Or he was pressured and THREATENED by the ObaMAO THUGS to change his "NO" vote to a "yes." Take a look at this press release from the National Right To Life organization:
STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE
ON ABORTION "DEAL" ON HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON -- (Sunday, March 21, 2010, 6 PM EDT) -- In response to today's announcement regarding an agreement between Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and President Obama on the pending health care bill (H.R. 3590), the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in the 50 states:
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.
The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.
To elaborate: The order does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions described in NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, which is posted here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCToHouseOnHealthBill.pdf
.
Regarding Community Health Centers (CHCs), NRLC has documented the problem created by H.R. 3590 here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, has sent lawmakers a letter explaining why the bill opens the door to direct federal funding of abortion in Community Health Centers: www.nrlc.org/ahc/DestroLetterToStupakOnCommHealthCenters.pdf
.
Prof. Destro clearly explains why it is the statutory language that will govern.
Regarding the new program to provide tax credits to purchase private insurance, the executive order merely tinkers with the formalities of a bookkeeping scheme under which federal subsidies will pay for plans that cover elective abortion -- a break from the longstanding principles of the Hyde Amendment.
The order does nothing at all to mitigate the other abortion-related problems described in the NRLC letter, dealing with bill provisions that create dangerous regulatory mandate authorities, revise Indian health programs, and create pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by existing restrictions on funding of abortion. Nor can the order correct the omission from the pending legislation of the necessary conscience-protection language that had been included in House-passed health care legislation last November (the "Weldon language").
For additional information regarding the abortion-related components of the legislation, and NRLC's assessment of the gravity of these issues, please refer to the March 19 letter linked above, and other materials posted on the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.html.
For further questions or comments on this project, feel free to email us at development@nrlc.org!
STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE
ON ABORTION "DEAL" ON HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON -- (Sunday, March 21, 2010, 6 PM EDT) -- In response to today's announcement regarding an agreement between Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and President Obama on the pending health care bill (H.R. 3590), the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in the 50 states:
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.
The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.
To elaborate: The order does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions described in NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, which is posted here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCToHouseOnHealthBill.pdf
.
Regarding Community Health Centers (CHCs), NRLC has documented the problem created by H.R. 3590 here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, has sent lawmakers a letter explaining why the bill opens the door to direct federal funding of abortion in Community Health Centers: www.nrlc.org/ahc/DestroLetterToStupakOnCommHealthCenters.pdf
.
Prof. Destro clearly explains why it is the statutory language that will govern.
Regarding the new program to provide tax credits to purchase private insurance, the executive order merely tinkers with the formalities of a bookkeeping scheme under which federal subsidies will pay for plans that cover elective abortion -- a break from the longstanding principles of the Hyde Amendment.
The order does nothing at all to mitigate the other abortion-related problems described in the NRLC letter, dealing with bill provisions that create dangerous regulatory mandate authorities, revise Indian health programs, and create pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by existing restrictions on funding of abortion. Nor can the order correct the omission from the pending legislation of the necessary conscience-protection language that had been included in House-passed health care legislation last November (the "Weldon language").
For additional information regarding the abortion-related components of the legislation, and NRLC's assessment of the gravity of these issues, please refer to the March 19 letter linked above, and other materials posted on the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.html.
For further questions or comments on this project, feel free to email us at development@nrlc.org!
I smell sour grapes...
ReplyDeleteYeah...you would.
ReplyDeleteIt's much more than just "sour grapes" for the deaths of children who will be aborted with tax-payer money - in direct violation of the Hyde Amendment.
Hi Christine,
ReplyDeleteDo you think there should be absolutely no abortion, even in cases of rape and incest?
The National Organization For Women is pretty upset with this Executive Order--they believe that there will be no federal funding for abortion. So who is correct? National Right to Life or NOW? Both believe the opposite just happened...
"Sour Grapes"?.....I do not want my tax money used to murder the unborn. The unborn who don't have a "choice"
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteThe cases for the need of an abortion because of rape or incest are infinitesimal compared to abortions performed out of "convenience" or for the purpose of another form of birth control (at the cost of killing an unborn child).
The problem is that an Executive Order can be overturned - by the next president or Obama himself.
