4. anyone who is DUI and is injured in an accident.
5. anyone who climbs a ladder to change a light bulb or cut in paint on a ceiling or any other home repair.
6. anyone injured using a chainsaw or monitoring a burn pile or lighting a grill.
7. anyone injured while out hiking or hunting.
8. anyone injured while driving a car, riding a bike or walking along public roads where others choose to do the same.
9. an overweight person who gets diabetes - and religiously doesn't that fall under gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins?
10. anyone who chooses to have sex and failed birth control or any other reason causes unwanted pregnancy.
11. anyone who has a heart attack because they work too much and are overstressed.
12. anyone who requires years of Viagra because he can not maintain an erection without it - should we subsidize that prescription - or the instance where there is emergency room medical treatment when there is the side effect of an erection lasting more than five hours as the commercials warn?

Get it people? Everything is a choice and all choices contain risk and many of the choices would be in violation of someone's religious or moral beliefs -including the belief than no work (meaning no activity) be done on the Sabbath. And all of these choices that do result in injury cost us through the healthcare system. And besides the issue is the out of control of costs of health care because of the manner in which health insurance has done business the past two-three decades. Focus where it will really help bring costs down - on the practices of the UNREGULATED insurance companies and not the doctors, hospitals or the insured who ALL pay a fortune for the policies.
- Sandra, Bradford

Imposing immorality on us. . .
People often complain about others trying to “impose their morality” on them, and they argue for personal choice. As most people have heard by now, the house has passed with partisan support, against the objections of a bi-partisan minority, the deliberately misnamed “Affordable Healthcare for America Act”. Many people like me have written, called, e-mailed, and visited our elected representatives to demand they start representing us, and vote against government take-over of our healthcare. Well again Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes chose to ignore their constituents. They voted to give the power of running the entire nation’s healthcare system to the same bunch who couldn’t even manage the simple task of distributing enough swine flu vaccine. As bad as that is, it gets much worse.
There was an amendment offered to the bill called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that would prohibit federal funding of abortion. Our two representatives voted against the amendment! Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter voted to impose their immorality on everyone by requiring our tax dollars to pay for abortions. Thankfully these two were in the minority on this one, and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment passed the house without the votes of our two NH Representatives. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter’s stand against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment has exposed them for the pro-abortion radicals these two really are! They are no longer allowed to claim that they are “Pro-Choice”, because they are clearly not. They are in favor of forcing all of us to pay for something that a good many of us find abhorrent, immoral, and a modern day genocide against the most helpless among us. Forcing those of us who are Pro-Life to pay for abortions would be like forcing black people to finance the slave trade. Don’t let these two tyrants ever get away with identifying themselves as “Pro-Choice”, we know better.
- Keith R. Lacasse, Weare

Mike, Manchester,
Who are you to say that the gov't shouldn't pay for abortions? I'd rather they do than have to pay to house unwanted children and then incarcerate unwanted adults. How do you feel about paying taxes which have been used to kill innocent men, women, and children in other countries? Is that OK?

Our taxes are used to pay, every day, for things some of us don't like. I wish that some of you who are so vehemently against abortion would voluntarily increase your tax payment so that I don't have to pay for the upkeep of those who are born unwanted.
- Texter, Newfields

Usually a candidate for Senate chooses careful, defensible positions. This "pro-choice" candidate not only backs a bill containing a provision, but DEFENDS the provision, that your taxes should pay for a procedure you regard as murder. He must feel he will win without a campaign. This means that either he is a fool or all of us are and we will get a second extreme-left Senator.

Opposing interstate sale of insurance props up the state Insurance Commission, the racketeers through which the state legislature forces everyone to cover stomach-stapling for fatties and college students who break the terms of their policy, so that politicians can look compassionate while we pay. Hodes quibbles with the actual mandates that have been enacted--That's worth nothing.

You quote Maggie Hassan that mandates give consumers "a real bang for their buck." She means a real bang for OUR buck. By "fairness" she means equal results for the achiever and the excuse-maker through transfers of wealth at gunpoint.

That absence of federal funding is a "restriction on access" is an abuse of the English language that threatens our ability to make sensible decisions at all.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

I cant wait to dump hodes this next election!
- Rich, manchester

The people who complain about paying for abortions are the same people who will complain about paying for the welfare that some of the un-aborted receive.

Abortions cost less.

And I don't care what you think your god thinks about it.
- DM, Hampton

Nobody wants to read about boring abortion funding. We want to read exciting news like the Boston Globe report "Cat saved after three days in tree" per:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/11/cat_saved_after.html

Save a cat, you've got a tale.
Save a baby, go to jail.
- Tony G., Pembroke, NH

If it is a woman's right to choose, it should be their right to pay also.
- Bob H, Londonderry

Government twits cannot even run the H1N1 Swine Flu vaccine program smoothly, yet these Democrat Socialists like dorky Paul Hodes want to take over all our health care?

