Tuesday, October 27, 2009

No Government Funded Abortions! Period.



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.


"In a 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. The AP 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 polls show strong public opposition to government funding of abortion and abortion coverage."


NRLC has obtained and today makes publicly available
a memorandum prepared 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 as NRLC 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.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Dignity



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."

Saturday, October 24, 2009

The Moral Incoherence of Abortion

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"?

Friday, October 9, 2009

taking a break...

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

Sunday, August 30, 2009

abortion arguements





Below are two prolife songs by Phil Keaggy. WARNING!! Both contain pictures of aborted babies
GRAPHIC!

Not for little eyes or for the faint of heart.






One might add to Alcorn's remarks that there is without question considerably more scientific evidence for life beginning at conception than there is for global warming. Yet the president earnestly supports protection of the environment and dismisses the need for protecting the unborn. Is that reasonable?

"If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life," says Alcorn. "If a hunter is uncertain whether movement in the brush is caused by a person, does this uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we're not sure, what is the best policy -- to assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?"

What faith group or atheists would honestly say go ahead and fire at the unknown object behind the bush, go ahead and drive into the dark and unknown figure on the road, or even walk away from the person that has questionably fallen dead or alive -- even if it's me?

Whether a person of faith or not, the right to life is not something theoretical or hypothetical -- it's personal and fundamental to all...and an unjustifiable or careless breach of that right is universally agreed to be a crime.

Discrimination is another matter considered deplorable by today's standards. Yet the argument that a woman should have the right to an abortion because the fetus resides within her body is an act of discrimination. Alcorn rightly contends that to be inside something is not the same as being part of it. Furthermore, human beings shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their residence.

"One's body does not belong to another's body merely because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. A loaf of bread is not part of the oven in which it is baked," writes Alcorn. "A person is a person whether she lives in a mansion or an apartment or on the street. She is a person whether she is trapped in a cave, lying in a care center, or residing within her mother."

Such principle, which is clearly accepted by the masses, is certainly not "religion specific." One might even argue that it has nothing to do with religion. Thus abortion is, at the least, an egregious act of death by discrimination based on where an individual lives.

What's more, where is it generally agreed upon by people of every background that an individual's right to choose trumps the protection of innocent life?

Alcorn writes: "When I present the pro-life position on campuses, I often begin by saying: 'Yes, I'm pro-choice. That's why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it's his body -- and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He's free to choose, and it's none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.'"

Certainly this position is not "amenable to reason" or even slightly agreed upon by any. Yet the same principle is thoughtlessly accepted when it comes to a woman's so-called "right" to choose an abortion.

Obviously, there is absolutely nothing reasonable or humanitarian about the pro-choice position. Whether godless or a person of faith, by the president's own standard alone the practice of abortion should be summarily rejected and opposed -- not supported and advanced.


Friday, August 28, 2009

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

More Premature Babies Surviving, Living Longer

Interesting articles, I'm posting for all to read................

http://www.lifenews.com/int1222.html

Stockholm, Sweden (LifeNews.com) -- Researchers in Sweden have published a new study showing survival chances have greatly improved for premature babies. The news comes at a time when the United States is grappling with the murder of an abortion practitioner who ended the lives of these babies in late-term abortions.

Dr. Karel Marsal of Lund University Hospital and colleagues published their findings in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

They found that approximately 70 percent of the babies born alive between 22 and 26 weeks gestation in Sweden now survive past the age of one thanks to advances in modern medicine.

On the down side, the authors say more must be done because half of the babies who survived experienced serious health problems.

The researchers examined the birth of all infants born before 27 weeks gestation in Sweden from 2004-2007 and found the overall perinatal mortality or death rate was 45%. That means 55 percent of the 1,011 babies survived who were born at or before that stage of pregnancy.

Of those 55 percent of babies who survived, 70 percent were still alive at the end of one year which is a higher figure than in previous studies.

The study confirmed earlier research showing survival rates increase as the pregnancy moves further along.

