Stand with Congressman Neugebauer against the baby killers

I was on a conference call with Congressman Randy Neugebauer a little while ago. He's the one who shouted, "It's a baby killer" Sunday night during Bart Stupak's speech imploring his members to oppose the Stupak Amendment (yes, that's right).

randy and dana neugerbauer.jpgCongressman Neugebauer needs our help. The Left is calling for him to apologize on the House floor, and he is adamantly indicating he's not going to.

"For what?" he just said during the call. "I called this healthcare bill exactly what it is. I'm not ashamed of what I said because what I said was the truth. I won't apologize for doing the right thing. I'm not gonna do it. When did it become wrong to speak out for the unborn, the group that has no voice unless we stand up for their rights? I'll apologize when they repeal this bill."...

As Neugebauer explained in his statement, he wasn't calling Stupak a baby killer; he was saying the healthcare bill is a baby killer. This is true. He also said there was a lot of shouting going on at that moment on both sides of the aisle. His voice just got picked up on mic.

Here's more from Congressman Neugebauer...

One of the reporters on the call asked Neugebauer about decorum. He explained:

The untold story is the amount of speech that has been limited throughout this entire process. We had a 2 hour limit on debate, divided equally between Democrats and Republicans.

Decorum? What I believe is if we have important legislation we should have sufficient time to debate and offer amendments. If we're not going to talk about it or answer any questions, that's not democracy. I believe the proper decorum is for this bill to have been debated on the House floor. I think one of the problems is we have these rules and processes. and what we've done in deny the American people sufficient representation

One thing that upset me is I should have been able to get up and talk about it. So why should I be kept quiet? If I have to speak out in other ways I'm going to do that.

Meanwhile Bart Stupak is becoming a jerk. Neugebauer said on the call he had apologized to Stupak and explained the situation, and Stupak had accepted his apology. But now, according to CBS:

"Randy did call and apologize. He said it wasn't directed towards me personally. Well, if that's the case then it must have been directed to the rest of the members of the House. I would hope Randy would just clear it up and take to the House of the Floor and say, 'look I didn't mean to offend anyone. If I did, I apologize,' Stupak said....

"That's what he should do and that's what I would expect him to do," he told moderator John Dickerson.

The fact is, Bart Stupak, the Democrat members of the House are for the large part baby killers, now including you. I think that's why Majority Leader Steny Hoyer doesn't think a public apology is necessary. He doesn't want "baby killer" to get too much attention.

Neugebauer said Republican leadership is standing with him. I actually love this, although I'm sure Congressman Neugebauer finds it nerve-racking. This guy is great. This is a hill I'd die on, too. Here's how he closed the call:

I'm under attack, but we're not going to play defense here, we're going to play offense. I work for the American people. Liberals may not like what we're doing, but so be it.

One thing I've learned is if you want to do something right, you need to plan to be under attack. I'm an ole boy from West Texas, and if you want to play rough, I'll play rough. If you want to play tough, I'll play tough.

The Left is saying nutty things about me. If standing up for the unborn makes me a wacko right-winger, then I'm going to be a wacko-right winger. I'm one voice that will stand up for liberty and freedom.

We need to support Congressman Neugebauer on both the blogs and by donations. I just gave $30. Please consider donating what you can. I'm sure any amount will be appreciated.

neugebauer donate.png


Comments:

I stand with the fetus killers. They are not babies.

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 23, 2010 4:49 PM


DON"T YOU DARE APOLOGIZE!!!!!

Posted by: Pam at March 23, 2010 4:54 PM


"I stand with the fetus killers. They are not babies."

How does that justify killing them? Baby and fetus describe stages of development, so that's really a moot point. I am interested in WHAT the fetus or baby is.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 23, 2010 4:57 PM


Yes, Dhalgren, they are.

Baby-"A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.
The youngest member of a family or group.
A very young animal"

You really need to stop making such easily debunked claims.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 5:01 PM


Ah, but Dhalgren, even you have used the word "killers." When someone kills, someone else dies. So who is it that is being killed in this case? Someone other than a human being? The word "fetus" means "unborn young." In the case of the human fetus, that's an unborn young human being. Duh. Simple enough for a child to understand. We have to be talked out of this understanding as we grow toward adulthood. And why can adults be talked out of this natural, inborn understanding? Because we're looking to escape responsibility and we will embrace any excuse in order to do so.

Posted by: Alice at March 23, 2010 5:04 PM


Well, I would concur that most fetus-killers are not babies. They're adults with suction-machines and curettes.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 23, 2010 5:05 PM


Here is a modest proposal:

How about if the abortionist Democratic politicians apologize to the American people for inflicting this unconstitutional socialized medicine bill on all of us?