Regarding abortion coverage in their so-called health plan: If I am forced to pay for the abortion, can I have the dead baby so I can give her a proper Christian burial?

"There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience." --Mother Teresa
- EdHoldgate@yahoo.com, Sandown, NH

No Mr. Hodes I will not pay for other peoples abortions, other peoples sex change operations, other peoples drug addiction treatments or anything else our Washington weasels slip into this health care takeover bill unless I freely give to a charity that covers such things for others.

No average person will be able to read or understand this bill and I'm sure that is by design. Compare that to the wisdom of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution so the average person could understand its meaning and it's easy to see this government feels it is above the people. Please do try to turn me into a criminal if I don't purchase your forced plans for us. I will resist to the end with great delight as the citizens of this nation did in 1776.

But then I'm just one of your constituents you don't have to listen too because in all your arrogance you know what is best for everyone.
- Deb, Derry

Mr. Barac Hodes,

Who are you to say the gov't should pay for abortions? Have you asked the people you work for, you know people from NEW HAMPSHIRE? BTW where will you be this Thanksgiving? Will you have the nerve to hold a meeting on this and the overall government spending spree? have you seen that the national debt without the healthcare bill will exceed 20 TRILLION dollars by 2018. But why worry, you and your family pay nothing for healthcare,don't have to join the government healthcare plan and oh your pension whjich has gone up while others have had theirs reduced if not eliminated while be just fine.
- Mike, Manchester

"but also accused all her GOP primary opponents of caving in to insurance company pressure to allow interstate sales of health insurance that he said would thwart efforts by New Hampshire regulators to enforce state insurance laws."

So in other words he is against one of the very things that will in fact increase competition and drive down prices. At least he is showing his true colors that this is not about competition but government control.

"any restrictions on women's ability to access abortion coverage in their insurance plans." Not only access to abortion, but coverage for pre-existing conditions, pre-natal care, breast cancer screening, and obstetric and gynecological care need to be preserved, he said."

Well it wasn't long now if you are opposed you are sexist since racist cries seems to not be working. As a pro-choice Libertarian let me remind this twit it is not denying other necessary coverage and abortion with the exception of rape or a danger to the life of the mother is a CHOICE. I should not pay for the choices of others.
- Brian, Wakefield

Hodes "caving in to insurance company pressure to allow interstate sales of health insurance that he said would thwart efforts by New Hampshire regulators to enforce state insurance laws."

So he is against competition that brings down the price for ALL.Just look at car,life and home owners insurance that can be purchased across state lines.

As to caving in,how about the whole Dem party caving in to the lawyers???
Where is Tort Reform????

One other point, the Stupak-Pitts amendment does not prohibit abortions just does not allow tax payer money to fund them !!! I don't want my tax dollars to kill babies and neither does most of America.

Vote him and his like,Shea Porter and Shaheen OUT,they have no clue what the public wants nor do they care.They just do what Pelosi and Reid tell them.
- Dave, Newbury

What could be more "abusive" than killing the helpless unborn, Mr. Hodes? Planned Parenthood is more than happy to pay for women to have an abortion.

Let me get this straight, you also think competition in being allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines is bad? Wouldn't this bring down the cost of health insurance?

A woman who freely participates in sex and gets pregnant should have those of us who are against abortion participate in paying for her free choice?

You can call it a "woman's right to choose" but then shouldn't you apply the same "woman's right to choose" to her free will choice to have unprotected sex? So, she gets pregnant, wants to have an abortion and it's my fault and I should pay for it?

Sorry, but I can't support what is more accurately described as a woman's right to commit murder. So, you're saying that the unborn have absolutely no rights as human beings?

It's not a chicken that's born to a human being if they don't have an abortion, Mr. Hodes.
- judy, bradford

Our Safety and freedom is number one on my list and I feel unless this bill is signed our troops are going to suffer. Is it a blackmail game in Washington? Our troops need help if they don't get it bring them home because we have troops getting killed here and revolutionary muslims on our streets calling for more deaths. Why so fast? Who wrote this bill and did so in a shady manner. Who the hell is running our country. Are the millions of dollars in suits that we are paying the Cair Organization and them sending gifts of Korans to our congress and the White House included in this bill? Something is going on behind closed doors and it stinks. The American people need to know what is in this bill and what it costs. The bad news is we need a lawyer we can trust to explain it to us', and I have lost hope that we will find one in Washington. I don't trust anyone that refuse's to listen to We the People. Yes I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. Help my neighbor, yes and they will help me and the good news is, everybody has one.
- Linda, Derry