It found 10 percent of babies born at 22 weeks survived to one year compared with 53% of those born at 23 weeks and 85% of those born at 26 weeks into the pregnancy. The later the birth in pregnancy the more likely the baby survived without any major illness and half of those born at 26 weeks had no serious health issues.

The study also found babies born at hospitals with the best intensive care facilities had the highest survival odds.

"Certainly, at 22 weeks the chance of surviving is very small, but at 23 weeks the results are much better," Marsal said in the study. "But gestational age alone is not enough to judge prognosis."

The survival of premature babies is an important research topic if only because the rate of premature births has increased over the years.

Some of the increase has been brought on because of abortion.

Last year, Canadian researcher Brent Rooney and colleagues published a report in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons showing African-American women are at risk for higher rates of premature and extremely premature birth because they tend to have abortions at higher rates than women of other ethnicity.

According to the new research paper, black women are three times more likely to have an early pre-term birth before 32 weeks gestation and four times more likely to have an extremely pre-term birth before 28 weeks gestation in comparison with women of other ethnic groups.

While black women represent 12.5% of American females they have 38.2% of all abortions, according to the authors.

In July 2006, a report from a committee of the National Academies of Science finds that a first-trimester abortion, the most common abortion procedure, is linked to an increasing risk of premature birth.

In the report is a list of "immutable medical risk factors associated with preterm birth" and "prior first-trimester abortion" is listed third among other risk factors that increase the risk of having a subsequent premature birth.

The IOM reported that premature births before 37 weeks gestation represent 12.5 percent of all U.S. births, a 30% increase since 1981. Abortion became legally accessible in 1973 and the number of abortions peaked in the early 1980s.

Tiny Baby Survives


"Pop Can" Miracle Baby Set to Go Home - Born at 12.5 Ounces



By Patrick B. Craine

PITTSBURGH, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On March 12, parents Brittany Rideout and Adam Bouchat welcomed their beautiful and extraordinarily tiny little girl, Taylor Rideout, at Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC in Pittsburgh. Born at 26 weeks gestation, Taylor was a mere 12.5 ounces or 350 grams, about the size of a pop can.

Ms. Rideout suffers from lupus, and about six weeks into the pregnancy she underwent two strokes and two seizures, says Mr. Bouchat in a video on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s website. She was hospitalized for a month. Then, two months after she was released, she was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome. “Her blood pressure was sky-high and her liver was failing,” said Mr. Bouchat.

Faced with the possibility of death for both mother and child, they chose to deliver baby Taylor at 26 weeks. According to Taylor’s doctor, Dr. Jennifer Kloesz, the smallest babies they had delivered before Taylor were about 500 grams, but these babies were only 24 weeks gestation. Dr. Kloesz said that Taylor was about half the size of a normal 26-week baby.

“The reason that she’s still here and is going to survive and be discharged is that she was 26 weeks,” Dr. Kloesz said. “Her organ systems had developed more like a 26-weeker so that she was able to respond to our resuscitation.”

Dr. Kloesz said that if Taylor had not been gestated so long, they might not have made the attempt. Referring to her being 26 weeks, she said, “That’s kinda the main thing that makes her so different and why it was worth giving it a try, with her parents’ wishes,” continues Dr. Kloesz.

But Ms. Rideout urges parents facing similar difficulties never to give up, reports WXPI in Pittsburgh. “I would tell them,” she said, “don't give up on their child if they're born small or have a disease or anything. There's a God in this world, and if it's meant to be, it will be.”

Taylor is now 83 days old, and weighs 3 pounds. She has been transferred into a transitional unit for a couple weeks in preparation for leaving the hospital.

Her parents, of course, are overjoyed. “I was scared that she wasn’t going to make it, but she made it, so it’s great,” said Ms. Rideout.

They are looking forward to bringing her home, but are grateful for the care she has received. “We’re just really looking forward to the time we can bring her home. But we’re just so thankful that she’s here, though, and just getting the care and attention. So even if we can’t have her home, we feel safe that she’s here,” said Mr. Bouchat.

“Despite all she’s been through, she seems to be a very happy person,” he said.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Hypocrites....

