The headline on the advice column was "Dealing With An Unwanted Pregnancy." It appeared at askmen.com, an online "men's magazine." The column evidently embarrassed a publication that, on first blush, you wouldn't think would be embarrassed by much. It's no longer available at the website.
Written by Isabella Snow ("Sex Education Correspondent"), the pep talk is about what to do if your lady friend is pregnant, is balking at an abortion, and while you want the kid to end, you don't necessarily want the "relationship" to end. I won't but could go on at length about what is a twice-over, deeply manipulative column.
By that I mean the advice is intended to offer pointers on how to get around the fact that for "some women, getting pregnant can start clocks ticking and make them suddenly want to be mothers, despite previous agreements") but not at the expense of making the guy (who is coaxing her into having an abortion) feel like he has not been unsupportive.
In a series of "Prenatal prep[s]," Snow instructs her audience (presumably virtually all of whom are men) to let the woman talk freely (this "shows that you actually value her feelings"); to not call the "unwanted pregnancy" an "it" ("too many times, and she's going to start feeling like she needs to defend 'it' from you"); to sit together on the sofa while you're having "this conversion" to simulate intimacy (and reduce "eye contact"); to be careful with "word choice" ("pregnant women tend to feel like they're carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant"); to not come across "as whiny" ("These changes are significant, but you don't want to make it sound like you'll be more affected than she will"); to give good reasons for your position (ask her "Who's going to care for the baby while you're working? Will you have to move to a new home? Will you have to sell your Harley and get a station wagon?"), etc., etc., etc.
And when it's all this is done-- if after all the "Prenatal preps"-- "your woman decides to have the baby anyway, this does not mean you're required to get married or move in together." You probably want to consider forking over some money, but "This was her decision, not yours, and the bulk of the responsibility is now hers."
But, wait, Ms. Snow offers one last gambit. "Take a moment to spell this out for her when she gives you the final decision; it may just sway her over to your side."
So after carefully considering her feelings, your tone, your body language, how you sit, and the like--the high road, so to speak-- if she doesn't see things your way, there's always your trump card--the threat to effectively abandon her.
President Obama asserted that he and Democratic leaders in the Senate were "on the precipice" of achieving the government takeover of health care that would mandate taxpayer funding of abortions and provide the failing abortion industry with a massive bailout.
PRECIPICE: [pres-uh-pis] noun.
1. An overhanging or extremely steep mass of rock, such as a crag or the face of a cliff.
2. The brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation: on the precipice of defeat.
(Source: American Heritage Dictionary)
An appropriate word choice. Today -- even as a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that now only 32% of Americans support the abortion-laden health care takeover -- it is clear that our nation is indeed "on the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation."
While campaigning for President, Obama promised that "we'll have negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents."
Yet Brian Lamb, CEO of C-SPAN, is now bitterly complaining that his service has been denied ANY access to the crucial meetings taking place to determine ObamaCare's final form.
The BIG Lies
"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008
"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008
"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008
"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008
"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008
"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008
"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008
After much bribery and arm-twisting, the Senate managed just before Christmas to pass its version of ObamaCare by a 60-39 vote (amazingly, without a single GOP "aye"). Now, the bill heads for conference deliberation televised by C-SPAN, just as the cable channel offered and Barack Obama promised numerous times.
Or not.
Democrats let slip this week that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.
Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. That means even more liberty-stealing treachery can be slipped into the bill with little notice. Funny how the "public option" doesn't mean that the public gets to know what's in the bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nevertheless had the gall to declare, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." In response, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto mocked, "Has a more false or awkwardly worded statement ever come out of anyone who has served as speaker of the House's mouth?"
In spite of Democrats' best efforts at "transparency," there are many extra-special things that we actually do know about the bill. For example, on page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection.
What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (read: to ration health care).
Meanwhile, the bill contains what amounts to a marriage penalty worth $2,000 or more in insurance premiums each year. The Wall Street Journal explains, "The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single."
Finally, Obama signaled this week that he's willing to break another campaign promise: The "no tax increases on the middle class" pledge. He threw his support behind the Senate's tax on higher end "Cadillac" insurance plans, something unions and House Democrats oppose.