I agree wholeheartedly Anonymous! It makes me sick to my stomach.
ReplyDeleteStill praying that it gets halted by the Senate. If that doesn't work, then the 35 states that are planning to sue the Fed. Gov't. for forcing people to buy a product (totally unconstitutional!!) like health insurance may help overturn this huge legislative mistake.
Hi Christine,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that abortion shouldn't be done out of convenience or birth control. Why people can't use condoms or birth control pills is beyond me. But I am not willing to enforce that belief on women.
I also don't see how making people buy health insurance (at a discount) is any different than making all of us buy car insurance, or house insurance (I had to buy house insurance long before I closed on my house) or any other type of insurance.
Thirty-five states?! Try four, hostess: SC, VA, FL, and ID. Big difference, and I doubt they can make it stick. I'd always heard the 'Pubs were against frivolous lawsuits. What's happened?
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, the federal government forces people to buy car insurance, but nobody seemed to think that meant Armageddon when it was implemented.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteObviously we are not going to agree on the abortion issue.
My view is choose life - your mother did.
Driving a car is a privilege - not a right. Owning a home is a privilege - not a right. When one decides to do either, we CHOOSE to be susceptible to the laws of such ownership - including the need to have insurance. Even with such laws, there are still people who drive without car insurance and/or a legitimate license. When they get caught breaking such laws, they are fined or put in jail.
Demanding that all Americans purchase health insurance isn't the same thing. Life isn't a "privilege" - it is SUPPOSED TO BE A RIGHT - as it is stated in the Declaration of Independence. But as we have seen, the terrible Roe v. Wade law took away the right of the unborn to their lives through the ugly, death sentence procedure of abortion.
The health insurance coverage demand in the bill also goes against several Constitutional provisions and amendments (commerce law comes to mind). Therefore, it will be fought in the courts. Ultimately, it will reach the Supreme Court. Many of the Constitutional lawyers that I have heard interviewed on T.V. have stated that the bill will most likely be declared unconstitutional.
*******
GMPilot,
Last time I checked the news, 38 states plan to fight the bill in court. What T.V. station are you watching?
Kevin,
ReplyDelete"But I am not willing to enforce that belief on women."
The problem with that logic is that we are not forcing anything on women. No one is forcing them to do anything in the case that you are talking about. We are moving to declare a particular option unlawful. Some will still take it.
Contrast this with what the President and the Congress have just done. You are required to have health insurance. No option. You can get out of having car insurance by not driving a car on public roads. You can own a car and drive it on private land all you want without insurance. No such option for health care insurance under this plan.
You don't have to have homeowner's insurance to own a home. That's only a requirement if someone has a monetary interest (i.e., bank loan) to protect them. Most people maintain other insurance to protect their own interest, but it is not a condition of owning property.
"The National Organization For Women is pretty upset with this Executive Order--they believe that there will be no federal funding for abortion."
No they don't. Anyone who has had a lawyer read the bill knows that federal money will be used to subsidize health plans that provide abortions. They simply go into scream mode anytime anyone makes even a token gesture against abortion on demand.
"I'd always heard the 'Pubs were against frivolous lawsuits. What's happened?"
Obviously we have a different definition of "frivolous." Question: If the government can force you to buy health insurance to "promote the general welfare" then what kind of action is out of bounds? Why not mandate morning calisthenics for everyone? That would promote the general welfare. Why not control everyone's diet? That would promote general welfare. There are endless things that could be done to promote the general welfare. And the only thing that would be lost is freedom.
Back to the insurance questions raised by GM and Kevin: Even though they don't amount to the same type of thing, as previously discussed, there is another important factor: Homeowner's and auto insurance mandates are levied by the state under the authority affirmed by the 10th amendment to the US Constitution. Under the same amendment, the Federal government has no authority to require you to buy anything.
ReplyDeleteHi Gary,
ReplyDeleteI never said "I'd always heard the 'Pubs were against frivolous lawsuits. What's happened?"
And yes, the NOW is very upset about the executive order. You say they are not, but just take a look at their website. I am not spreaking for them--all I was doing was pointing out that one group is saying one thing and another is saying something else.