"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:





(tip on photos from right voices)

Monday, August 17, 2009

Priceless Clips from President Obama on Health Care....

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.

A Physician testifies- watch, listen and learn...truth spoken before Congress

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Abortion in Health Care...

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.
(from Jill Stanek)




  • 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.

(info from: http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com)

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Health Care Fact Check

President Obama stated: "For all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary is if we do nothing. ... Where we disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that don't bear any resemblance to anything that's actually being proposed."

There is no place for outlandish rumor or outrageous rhetoric in the debate for the affordable and accessible health care reform we all want.

Below are some facts that will help you counter the dishonest rhetoric Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and liberal special interest groups are disseminating in their attempt to silence dissent:

  • Rhetoric: President Obama Promises Americans Can Keep Their Current Health Care Coverage. "You know, the interesting thing is we've actually been very clear on what we want. I've said I want to make sure if you have health care you are going to keep it..." (PBS's "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 7/20/09)
    • FACT: Analysis Shows Over 88 Million People To Lose Current Insurance Under Government Health Care Takeover. "Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. If the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan." (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, "Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009," 7/17/09)
    • FACT: Mayo Clinic Says Government-Run Health Care Will Force Doctors To Drop Patients. '[L]awmakers are on track to approve across-the-board federal payment reductions of $155 billion over 10 years for hospitals ... Mayo and similar health systems object to the sweeping cuts. 'Across-the-board cuts will be harmful to everyone and we think it is particularly bad to penalize the high-value organizations,' said Jeff Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. 'We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.'" (Phil Galewitz, "'Model' Health Systems Press Case For Medicare Fix In Reform," Kaiser Health News, 7/20/09)
  • Rhetoric: President Obama Promises No Additional Taxes On Middle Class. "What I've said is, and I have stuck to this point, I don't want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/21/09)
    • FACT: Democrats' Plan Imposes 2.5% Tax On Uninsured Individuals. "The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold ..." (Douglas W. Elmendorf, "Preliminary Analysis Of The Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided By The House Tri-Committee Group," Letter To Chairman Rangel, 7/17/09)

The Republicans want an honest and open debate about how to reform health care, but it is the Democrats who do not want to have a legitimate discussion on the issues. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their liberal special interest cronies are resorting to calling concerned citizens who have questions about their health care schemes "astroturf," "un-American," and even "political terrorists."

One White House aide went so far to say "if you get hit, we will punch back
twice as hard
" when coaching Senate Democrats on the ways of "Chicago land politics."

It's time for the President to practice what he preached on the campaign trail and respect all voices in the health care debate.

"Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care 'reform' on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic. Their increasing anxiety and fear of failure are typified in the words of the leader of their party, who wants Republicans to keep their mouths shut while he 'fixes' health care. 'I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking,' the president said Thursday at a political rally in Virginia. 'I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.' So much for the promises of bipartisan lawmaking. So much for open discussion. So much for understanding who really caused the 'mess' in the first place. Like Al Gore claiming the debate about global warming is over, the White House simply wants to shut down dialogue over who controls more than one-seventh of the economy. ... Truth is, there's nothing more American than revolting against heavy-handed authority, be it a long train of abuses from a king or the lawmaking of elected officials with strong authoritarian urges. This is a nation founded on independence, and there is a large portion of it that wants to retain that priceless heritage. This seems to confuse some lawmakers. ... Voters' deep anger is justifiable. They have every right to disrupt and shout down public figures who, as the protesters can be heard chanting, work for them. At dispute is not a mere difference of opinion that can and should be discussed in a civil manner, but a fundamental question of who is in charge of peoples' lives. We are not advocating violence, though coercive government is at its core violent as the state is required to resort to force to ensure that its directives aren't violated. But we do support our fellow citizens' right to express their rage at an injustice, particularly if it makes lawmakers uncomfortable. Shouldn't Americans bristle when their independence is threatened, when a federal official, in this case White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, says party leaders 'will punch back twice as hard' when voters merely show their displeasure? The freedom the protesters are defending can sometimes be messy and imperfect. A lack of freedom, however, is eternally oppressive. It is an unrelenting prison that poisons the human spirit, even when cloaked in allegedly humane programs such as government-run health care." --Investors' Business Daily





Monday, August 10, 2009

More on the Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor To the United States Supreme Court

Testimony of Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO, Americans United for Life Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary On the Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor To the United States Supreme Court

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Right Wing Extremist Mobs????