The more the public learns about this continuing saga, the more vigorously opposed they become to "reform." No wonder Democrats want the process to remain secret.--The Patriot Post
"Democratic leaders reportedly plan to forge a final reform bill behind closed doors. They should not be able to get away with hiding public policy from the public it will adversely affect. Both the House and Senate must pass identical bills before the president can sign the legislation into law. When differences pop up, as with separate health care bills, the legislation traditionally goes to a conference committee where lawmakers iron them out. The committees are made up of members from both chambers and often from both parties. The committee meetings have typically been conducted in public, as they should be. They can be moved out of public view only when a majority of conferees, in a vote in an open session, agree to hold closed meetings. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has called the Democrats' plan to bypass a conference committee a 'shady backroom deal.' An overstatement? Hardly. One House Democratic aide told a blogger that 'this process cuts out the Republicans.' The Democrats fear that if they follow the traditional route, the GOP could use the Senate filibuster rule to shut down the process of organizing the committee. Bypassing a conference committee also cuts out a public that will suffer losses from whatever monstrosity is produced by the cover of darkness. Americans stand to lose their power of choice over health care decisions and be stripped of a significant portion of their earnings to pay for a plan most don't want. They deserve to see in an open forum what is being done to them. Instead, they're likely to get whatever the Democrats want to force on them." --Investor's Business Daily
Harry Reid's 383-page amendment and its 2,074-page underlying bill (H.R. 3590) are unconstitutional because:
1) Congress has NO authority to force every American to carry insurance coverage, and, 2) Congress has NO authority to fine employers whose policies do not have the mandated coverage.
Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?
ummmm....
"Well, I just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people." --Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
...When asked where the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance -- that they be forced under penalty of fine or imprisonment to engage in a particular commercial enterprise -- is located in the Constitution, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) answered, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."
Congress too often uses this clause to do whatever it wants to do (the legislative target might, just might, some day engage in interstate commerce, don't you know,) but this incorrect interpretation certainly doesn't make this legislation constitutional.-- The Patriot Post
"America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality." --Wall Street Journal op-ed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
$518 billion in tax increases (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office)
$466 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (CBO)
Many costs of the legislation won't begin until 2014, but taxes will be imposed immediately (CBO)
Federal outlays for health care would increase by about $200 billion between 2010-2019 (CBO)
$26 billion of unfunded mandates to states over the next 10 years that will likely result in higher taxes (CBO)
Would increase non-group premiums by $300 per individual and $2,100 per family (CBO)
Up to 10 million people will lose their current health insurance coverage under the bill (CBO)
Adds a 10% tax on indoor tanning services (Section 10907)
Reid is handing out cash for cloture votes like Santa Claus handing out candy canes during the Macy’s Day Parade.
Reid’s is using bribes, extortion, threats, and secrecy to ram through Obama’s socialized medicine plan – at a time when most Americans are thinking about the celebration of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.
Reid has handed out $300 million to Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her vote; $100 million in Medicaid assistance for Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE); a sweetheart insurance deal for Nebraska and Michigan insurance companies to benefit Nelson and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI); Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) gets $100 million for a hospital; Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) gets money for ACORN; Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) gets $10 billion for community health centers; Sen. Ben Nelson (D-FL) gets a special deal in Florida for Medicare Advantage Recipients; Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) gets extra Medicare benefits for Montana residents; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) wins Medicare funding for Iowa hospitals; Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) gets higher Medicare payments for rural hospitals.
How many more bribes will he offer to get nationalized health care? He’s clearly willing to do anything to get it done.
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) claimed he was not going to vote for the Reid bill unless there were prohibitions against the use of federal dollars to kill unborn children. Nelson sold us out and voted for cloture last week, which gave Reid the 60 votes needed to push for a vote on Christmas Eve. --Traditional Values Coalition
There may not have been any smoke-filled rooms, but there were plenty of shady deals.
The most egregious were those for Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He was the final holdout. Without his support, the bill would have been stopped. But Ben buckled under the pressure.
He was particularly pliable on his demands that no federal funding go to cover abortions. Instead he accepted a watered down compromise that allows individual states to prohibit plans that cover abortion services—a compromise that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and numerous pro-life groups denounced as paving the way for federally funded abortions.