How about if they then apologize to the unborn for their party's support for unlimited killing of these children over nearly four decades?

How about if they then repudiate their support for abortion crime and return to a full and complete respect for human life and human rights?

How about if they then introduce legislation to prohibit the killing of human beings in the unborn stage under all circumstances nationwide? In other words, how about if they just do their job of protecting the lives of their fellow human beings, instead of aiding and abetting the killing of our children?

Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2010 5:05 PM


Dhalgren, you really need to be a bit more educated on this topic. You are making a fool of yourself. Fetus is a Latin term for "Little one" or even "baby".....I am 9 months pregnant, and sometimes my doctor alternates the 2 "baby" and "fetus"..they are 1 in the same. Abortion kills babies. It's kind of like saying "breasts" and "boobs".

Posted by: heather at March 23, 2010 5:11 PM


The dems are doing exactly what they did to Joe Wilson. Joe was absolutely right! Obama is a liar. Randy is also ablolutely right. That bill is a baby killer, and the executive order isn't worth the paper it's written on. Obama would have to be trustworthy for any of us to believe the order is going to stand. We know he's not and the order's not. Thank God for people like Joe and Randy, they stand for truth in a time when we desparately need it. They give us hope that the country can be saved.

Posted by: justsnapd8 at March 23, 2010 5:11 PM


Dude, don't apologize. I wish I'd been there to cheer for you when you said it. You stick to your guns.

Posted by: Keli Hu at March 23, 2010 5:14 PM


From Merriam-Webster, Decorum - propriety and good taste in conduct or appearance. Indecorous - not decorous: conflicting with accepted standards of good conduct or good taste. So let's see, what conflicts more with good conduct or good taste? Shouting out an opinion or enabling those who make it their mission to kill unborn boys and girls? Who is really failing to act with decorom? Those who chastise in this case on the basis of decorum are hypocrites.

Posted by: Valerie at March 23, 2010 5:18 PM


Some people are in denial that fetuses are babies. Perhaps it is because they have a vested interest in avoiding the truth. As long as they deny reality they can go merrily on their way supporting wholesale human destruction without batting an eye.

But this phenomenom is nothing new. Throughout history people have regarded others as somehow less than human and have found their justification in the destruction of their inferiors in that supposed fact.

How foolish! We are killing off the future of our country one baby at a time. Now we have 50 million dead babies that weigh upon us in ways moral, economic, and social. We are bringing misery to moms and dads who find out too late that the baby they had discarded as so much human waste was the worse thing they ever did. We are seeing the fundamental destruction of our economic system that relies on a growing population to fund commitments to society at large well into the future. Even the new fantasy land of universal health care will collapse long before it fulfills promises made due to an imploding revenue base--thanks in large part to the lives that were lost long before they were to become productive members of society.

I see the pictures of the Dems all laughing it up as if they are all high on something. It is a surreal scene. Nancy quotes "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and prays to St. Joseph in support of this legislation. We are witnessing before our very eyes not only the personal tragedy of the Speaker's questionable mental health, but also the scenes played out as great empires have collapsed as they followed their blind leaders over the cliff.

Posted by: Jerry at March 23, 2010 5:26 PM


"Some people are in denial that fetuses are babies."

Right. And that includes most liberal Protestant clergy as well as Conservative and Reformed Judaism. The mainstream scientific community doesn't assert that fetuses are "babies" because "babies" implies that fetuses are "human" and "human" is based on ensoulment. Ergo, there is no "consensus" on "baby killing." I'm no longer of child bearing age - but if I were, you would have no right to tell me what I should do with my body. If I want to "kill" a baby or a hangnail, it's my body and it's none of your business. But keep sreaming "baby killer." As my pro-choice reformed Jewish (and the majority of them are) friends say, it's not all that different from "Christ killers."

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 5:55 PM


Nope. Don't apologize. That's the problem! We have been WAAAAAAAAAY too tolerant! Now look at what's happened. I expected this and I only expect things to get worse. There are no winners here. Pro-deathers ought to be worried about their eternal salvation. Instead they fail to realize that life is just a vapor, and their eternity will be eternal hell fire. Their only mission? Killing more babies. More wealthy abortionists, more men and women destroyed by abortion pain, more destruction on America. I'm convinced that while some of them may be won by love, others are a lost cause. Pro-lifers, don't back down. We have been tolerant much too long. Pro-deathers are snakes. Pro-deathers are anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-life. They want us to accept abortion. NEVER! Obama is the absolute worst president in history.

Posted by: heather at March 23, 2010 6:00 PM


"because "babies" implies that fetuses are "human" and "human" is based on ensoulment."

This might be the single most idiotic thing I've ever read during an abortion debate.