O.k., so now everyone is required to have health care. If they did not have health care, who would pay if they did not have it and had to go into the hospital for a couple of weeks? I didn't say you had to have insurance to own a home--you have to have it to buy a home, unless you are lucky enough to have all the money up front (and how many people actually do that???). Sure, you may not have to have car insurance if you drive on private land, but that won't get you to the grocery store or the bank. Who just drives on private land and no where else? Insurance exists to spread the cost out. I would hate to think how much an accident would cost if I hit someone, hurt them and damaged both cars and if I didn't have insurance. It could total millions. Instead, insurance companies collect a huge amount of money in insurance payments and then spread it out as accidents occur. It will be the same with health care.
You say that someone has insurance if they have a monetary interest. O.k., let's look at a husband, wife and three kids. One kid comes down with cancer. Who is supposed to protect that kid now that they are sick? Maybe that isn't the best analogy, but the parent has an interest in making sure that the child survives. And how can a child survive cancer? Medical care, that must be paid for somehow. It should be the duty of a parent to protect the children and it seems to me that insurance would be a part of this. I am assuming your children have health insurance. If not, are you counting on the government to bail you out if they get sick and you don't have insurance?
Hi Christine, I'm not sure what you mean by 'choose life--your mother did.' Do you mean that my mother decided to have me, therefore I should automatically believe that all pregnant women should have their babies?
Do you also think that health care is a privilege? If so, who should get it? If you say only a select few, then what makes them so special and what about the rest? If you say all, how is that to be paid for, especially in cases where the person cannot afford it?
Kevin,
ReplyDelete"You say they are not, but just take a look at their website."
If you look at what I wrote, I was not saying they are not upset. I know that they are upset. I wrote "No, they don't," as in "No, they don't believe that there will be no federal funding for abortion." They don't because as mad as they are about anything that smacks as being against anything that might possibly interfere with abortion, they employ lawyers, and lawyers know that an executive order can't interfere with legislation. It can only affect areas that aren't addressed under congressional statutes. The Hyde Amendment, for all the fuss, only restricts certain types of funds allocated in the annual budget. To get around it, assuming that President Obama keeps his pledge in issuing such an order, would only requiring authorizing the funds to a different office and the legal problem goes away.
Working out of order for sake of clarity:
"Do you also think that health care is a privilege?"
No, I think it is a need, the same way that food and shelter are a need. That's a lot different than a right. People have no right to have everyone else assume responsibility for their needs. Take an example: A person refuses to work. Because of that, he can't afford food, shelter, or health care. If it's a right he gets all of those anyway - food, shelter, health care. What if 10% of the population refuse to work? Do they still get it? What if 90% refuse to work? Are the remaining 10% required to be slaves to service all their needs? I say no, and if it's no for 90%, then the same principle holds true for one as well.
"If so, who should get it?"
Your question seems to be assuming an all or nothing case, and that's not what we have. The poor are provided health care, but not at the same level as those who can pay more. If that doesn't sound fair to you, consider other cases: The poor get housing, but not luxury housing. The poor get food stamps, but they don't get regular meals at five star restaurants. Under this health care plan as is, however, the government is going to mandate minimal coverage for everyone. Everyone gets the same coverage, but poor people get subsidized, so they pay less than the people who are already paying a great deal more in taxes. Hardly sounds fair to me.
"If you say only a select few, then what makes them so special and what about the rest?"
Why do you think the poor have access to the quality health care that they do? No, they don't get the same treatment as the rich, but there is greater access to MRI machines in New York than in all of Canada. The US has led the way in developing new medical technologies and drugs while other countries are languishing, and the reason is that people who have great resources are willing to put out for their own benefit. If you only have one bed in a hospital and two equally sick people come in, giving the bed to the poor man may make you feel more noble, but that kind of nobility can put a hospital out of business. Take in the proper percentage of wealthy, and the lights stay on, the doctors and nurses keep working, and the equipment gets updated promptly. Unfortunately, the system that they have right now in England is much like you describe. They take pride in giving no preference to the rich, and if everyone dies in beds smeared with blood and feces, that's a cost they are willing to accept.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteTime to accept the inevitable facts of life: Available health care is some value X. Demanded health care is some value Y. Y is always going to be greater than X, and when that is the case you have rationing. You are assuming that somehow the government will be able to come up with a more fair method of rationing than the market. History does not back that up, at least not to my way of thinking.