But when Harry Reid needed his vote, Sen. Nelson took the money and ran -- $100 million to be exact. Nebraska will be the only state in the country where the full costs of Medicaid expansion will be covered by the federal government. Specialty hospitals in Nebraska will be exempted from new regulations. The state's largest insurers will be shielded from new regulations. Here are the details of the Nebraska Exemption:
Federal government fully finances Medicaid expansion for two years and then increases its matching funds (known as FMAP) thereafter to 100% -- in perpetuity (Section 10201), totaling about $100 million
Reid bill specifically identifies Nebraska for higher federal matching funds, fully funding its expansion for an additional year
Carve outs for physician-owned hospitals in Nebraska
Physician self-referral exemptions within Nebraska
Nelson's abortion compromise: a state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an exchange if the state enacts a law to prohibit it
Shields two Nebraska insurers from taxes that other plans will pay: Mutual of Omaha and Blue Cross/Blue Shield (language crafted so it only affects these two in Nebraska)
But Sen. Nelson wasn't the only senator to be bought off by Majority Leader Reid. More than a dozen other states received special goodies, including:
Louisiana $300 million in additional Medicaid funding
Vermont 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for Vermont Medicaid program $600 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)
Massachusetts 0.5% FMAP increase for 3 years for their entire program $500 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)
Hawaii Restores DSH funding eliminated in the past to expand Medicaid eligibility
Michigan Adjusts payments to hospitals according to local wage levels, which when adjusted aids Michigan Exemption for non-profit insurers in the state from large excise tax
Connecticut $100 million earmark for construction of a University of Connecticut hospital
Montana Medicare coverage for individuals exposed to environmental health hazards in or around the geographic area of Libby, Mont., subject to an emergency declaration as of 6/17/09
South Dakota , North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana Adds 1% hospital wage index Adds 1% practice index for physicians to cover geographic cost difference --Newt Gingrich
THIS BILL STILL FUNDS ABORTION
The abortion coverage is still in the bill. It’s just hidden, and has no "conscience clause" for those who object to abortion coverage! The National Right to Life Committee and many other pro-life groups immediately condemned Reid's bill.
The fact is, NO ONE wants this bill! Conservatives hate the bill. Progressives and liberals hate it, too, although for different reasons. And every credible poll shows that the general public strongly opposes this destructive and dangerous bill.
ObamaCare is facing more unlikely opponents every day, including former DNC chief Howard Dean, a medical doctor. "You're going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that is going to take an average of 27 percent of your money," Dean said, "and there is no choice about that. If you don't buy that insurance you are going to get a fine."
And Dean wasn't done. "This bill I think is more likely to make the crisis worse than it is better because it's so expensive," he said. And as a result, he concluded, "[H]onestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill." He even penned an op-ed in The Washington Post expounding on his opposition.
Granted, Dean wants something even more leftist than what the Senate is grinding out, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend. -- The Patriot Post
America is at a spiritual and moral crossroads as President Obama and the leaders of Congress are pushing for taxpayer funded abortions as a part of health care reform. If this current proposed legislation becomes law...
...your tax dollars will be used to pay for the killing of innocent children and the diminishing of women through abortion.
Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning to try to ram the massive health care bill (H.R. 3200) through the U.S. House of Representatives on short notice, without allowing consideration of a critical pro-life amendment. TELEPHONE the office of your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives with a clear and firm message urging a NO vote on the no-amendment procedure (which is called "the rule") on H.R. 3200. If you've already called, it is essential that you call again. When you are done, be sure to alert your pro-life friends.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.
“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.
Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.
The Associated Press acknowledges what pro-life groups have been saying all along -- that the Hyde amendment, which stops abortion funding in Medicaid, doesn't apply to these new health care bills.
"Currently a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion - except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered - and applies those restrictions to Medicaid," AP writer Erica Werner reports. "Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs."
"But the Democrats' health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions," AP confirms.
"Ina story transmitted today(October 23), the Associated Press accurately reported that the House Democratic leadership currently does not intend to allow the House to vote on an amendment sponsored by Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), and supported by NRLC, which would, as the AP reported, "include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill."
The AP reported: "Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail . . . So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it. Instead, it appears they may have to take the risk of letting Stupak try to block action on the underlying bill, which he intends to do by assembling 'no' votes on a procedural measure [the "rule"] that needs to pass before debate can begin."