Here is the video of a new Democrat National Committee (DNC) ad attacking citizens who are opposing a Government-takeover of Health Care as an "angry mob" comprised of "right-wing extremists of the Republican base."

Vision America Action President Dr. Rick Scarborough declared: "According to the president and DNC, if you're a concerned citizen who asks his Congressman tough questions at a Town Hall Meeting, you're a right-wing extremist. If you're a senior worried about not being able to get hip-replacement surgery if the president's plan is adopted, you're a right-wing extremist. If you wonder how a government that can't deliver the mail on time is going to manage an industry which constitutes one-sixth of our economy, you are a right-wing extremist. This is truly beneath contempt."

"Obama is calling a plurality of Americans 'right-wing extremists.' The message of the DNC/Obama ad is simple and straightforward: Don't ask questions, Don't read the fine print. Don't peacefully protest. Just blindly support the president's attempted takeover of health care,"
Scarborough observed.

"Far from intimidating us, this character-assassination encourages us to re-double our efforts to defeat Obama-Care!"

Why shouldn't we be concerned when Obama is lying to us. Obama promises that people who are happy with their current health insurance can keep it. That's a claim contradicted by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. AND IN HIS OWN WORDS stated that His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance:



Obama explains that his plans for health care reform would eventually lead to the elimination of private health insurance companies in favor of a single-payer system:
"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process, I can envision in a decade out, or fifteen years out, or twenty years out," Obama says in a 2007 interview with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The video montage then follows with a 2003 speech given by Obama at an AFL-CIO conference on "Civil, Human, and Women's Rights" in which he says, "I am a proponent of single-payer universal health care plans."

The uncut context of Obama's 2003 address to the AFL-CIO labor union posted on Breitbart.tv. In that address Obama states clearly, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. ...

"A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

More on the protest and the "angry mobs" who are "well dressed":








Pelosi's visit to Denver was met by anti-government protesters as well as government astroturfers. El Marco graphically illustrates exactly what astroturfing is and how it is intended to stifle dissent in America. This is an outstanding report. Excellent pictures and coverage to show what is actually happening.

Click the link below to see all the pictures and coverage
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/08/pelosi-astroturf-healthcare/

Here's another link to see actual videos of
left-wing extremists that are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on anyone who voices their objections to Barack Obama's plans to socialize American health care.

http://www.rightmarch.com/obamacare-townhall.htm



How does the mainstream media report the townhall meetings? "Angry old white folks are storming into town halls all across the country spewing lies about health care reform. Let me set the record straight early on: These folks [are] dumber than Joe the Plumber." --MSNBC's Ed Schultz

Thursday, August 6, 2009

H.R. 3200 Dissected

The President and the Democrats in congress who support H.R. 3200 are scared because the majority of Americans have expressed that they oppose this new take over of our health care. The liberals don't want you to find out what is actually in this health care reform bill before they pass it.

A recent White House blog written by the White House Director of New Media states that ''there is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there'' both on the web and floating around in chain emails.

The blog continues, ''since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.''

This is absurd! In a nutshell, the White House is asking Americans to report on their neighbors, family, and friends who disagree with the President's policy choices on health care.

This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care.

Make no mistake, this outrageous attack on free speech is designed to stifle public debate about the health care issue - including growing concerns from Americans opposed to making abortion services mandatory health benefits.

Americans have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care. This wrong move by the Obama Administration is nothing more than a blatant attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan.

We will not let the White House intimidate us! We must continue to discuss and pass on information about the dangers of Obama's health care plan. We must continue to contact our congressmen and let them know that we OPPOSE H.R. 3200 and the government hijacking our private healthcare decisions.

Here is some more detailed information on ObamaCare below; I got this information from: spinpolitico.com It is VERY INFORMATIVE, pass this information along. The consequences of these mandates will be massive and destructive to our freedoms and our economy.