"You say that someone has insurance if they have a monetary interest."
No, I said most people maintain insurance to protect their interest. They make a rational decision based on their resources and their tolerance for risk.
"It should be the duty of a parent to protect the children and it seems to me that insurance would be a part of this."
I quite agree, but you are in favor of law that does quite the opposite, aren't you? If the government requires insurance and subsidizes it, then it is no longer the parent's responsibility, but the taxpayer's. That's one of the things about liberal philosophy that drives me crazy. You're very big on allowing people to take any immoral course they want, but when consequences inevitably come you say there is no personal responsibility, that everyone has to chip in and pay for the mess. It's a very wasteful philosophy. If they make the mess, they are responsible. It's been known for a long time that sex causes pregnancy, and how to avoid it. It's well known that IV drug use can spread disease. The continuing assumption that society has to take responsibility for every problem people inflict on themselves is foolish and wasteful.
"If not, are you counting on the government to bail you out if they get sick and you don't have insurance?"
I will do everything prudent and necessary to take care of my children, up to and including bankrupting myself and tapping every friend I have. And then I will work for as long as I live to pay back every penny because that's what responsible people do. To say that someone who has taken the easy way out and contributed little or nothing all of their life should have access to the same quantity of care that I and my family have is an insult to me and every other hardworking person in America.
(Continued)
ReplyDelete"Instead, insurance companies collect a huge amount of money in insurance payments and then spread it out as accidents occur. It will be the same with health care. "
No, that's the way it was until now. And for their trouble and the horrible crime of making between 3 and 4% profit, fearless leader Obama beat on them night and day. Now the government has the power to set prices, increased minimal coverages, and access to all the taxpayer money in the country to rig their own system.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no service the government runs with any kind of private counterpart where the government outperforms private industry. Public schools are a prime example. A friend of mine who lives in California wrote that 23,000 teachers got pink slips the other day. That's a tragedy, no doubt, but an even bigger tragedy is that I know there are still thousands of teachers on the payroll who are sitting in rooms reading magazines on full salary because they can't be fired. Wait until that teacher who is too lousy to teach becomes the nurse or doctor who is too lousy to give care.
It might be different if you could point to an example where government was controlling costs and maintaining high quality, but they aren't. Medicare costs are exploding. The government tries to convince us that they can run a much larger system efficiently. They even claim they will find $500 billion in savings from Medicare to help pay for it. So if the government is so efficient, why are their $500 billion in savings to be had?
You're trying to override some very tangible and factual problems using an emotional argument to sell a system that has already had bad results in Tennessee and Massachusetts. If you'd like to throw your money away, I won't stop you, but leave me out of it.
I'm running out of time to comment this evening. Perhaps tomorrow we can discuss the concept of forcing insurance companies to give the same rates to people with pre-existing conditions is not insurance, it's forcing everyone else in the group to pony up whether they want to or not (i.e., legally mandated theft).
ReplyDeleteKevin wrote:
ReplyDeleteHi Christine, I'm not sure what you mean by 'choose life--your mother did.' Do you mean that my mother decided to have me, therefore I should automatically believe that all pregnant women should have their babies?
You can take the ultimate meaning of that phrase any way that you choose.
For me, the broader context means that since my own mother chose life for me, then I should stand for the life of all unborn children.
Kevin: Do you also think that health care is a privilege? If so, who should get it? If you say only a select few, then what makes them so special and what about the rest? If you say all, how is that to be paid for, especially in cases where the person cannot afford it?
I believe that health care is a responsibility; therefore the purchase of health care insurance is up to the individual and/or parent (guardian) of each child. There are existing government programs that cover those who can't afford it. Many of the uninsured CHOOSE not to purchase it! The fact that no one is turned away at emergency rooms here in America tells us that our health care isn't perfect (none is) and we can use several GOOD fixes - but NOT at the huge cost of bankrupting our country, taking away our individual freedoms and liberty.