As approved by Democratic-controlled House committees, H.R. 3200 contains at least two major components that implicate abortion policy. It creates a new program of premium subsidies for health insurance. TheAP story discusses pro-life objections to allowing those subsidies to go to private plans that cover elective abortions. Oddly, however, the AP story does not mention the other major abortion-related controversy generated by the bill, which centers on the proposed "public plan."
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented: "The bill explicitly authorizes the public plan, a federal agency program, to pay for elective abortions. Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have claimed that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, but this is a deception, because the public plan will be a federal agency program that can spend only federal funds. The federal government would pay abortion providers for performing elective abortions -- a sharp break from decades of federal policy."
"The public plan problem and the premium-subsidy problem are really separate and distinct -- the bill would need to be amended to get abortion out of the federal government plan, even if the premium subsidy program did not exist,"Johnson said. "Recent pollsshow strong public opposition to government funding of abortion and abortion coverage."
NRLC has obtained and today makes publicly availablea memorandumprepared for a Member of Congress by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), which confirms all of the monies spent by the public plan would be federal funds (just asNRLC has previously documented) -- implicitly refuting the claim by Democratic leaders and President Obama that no "federal funds" would be used to pay for abortions". --NRLC
The only thing that stands in their way... the only thing that can stop them... the only thing that can make them abandon their plots and plans is hearing the righteous outage of patriotic Americans like you.
If they can't pass their so-called health care reform by stealth... if they realize they can't force it down your throat without suffering political repercussions for their actions... they will stop... just as they did only two short years ago, when outraged Americans said no to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.
Here are some scenes from Law and Order --last Friday's program--"Dignity"--it allowed the pro-life position to be presented in full and through the mouths not only of self-identified pro-lifers but also through the agonizing reflections of members of the "Law & Order" cast.
"The case falls apart for Cutter due to Rubirosa and testimony of nurse who saw abortion doctor kill a born baby."
I read the following from NRLC newsletter. It is really hard for me to understand the thoughts of abortionists and how they justify killing the innocent unborn humans. Lisa Harris - an abortionist offers her insights, however her insights/thoughts are indeed morally incoherent and gut-wrenching....
"Doing second trimester abortion is clinical care at the boundary between life and death and in the context of political and social controversy, and, likewise, commitment." -- Abortionist Lisa Harris
As a woman who dismembered huge unborn babies at the very same time she was pregnant, Lisa Harris' account offers tragic insights into the human mind, heart, and soul....
No dummy, Harris understands that sawing off hands and arms–especially later in pregnancy–is tough sledding for anyone whose conscience has not been amputated. So Harris' gambit is to first frankly deal with such issues as "personal and psychological considerations" as well as the undeniable violence of abortion (and its seeming incompatibility with what she sees as an essentially non-violent feminist movement). Then she offers "answers" that are not only morally incoherent and circular but also evade the very gut-wrenching red-flags Harris told the reader she would confront.
She accomplishes the latter by trying to create group solidarity by offering to transport them to a kind of Land of Oz for death peddlers, otherwise known as the "middle ground." Needless to say that middle ground is not to distinguish "acceptable" from "unacceptable" abortions, but to explain how "owning" the violence, and the discomfort, and the nightmares makes killing kids at any stage of development not only acceptable but "rewarding."
Let me offer two long quotes. Harris begins with a category she calls "Visual and visceral differences" between first and second trimester abortions.
"When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realized that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual.... I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life."
Raw, indeed, and as eloquent a passage as you could imagine. I felt like I was there in the room with her. Then there is this, which fell under the category "Violence."
"The last patient I saw one day was 23 weeks pregnant. I performed an uncomplicated D&E procedure. Dutifully, I went through the task of reassembling the fetal parts in the metal tray. It is an odd ritual that abortion providers perform - required as a clinical safety measure to ensure that nothing is left behind in the uterus to cause a complication - but it also permits us in an odd way to pay respect to the fetus (feelings of awe are not uncommon when looking at miniature fingers and fingernails, heart, intestines, kidneys, adrenal glands), even as we simultaneously have complete disregard for it. Then I rushed upstairs to take overnight call on labour and delivery. The first patient that came in was prematurely delivering at 23-24 weeks. As her exact gestational age was in question, the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) team resuscitated the premature newborn and brought it to the NICU. Later, along with the distraught parents, I watched the neonate on the ventilator. I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus - but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable."