A gentlemen took the time to read the entire Bill and to highlight some of the features of our proposed health bill. Unfortunately, he also took the liberty to present his "facts" as his interpretation of the legalese contained therein. Politifact challenges the interpreter and he defends his interpretations here:

http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/30/politifacts-checks-a-chain-...

An interpreted presentation of H.R. 3200 follows:

* Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
* Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
*Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process).
* Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
* Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
* Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
* Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
* Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
* Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
* Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans).
* Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens.
* Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
* Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
* Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
* Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
* Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
* Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
* Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.
* Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
* Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
* Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
* Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
* Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
* Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.
*Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!).
* Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
* Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
* Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
* Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
* Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
* Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
* Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
* Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
* Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
* Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
* Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
* Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
* Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
* Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
* Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
* Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
* Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
* Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
* Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
* Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
* Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
* Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
* Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
* PG 502 Line 5-18 Government builds the "Center" to conduct, support, & synthesize research to define our HealthCare Services.
* PG 502 Section 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. - Hello Big Brother - Literally.
* PG 503 Line 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.
* PG 503 Line 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US including your data.
* PG 504 Line 6-10 The "Center" will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info).
* PG 506 Line 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.
* PG 518 Line 21-25 The Commission will have input from HealthCare consumer reps - Can you say unions & ACORN?
* PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.
* PGs 525-620 deals with the Govt basically taking over nursing homes, long-term care facilities (think assisted living) through regulations of the facilities, the owners of sd facilities, the employees of sd facilities and even the land owners of that sd facilities reside on. Additionally as you read these 90+ pages you can come to the conclusion that any Health related services will be determined and rationed by the Govt for our senior citizens and others in nursing homes. This one post should do enough to raise awareness of the control the Govt is exerting over the older population of American citizens.
* PG 620 Line 1-9 The Government will define, prioritize, and nationalize your Health Care Services.
* PG 621 Lines 20-25 Government will define what Quality means in HealthCare. Since when does Government know about quality?
* PG 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the quality Standards Government will transfer $$ from to other Government Trust Funds. More Taxes.
* PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.
* PG 628 Section 1443 Government will give "Multi-Stake Holders" Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of "Quality" Measures.
* PG 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups including Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HealthCare quality.
* PG 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any "Quality measure" of HealthCare Services as they see fit.
* PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed "Quality Measures" for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.
* PG 635 - 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision - Government wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Government.
* PG 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections - Looks okay.
* PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency - Government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you'll live.
* PG 676-686 Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.
* PG 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean the Government with an $18 mil website?
* PGs 701-704 Section 1619 If your part of HealthCare plan that isn't in Government HealthCare Exchange but you qualify for Federal aid, no payment.
* PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secretary gets complaints (ACORN) on HealthCare provider or supplier, Government can do background check.
* PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HealthCare providers/suppliers admittance into HealthCare Exchange.
* Pg 719-720 Section 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.
* PG 722 Section 1639 Government Mandates Doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Services.
* PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Government certifications will apply to medicaid & CHIP (your kids). Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement purposes, the Secretary of Health & Human Services will give Attorney General access to ALL data.
* PG 724 Lines 16-22 Government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other HealthCare service.
* PG 740-757 Government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (That's your tax dollars peeps).
* Pg 757-762 Fed Government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)
* PG 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin.
* Pg 765 Section 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)
* Pg 768 Section 1713 Government - Nursing Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks).
* Pg 769 11-14 Nurseing Home Visit Services include-economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement, school-readiness.
* Pg 769 3-5 Nursing Home Visit Services - "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies. " Government Abortions anyone?
* Pg 770 SEC 1714 Federal Government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Say abortion & State Sovereign.
* Pg 789-797 Government will set & mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs will brought to market. Goodbye innovation.
* Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for grad medical education. The government will now control Drs education.
* PG 801 Sec 1751 The Government will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!
* Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. required to register. Government takes over private payment system.
* PG 820-824 Sec 1801 Government will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal finances.
* Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.
* PG 829-833 Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans including self insured to pay for Trust Fund!
* PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.
* Pg 838-840 Government will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expecting kids.
* PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Program includes Government coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!
* Pg 859 Government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000, 000. Yes thats Billion.
* PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HealthCare for 2 years for part loan repayment.
* PG 876-892 The Government takes over the education of our Medical students and Drs.
* PG 898 The Government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps. to ensure supply of public health professionals.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.
* PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.
* PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HealthCare Draft?
* PG 910 The Government will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.
* PG 913-914 Government starts a HealthCare affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.
* PG 915 SEC. 2251. Government MANDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HealthCare professionals.
* Pg 932 The Government will establish Preventative & Wellness Trust fund - initial cost of $30,800,000, 000-Billion.
* PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control You!!
* PG 936 Government will develop "Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards" Tell me what to eat?
* PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Government? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Services, Minority Health, Women's Health.
* PG 950- 980 BIG Government core public health infrastructure includes workforce capacity, lab systems; health information systems, etc.
* PG 993 Government will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won't have a chance.
* PG 994 School Based Health Clinics will be integrated into the school environment. Say Government Brainwash!
* PG 1001 The Government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?
* PG 1003 9-11 National Medical Dev Reg "(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities" you WILL be tracked.
* PG 1018 States give up some of their State Sovereignty.

