Obama, Dems clandestine about abortion in nationalized healthcare
First, the backdrop. In this short Fox News clip on July 17, pro-life Republican Congressman Joe Pitts (PA) explained the hidden abortion mandate in the Democrat healthcare plan.
Then came this in The New York Times, July 19…
An Obama administration official refused Sunday to rule out the possibility that federal tax money might be used to pay for abortions under proposed health care legislation.
Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, asked whether he was prepared to say that “no taxpayer money will go to pay for abortions,” answered: “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”
Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of NH, who along with Mr. Orszag was asked about the issue on Fox News Sunday, said it had the potential to complicate the legislative battle over health care. “I would hate to see the health care debate go down over that issue,” Mr. Gregg said.
(Why would a Republican say that?)
Abortion has been simmering behind the scenes as an issue in legislation to guarantee access to health insurance for all Americans. The debate affects not only the public health insurance plan that Democrats want to create, but also private insurers, who would receive tens of billions of dollars of federal subsidies to cover people with low and moderate incomes.
Under the House bill, for example, most insurers would have to provide an “essential benefits package” specified by the health and human services secretary, who would receive recommendations from a federal advisory committee. Opponents of abortion want Congress to prohibit inclusion of abortion in that benefits package, while advocates of abortion rights say the package should be left to medical professionals to determine.
In an analysis of the House bill, the National Right to Life Committee said that ordinary principles of administrative law could allow the Obama administration to determine what would be included in the benefits package. “There is no doubt,” the group said, “that coverage of abortion will be mandated, unless Congress explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of federal authority to define ‘essential benefits.’ ”
Even if the health secretary did not require coverage of abortion, the group said, “federal courts would interpret the broadly worded mandatory categories of coverage to include abortion.”
Here’s that Fox News clip:
Meanwhile, most telling is Democrat-controlled Senate and House committees have rejected multiple amendments proposed by pro-lifers to explicitly exclude abortion funding from nationalized healthcare.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Elections have consequences. People elected the radically pro-abortion Obama, who stayed silent or voted “present” on many issues, until the issue of withholding medical care to newborn, living, breathing babies outside the womb came up — then he forcefully spoke out and voted 4 times to withhold care from these babies. Reason given? Letting these babies live might be a slippery slope to taking away his right to kill babies in earlier stages of development.
People also elected the radical pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and others.
Now we have to fight them at their peak of power, because they snuck into office with lies. The only saving grace is the pro-life Democrats mentioned in the story, who say they will not vote for this bill unless it explicitly excludes abortion. Let us see if they are true to their word.
These moderate Democrats were purposely run in moderate districts, just so the “D’s” could gain a numerical majority, which put Nancy Pelosi in as speaker. That strategy may come back to bite them.
The better path for Americans is to reject these so-called “moderate” Democrats and instead vote the Republican in, in their district. Then we would have better leadership and would not have to fight so hard to swat down these radical pro-abortion, pro-death proposals from the left.
Hmmm. A pro-life tax for individuals who want to buy a non-abort plan. Will this also be a tax on religious freedom? Will Catholic hospitals and other faith-based employers who honor the sanctity of life be hit with additional taxes for maintaining employee health plans in alignment with principles of the organization?
Those libs think of everything, don’t they? When they run out of things to tax, they tax your conscience!
“The better path for Americans is to reject these so-called “moderate” Democrats and instead vote the Republican in, in their district. Then we would have better leadership and would not have to fight so hard to swat down these radical pro-abortion, pro-death proposals from the left.”
—————————————
I understand your frustration but voting Republicans in does not necessarily mean better leadership…it does help, sometimes, in the fight for Life.
What we need are people with morals who talk the talk and walk the walk.
I was listening to a rotund conservative radio talk show person today and he was discussing ‘obamacare’.
He said that under ‘obamacare’ elderly people who had been ill would have to be interviewed by ‘counselors’ as part of the process of receiving medical treatment.
It reminded me of something I read in the 80’s.
It was an article by a Boston Psychiatrist Leo Alexander who served as a consultant to the Secretary of War with the office of the chief counsel for the war crimes in Nuremburg.
The article first appeared in the July 4, 1949 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, entitled, ‘Medicine Under Dictatorship’.
Here is the link. Remove the quotation marks and and copy and paste to go to the 11 page article.
First a disclaimer. Do not read this article before meal time, you may lose your apetite.
Do not read this ariticle before bedtime, you may find it difficult to go to sleep and when you do you may experiene unpleasant dreams.
“www.restoringourheritage.com/articles/nej_medicaldictatorship.pdf”
yor bro ken
Here is a little excerpt to whet your apetite.
“The first direct order for euthanasia was issued by Hitler on September 1, 1939, and an organization was set up to execute the program. Dr. Karl Brandt headed the medical section, and Phillip Bouhler the administrative section. All state institutions were required to report on patients who had been ill five years or more and who were unable to work, by filling out questionnaires giving name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin, whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore financial responsibility and so forth. The decision regarding which patients should be killed was made entirely on the basis of this brief information by expert consultants, most of whom were professors of psychiatry in the key universities. These consultants never saw the patients themselves. The thoroughness of their scrutiny can be appraised by the work of on expert, who between November 14 and December 1, 1940, evaluated 2109 questionnaires.
These questionnaires were collected by a “Realm’s Work Committee of Institutions for Cure and Care.”[4] A parallel organization devoted exclusively to the killing of children was known by the similarly euphemistic name of “Realm’s Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heredity and Constitution.” The “Charitable Transport Company for the Sick” transported patients to the killing centers, and the “Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care” was in charge of collecting the cost of the killings from the relatives, without, however, informing them what the charges were for; in the death certificates the cause of death was falsified.”
yor bro ken
RSD,
I agree that voting Republicans in does not necessarily mean better leadership. But voting Democrats in always leads to worse leadership. Their philosophy of statism is counter to the U.S. Constitution and their moral relativism is what leads to decisions like Roe v. Wade and the 40 million innocence human lives destroyed.
Electing Republicans always helps in the fight for Life. I have never seen an election where the Democrat really supported Life better than the Republican. A few Democrats will cast CWA votes when they can, but when the rubber hits the road, the vote pro-death to innocent children.
The better path for Americans is to reject these so-called “moderate” Democrats and instead vote the Republican in, in their district. Then we would have better leadership and would not have to fight so hard to swat down these radical pro-abortion, pro-death proposals from the left.
I agree, we need people with morals who talk the talk and walk the walk. And those people, in my experience, are Republicans and conservatives.
For example, Obama voted 4 times to deny medical care from living, breathing, live born human babies. He took funding from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the abortion profiteer. Yet he went on TV with Rick Warren and fooled a lot of voters by lying about his abortion support.
John McCain, while a weak moderate Republican that never should have gotten the nomination (and would not have if we would not allow Democrats and Independents to pick our nominee), would have at least been better on the abortion issue, as well as on national defense, taxes, the economy and climate change.
typo…meant to say:
A few Democrats will cast CYA votes when they can, but when the rubber hits the road, the vote pro-death to innocent children.
By this I mean: Democrats in normal American districts who are against killing babies will hide their radical pro-abortion philosophy by making CYA votes when it doesn’t matter. Let’s say the partial birth abortion ban, or the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or the requirement to inform parents their 12 year old is having an abortion is about to pass. Liberals and Democrats look at the vote, if it will pass anyway without them, the vote the “pro-life” way to protect their job.
But when the chips are down and the babies lives are in the balance, they will vote with their NARAL and Planned Parenthood funders every time.