....How someone--anyone--could go from writing that "tears were streaming from my eyes" when her own unborn baby kicked at the same time she was snuffing out the life of another unborn baby to bragging about lobbying her own abortion clinic to move the outer edge of their "practice" from 14 weeks to "inching up to 22 weeks"?
I've had to take a break from blogging due lack of time from the birth of a beautiful new baby & also due to homeschooling my other four kiddos. Will be blogging again after everything settles....
What's the difference between this adorable little angel who God has sent to our home and babies that are killed in legal abortion???
--- time is all (actually about 13 weeks since our baby was a little over 36 weeks & a baby at 23 weeks is considered a "nonhuman" with no rights and it is legal to kill him/her.)
A baby is a baby no matter how small. We are all God's children and all life is of value.
Life is Precious! Choose life!!
"May (they) ... be moved to let God do great things in their lives and to work and pray that the killing of innocent children by abortion -- which is the greatest threat to world peace -- be stopped completely and forever, for through abortion mothers destroy the image and likeness of God." - Mother Teresa
“the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself." - Mother Teresa
"DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTI... No, wait, that bumper sticker expired January 20th. Under the stimulus bill, there's a new $1.3 trillion bills-for-bumpers program whereby, if you peel off old slogans now recognized as environmentally harmful ('QUESTION AUTHORITY'), you can trade them in for a new 'CELEBRATE CONFORMITY' sticker, complete with a holographic image of President Obama that never takes his eyes off you." --columnist Mark Steyn
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate, and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree – with any administration!’” - Hillary Clinton.....
but of course that statement expired on January 20th as well...
"These [town hall meeting] disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in a USA Today op-ed, projecting their own faults on the protestors
Not long ago, Nancy Pelosi and the left called dissent the highest form of patriotism. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they don't see it that way.
"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter..." --President Obama, who, as we noted last week, was caught on tape more than once advocating single-payer health care:
and of course the media:
Liberal Media Screams Hysterically About Depiction of President as The Joker, Oh & By the way, this is President Bush. The picture was published in Vanity Fair:
here's just a few more reasons why not to support ObamaCare:
Jane asks the President if her 100 year old mother (now 105) would have gotten a pacemaker under his plan. Well now that's a tough one ... that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take a pill.
President Obama states doctors will amputate feet because they are reimbursed more for surgery than for maintaining a diabetic patient.
President Obama accusing Physicians of making Medical decisions based on reimbursement schedules
President Barack Obama reassured Americans gathered at a town-hall style gathering in New Hampshire on Tuesday that a public-option in health care would not lead to the death of private insurance and rationing by telling them that private mail carriers, like UPS and Fed-Ex, have done just fine against the US Post Office. But comparing the government plan to a bankrupt postal service may not help a President who just slipped today under 50 percent approval in one poll.
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems," Obama told a questioner, who expressed concern that the public option would run private insurers out of business. Obama said that the public option would have to pay for itself and not through tax-increases leveled on the middle-class.
However, the US Post Office is having serious problems lately and that analogy could raise alarms about the future of government run health-care. The Post Office, which does not raise revenue through taxes, faces a $7 billion loss for this fiscal year, and is slated to close approximately 700 or more offices across the country.
Government-Run Health Care = Mandated taxpayer-funded abortion.
White House unveiled its new Reality Check webpage Monday morning, attempting to realign facts in its favor about the proposed nationalized health care plan.
.....noticeably missing was any mention of the A-word, even though the topic has taken center stage in the national debate....
But there was a time when Obama was quite clear about his intention to include abortion in taxpayer financed health care as well as force private insurance coverage.
On July 17, 2007, Obama was speaking to Planned Parenthood supporters, and Bryan Howard, CEO of Planned Parenthood AZ, asked a question on health care (abortionspeak translation: "reproductive healthcare" means "abortion"):
Could you talk - give us some specifics about how reproductive health care ... is going to fit into and be a part of primary care for women in your health care reform plans and how Planned Parenthood ... will continue to be a part of the health care safety net for women and families across the country?