Thanks to Common Sense from a Common Man for digging thru this monstrosity

http://blog.flecksoflife.com/

Dr. McKalip, the President of the Florida Neurosurgical Society, has summed up the liberal Democrats' plan very clearly:
The Majority in Congress and the President are promising to change the "status quo" by pushing a government-run-medicine plan (HR 3200). The plan would create rationing through government committees, FORCE all Americans to buy over-priced, politically created health insurance, create an economically unsustainable government-run insurance plan, and impose economy-crushing taxes. In fact, the President would break yet another promise by imposing a 2.5% income tax on each person who refused to buy government improved insurance. Further, after 2013 people would be FORCED to stay in their current plan for LIFE or buy only a government-approved plan since no further enrollment will be allowed in non-approved insurance. Insurance companies would profit endlessly from the free business of the mandate. As medical care demands increased and artificially high profit margins became unacceptably low (for them) they would join the bailout game. In other words, there would be absolutely no change to the status quo - just an expansion of more people into the currently bad system with the added feature of state-sanctioned rationing of medical care.
While Obama, Pelosi and Reid insist that "if you like your health insurance coverage, you'll get to keep it," it's now very clear: once again, THEY'RE LYING.

If the public plan is implemented as detailed in this bill, people with private insurance will be moved on a public plan, regardless of what they want, because their employers will make that decision because of the financial incentives in the bill.

That's not all: Yearly premiums for Americans with private coverage could jump as much as $460 per person as a result of more cost-shifting, which would stem from the public plan. Even doctors stand to lose thousands of dollars of income under the legislation. Annual physician net income is estimated to drop by 6.3 percent or $13.4 billion (coming in at an average $18,900 per physician) when compared with current trends.

A recent analysis from Investors Business Daily showed that in the years between 1968 and 2007, costs to maintain government health plans skyrocketed, with Medicare increasing 85.5 times and Medicaid 105.9 times, dwarfing government estimates for the actual costs of the programs.

The Wall Street Journal notes, "The press corps has noticed the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that the House health bill increases the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade. But government-run health care won't turn into a pumpkin after a decade. The underreported news is the new spending that will continue to increase well beyond the 10-year period that CBO examines, and that this blowout will overwhelm even the House Democrats' huge tax increases, Medicare spending cuts and other 'pay fors.'"

Worse, the Journal adds, "[T]he CBO score almost surely understates this deficit chasm because CBO uses static revenue analysis -- assuming that higher taxes won't change behavior. But long experience shows that higher rates rarely yield the revenues that they project. As for the spending, when has a new entitlement ever come in under budget?" Democrats may indeed win approval for their plan by claiming it will be "deficit neutral" through 2019, but that's what we call the BIG lie.


Here is also a link to an Associated Press report that effectively validates the concerns of pro-life advocates that the health care reform will open the door to government funding of abortion.