There is a story (maybe someone can find and post it) out there that a hospital created a program that prevents the emergency room-for-health-care merry-go-round and provides for what the people need. Some just want a bed for the night and food. Apparently, the program is working very well and saves that particular hospital millions (billions?) a year WITHOUT government interference!
I'm still not feeling very well so my answer here has to be cut short.
Government should not be forcing Americans to buy health insurance. It is unconstitutional!
Rep. Pete? King had a good analogy regarding the Roe v.Wade crowd who, in the 70's advocated keeping government "away from their choices and their bodies" when it came to abortion, but now that same group of radical progressives from the 60's are now FORCING people to buy health insurance TO COVER THEIR BODIES. What is wrong with that picture? Plenty!!
Gary gave extensive answers on each of your questions and I agree with what he wrote.
Hi Gary,
ReplyDeleteThanks for all of your awesome answers here. Really appreciate it!
Hi Gary, You said "You're very big on allowing people to take any immoral course they want, but when consequences inevitably come you say there is no personal responsibility, that everyone has to chip in and pay for the mess. It's a very wasteful philosophy. If they make the mess, they are responsible." Why just discuss 'immoral' issues? What about the flu? Going to work with a person you know has the flu is irresponsible. What about skin cancer which the sun causes? What about lung cancer, which smoking can cause, but non-smokers can also get it? There are large numbers of diseases that people catch. Are they responsible? Who is responsible for people getting skin cancer? The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost out.
ReplyDeleteSo you say you will sell and borrow to make sure your kids are taken care of. How are they going to be taken care of when they have no house to live in because it has been sold to pay their million dollar medical bill? It is good to say you are going to do this, but I wonder what will happen when reality hits? When you sell your car and your house, then what?
"Medicare costs are exploding." Why is that?
Hi Christine, you said "There are existing government programs that cover those who can't afford it." But isn't that the problem? Gary himself says that the government can't run a business.
You also said "Many of the uninsured CHOOSE not to purchase it!" Where are you getting those statistics from?
"Why just discuss 'immoral' issues? What about the flu? Going to work with a person you know has the flu is irresponsible. What about skin cancer which the sun causes? What about lung cancer, which smoking can cause, but non-smokers can also get it? There are large numbers of diseases that people catch. Are they responsible? Who is responsible for people getting skin cancer?"
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. Risky behavior, whether immoral, ignorant, or just plain stupid, should have consequences. And right now it does. And that's a big part of what the bill will take away. It cements in law the idea that everyone should be responsible for the stupidity of another.
"The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost out."
No. Insurance is to moderate risk. It puts people in particular risk pools and allows them to make a payment to mitigate loss.
""Medicare costs are exploding." Why is that? "
Poor management, fraud, a rapidly aging population, and probably other things that this bill will do nothing to address. It amazes me that the president can tell such a bold-faced lie as that they will find $500 billion savings in Medicare. If government was that efficient, there would not be $500 billion dollars to save.
Hi Gary,
ReplyDelete" It cements in law the idea that everyone should be responsible for the stupidity of another."
But that is what insurance is. I don't like having to pay $800 a year because there are stupid drivers out there. I don't like to have to pay $800 a year because a stupid neighbor could burn down my house with his bbq. But paying $800 a year is certainly cheaper than paying $10,000 to have part of my car replaced after an accident or paying whatever the cost of building a new house is. The insurance money gets put into a pool and that is what makes it work.
Besides, I don't think that insuring kids who get 5 colds a year really falls under the category of stupid (I doubt you think this either). I am happy to pay a bit more in taxes to make sure that everyone gets health insurance, just like I am happy to pay a bit more in taxes to make sure people get an education.
Kevin,
ReplyDelete"I am happy to pay a bit more in taxes to make sure that everyone gets health insurance, just like I am happy to pay a bit more in taxes to make sure people get an education."
And yet I would be willing to bet that you never paid more than required in taxes to pursue these goals. In the same way, I am happy to contribute a substantial portion of my income to charities. The difference between us is that I do not try to force you to do the same. If I were to come to your house and demand that you give twenty percent of your income because I plan to use it to pay for health care for people you would probably tell me I had no right to do so. Under our Constitution, neither does the Federal government.