Obama responded quite clearly he planned for abortion not only to be part of taxpayer-funded health care but also forcibly covered by private insurers. He added he thought it "important" for the United States' largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, to be part of his plan.
.....The reason Obama's new Reality Check website did not attempt to dispute that abortion is a part of Obama's health care plan is because it really is "at the center and at the heart of the plan," as he honestly stated only two years ago.
A cornerstone of the Freedom of Choice Act will be a direct mandate under the new healthcare plan, forcing Americans to subsidize abortions.
Under the healthcare plan, virtually every American will eventually be in a plan that includes abortion by requiring individuals to buy health insurance that meets minimum benefits standards determined by unelected government bureaucrats.
If the law does not clearly state that abortion is excluded, abortion automatically becomes a minimum required benefit.
It is extremely unfortunate that at a time when American taxpayers are trying to stretch their dollar as far as possible as their jobs are lost, homes are foreclosed, food prices rise and the economy continues to decline, President Obama and abortion industry allies in Congress would mandate taxpayer funding of abortion.
President Obama and liberals in Congress say they want health care reform, but they are using health reform as a way to ram through taxpayer funded abortion. Pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL have admitted they hope to mandate "access" to abortion for "all women" through national health care reform legislation.
Abortion is not healthcare, as the pro-abortion organizations would like Americans to believe, and it should not be mandated under any health insurance plan, especially one that Americans will be forced to subsidize.
Specific language must be written into the healthcare bill that excludes taxpayer funds from paying for abortions.
MYTH #1: The abortion mandate is an email rumor; the word “abortion” does not appear in any of the major health care bills currently pending in the House and Senate. FACT: The abortion mandate is very real. The absence of the word abortion is very reason why the proposed legislation will mandate abortion on virtually every American health care plan. For example, look no further than the federal Medicaid statute which does not mention the word abortion, yet Medicaid funded as many as 300,000 abortions per year prior to enactment of the Hyde amendment.
MYTH #2: The Obama administration doesn’t want to change the status quo with regard to abortion. They will not allow an abortion mandate. FACT: The President himself said that reproductive care is at the heart of his health care plan.1 And Hilary Clinton has confirmed that the administration considers abortion to be part of reproductive health. More recently Office of Budget and Management Chief Peter Orszag told "FOX News Sunday" on July 19, 2009 that it is not "prepared to rule [taxpayer funded abortion] out" of the healthcare legislation.2
MYTH #3: The courts can’t mandate abortion coverage if abortion isn’t even written into the health bill. FACT: In the mid-1990s the Hyde amendment was adjusted to no longer ban Medicaid abortion funding in cases of rape and incest abortion. Even though the Medicaid statute didn’t refer directly to abortion, they reverted to the assumed mandate that abortion would be covered. States that tried to refuse to pay for rape and incest abortions, were overruled by courts that said because abortion falls under broad categories of care in the Medicaid statute, states must fund abortion even if it violates their individual state law.
MYTH #4: The so-called "Hyde Amendment" restricts federal funds from paying for abortions through Medicaid and applies in the healthcare bill. FACT: Actually the health care overhaul bypasses the Hyde amendment. But even if it didn’t, we cannot be fooled by this pro-abortion “two-step.” If the Hyde amendment did apply it would still be subject to annual re-approval. Significant portions of the proposed legislation are not subject to the Hyde amendment.
MYTH #5: Proposed legislation maintains the status quo, but pro-life amendments go further than current law. FACT: Permanent abortion funding bans are contained in other health care laws including Department of Defense health care coverage and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan. If Representatives and Senators oppose taxpayer funding for abortion or plans that cover abortion, it only follows that such an explicit provision must be contained in the healthcare bill.
I started this blog a few weeks before the 2008 election. I started it as a way to share articles, thoughts, quotes, pictures, videos, etc. with my family and friends that stand for truth, freedom, and conservative values . Yes, I do believe if we don't defend these conservative values, we will lose our freedoms. I invite all to read and to study the issues and find the facts. I am a Christian - (Latter Day Saint), so I will also post views from my church as well as views from the Catholic, Protestant Christians, and other Judeo-Christian Churches on political issues. John Adams' stated: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people." "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. " I believe this statement to be true. Mitt Romney states:"Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history -but it is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people." I fully agree with him. We must all work together for the greater good. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
Posts
