Abortion Opponents Watching Nelson On Health Care

OMAHA, Neb. -- There's a message waiting for Nebraska's Ben Nelson at home: Stick to your opposition to abortion.

Some voters say they wouldn't support the Democratic senator again if Nelson backs down from his demand that health care reform legislation now in the Senate include tough abortion restrictions.

Nelson is one of 60 Democratic votes needed to enact the legislation. After marathon talks, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders appeared near agreement with Nelson late Friday night.

He told reporters "real progress" had been made, but offered no details and said nothing final had emerged.

Still, abortion opponents caution that Nebraska voters aren't likely to tolerate any equivocation from Nelson on abortion.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Anonymous on Dec 30, 2009 at 12:11 AM
    Ok, let me try again. You do not really understand you own posts. Uhmmmmm, well, ok, I give up WITN...LOL
  • by Anonymous on Dec 30, 2009 at 12:10 AM
    WITN: You've got to be kidding me. What was wrong with my post to Audra??????
  • by Audra Location: SoCal on Dec 27, 2009 at 01:16 AM
    Just Saying: I would "axplain" it to you, but you already seem confused enough about the content of my posts, judging by your diatribe about God making mistakes and what He wants.
  • by Just Saying Location: RMNC on Dec 24, 2009 at 01:39 AM
    Audra: The situation(s) in which you speak of where abortation should be allowes are very much the exception. Although I doubt if even UScfn's estimate of 5% is even small enough. And as far as God's intentions are concerned, how do you know that even God would want the baby of a rape and/or other wrongful act aborted. Are you saying God makes mistakes? Does God not love all children? What I feel is a crime as well is the fact that if a female and her boyfriend abort a fetus or kill a new born infant they get charged with murder but if a doctor performs the same act, it is legal. Would you be able to kill one innocent person to save the life of another? And if so, please axplain to me the difference between an unborn baby and a living, breathing human. Murder is murder, PERIOD.
  • by Audra Location: SoCal on Dec 23, 2009 at 04:38 PM
    US Citizen: It's interesting that you pass kudos to me on a topic where you feel I had something intelligent to say, but forget you are speaking to the same individual when it isn't precisely what you want to hear elsewhere - enough so that you resort to mockery rather than really reading what was said, and giving me basic respect. My morals are not your concern, so you can back off of that any time. I'm not off topic in the least by using something else as an *example*. I am also not going to play into your game of exageration. No one here said there were 50 million rapes. Get your reading glasses, because I think you need them. That or less coffee.
  • by US citizen for now Location: Washington on Dec 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM
    Audra. thanks for sharing. As a lawyer would say "Focus on the main issue here!" Narcotics, punishment issues or little groups? I'M getting back into my space ship and heading back to earth. hmmm. Since the abortion law was passed in the 70's there's been over 50,000,000 INNOCENT LITTLE BABIES been slaughtered. Don't you have regards for human Life anymore? Or are you just going to allow yourself to get Mixed all up in the Opinions of twisted up confused, Godless generations in this world we live in. Where are your morals or what kind did you make up? I truly don't believe that 50 million rapes were committed nor 50 million sick mothers aborted. DAAA, 95% or more of these abortions came from irresponsible, selfish women that listened to the sick minded Godless people who support abortion. God have mercy on us. Merry Christmas Audra and have a happy new year For Now.
  • by Audra Location: SoCal on Dec 22, 2009 at 09:27 PM
    For the record, I don't identify myself as pro-abortion or pro-life, or any other such title. I simply know that there are a number of situations (more than you want it to seem) where it is acceptable and even necessary. You can say you're not talking about those individuals but you can't discuss this issue and ignore them. It isn't some meaningless little group of people that are affected by the insistence that abortion should be flatly outlawed. I agree that willful negligence is not an excusable reason - as I stated originally. I do NOT however believe that someone with a legitimate need should be punished because there are other people on the planet who are too stupid to breathe and may abuse the system. The same could be said for narcotic medications - some of which are legitimately needed by non-abusing individuals in need of controlling excessive pain. Should we also take away someone's ability to function daily because there are addicts somewhere?
  • by US citizen for now Location: Washington on Dec 22, 2009 at 06:03 AM
    Audra, Thanks but, I'm not talking about the little hand full of raped women which some would want an abortion. I'm talking about the other 95% of irresponsible teenagers and young adult women that just accidentally or willfully get pregnant from not taking the pill or having sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It's not the baby's fault that they acted inappropriately and conceived! Who gave women like that the right to kill the baby they're carrying? God sure didn't. Like I said the 95% doesn't include rape victims nor the terminally ill. I hate when pro-abortionist reveal only the smallest ratio of people (rape & terminally ill victims) and use that as their trump card to justify abortion is ok. God have mercy on us. Have a great day.
  • by Audra Location: SoCal on Dec 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM
    It's amazing to me that when this topic comes up, the arguements are always the same. One side says it's flat wrong because it's killing. The other side says we should have the right to choose, just because it's freedom. Neither is 100% correct. To those who want the freedom to choose, I say yes... as long as you have acted responsibly and the situation is not one of careless repetition. To those who scream about it being an unredeemable murderous act, let's talk about circumstances for one second... and I'm sorry but GUYS... MEN.. you don't get an opinion in this one if you think you would understand: Are you insane people REALLY trying to say that a woman who was raped doesn't have a right to *not* carry the product of that violation to term? It happens, you know. Suppose the woman is terminally ill.. what then? What if the woman has injuries that would make a pregnancy detrimental to her well-being? NO, this issue is NOT plain black & white.
  • by US citizen for now Location: Washington on Dec 21, 2009 at 02:42 PM
    Nathan. I understand your position and I'm glad you see Abortion is Wrong. We the people don't need to Confuse this issue. Killing unborn or born babies is WRONG. No matter what. That baby has rights, emotions, cries and laughs in the womb and is in every way the same as a newly born baby. The problem is when certain SELFISH, prideful individuals make up their own set of rules and laws we should live by relating to Abortion etc.. Who gave them the right under God to abort babies? No one. They chose to do so and unfortunately voted for it. OMG. I do know one thing for sure, when sin like this is committed (or Gods laws are broken) there's severe consequences which we face as a nation supposedly under God. He rules that out and I believe we're suffering within our government and nation because of the choices we've made as a nation. Hungry or abused children is a product not of God but of deadbeat dads or moms that made bad decisions in life. They have nothing to do with abortion. Thanks
  • Page:

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 79713562 - witn.com/a?a=79713562
Gray Television, Inc.