"Human" doesn't have a thing in the world to do with ensoulment. We are "human" because we have human parents and human genetics. We become "human beings" at amphimixis.

Abortion kills one of these humans.

A hangnail is not a unique, human organism. A human offspring is. There rests the difference.

Also, you seem really hung up on this whole "christ killer" thing. You need to get a grip. Has it ever occured to you that there are pro-lifers on this board who are either Jewish or of Jewish ancestry? You just make yourself sound more and more crazy every time you make an new post.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:03 PM


Keep screaming "baby killers." Many of those who "killed" their babies (me, my mother, many of my friends and relatives) don't really care. Sackcloth and ashes are so "old school" - but if it makes you feel sanctified, keep on sreaming because even if Roe goes down, the New England states (and the West Coast) will welcome those women who want to determine their own destiny. And there's always Canada - and for those rich, perhaps Catholic (yes, I knew some) there's always Europe!!! Sorry.

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:03 PM


I say every House Member who has ever voted for any legislation supporting abortion be required to apologize to each and every one of the 50 million children aborted because of such legislation.

By the way, since when does speaking the truth require an apology? Tell them to stick it.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at March 23, 2010 6:05 PM


"Instead they fail to realize that life is just a vapor, and their eternity will be eternal hell fire."

Uh, you do realize that not everybody subscribes to your theology of "hell."

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:06 PM


Jill,

Call back and find out what he drinks. I'm sending him a case every March 21 for the rest of his life!

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at March 23, 2010 6:06 PM


Artemis, I see you finally admit that you are post-abortive. If I remember correctly you have denied this for some time. At least you're finally making some progress.

Now, you didn't "kill" your child. You killed your child. It was alive, but because of your action it is dead. You killed it. The sooner you really take ownership for your actions, the sooner you can actually repent and recover from them.

I am sorry for your loss.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:07 PM


Artemis:

You are lost and don't realize it.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at March 23, 2010 6:10 PM


"Has it ever occured to you that there are pro-lifers on this board who are either Jewish or of Jewish ancestry?"

I'm not talking about ancestry. I'm talking about religious affiliation. Conservative and Reformed Jews are pro-choice based on the teachings of the Talmud. Are pro-choice rabbis "crazy." Also, General Convention of the Episcopal Church has deemed that abortion is a private matter. Are you saying that the Episcopal Church is "crazy." (Their clergy is quite well educated). But please, tell me that you would confront a pro-choice clergy person with the accusation that they're "crazy."

And until the law says that this "killing" is murder, you pro-lifers can scream all you want. It doesn't mean jack you-know-what.

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:11 PM


Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at March 23, 2010 6:10 PM

Sorry, Phil. Not everybody follows Jesus. And if you truly think that your way is the only way, well, whatever.

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:14 PM


Taxpayer funding for atomising babies is the final slap in the face for God. It is time to shout stop. It is time to call it as it is. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing

Posted by: John at March 23, 2010 6:17 PM


I'm not sure where you got "crazy." I would say that they have a poor understanding of their own teachings a the Talmud clearly states that abortion is appropriate only in cases where the mother's life is in danger and the Bible is clear that the unborn has a soul and that killing is wrong. I would absolutely say that to any of their faces.

I also don't see how legal status changes a thing. The child is just as dead and the mother is just as culpable.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:17 PM


Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:07 PM

I'm not sure if I aborted; but I would like to think I did. I did some stuff, in 1968, which resulted in a very long period. (No little baby, lots of blood). It was the best thing that I ever did. I got rid of a major problem. I didn't bear the child of an abusive psycho case and I was able to continue college. As I recall, I went to a Rolling Stones concert the weekend after I did the dirty deed. No fuss, a little muss. I have no problems with it. Sorry that I don't fit your modeal of an anguished "post abortive" person. LOL!!!

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:19 PM


"that they have a poor understanding of their own teachings a the Talmud"

So, Lauren, when did you become a Talmudic scholar? How many years at Yeshiva did you study? But please, confront a rabbi with your feeling that he or she doesn't understand the Talmud. Please!

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:22 PM


The child is just as dead and the mother is just as culpable.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:17 PM

Not "culpable" according to the law. If you choose to believe that they are "culpable" to God, that's your religious view. Until the law is change, it's a legal procedure. Sorry.

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:25 PM


"I'm not talking about ancestry. I'm talking about religious affiliation. Conservative and Reformed Jews are pro-choice based on the teachings of the Talmud."
Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:11 PM

And this is where I'm'a call BS. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all.

There are two human beings on the face of the earth with whom I am closer than I am to anyone else. One of them is a Conservative Jew. We've talked about this. A lot. He says that while his Synagogue's official position is that the child is alive when it hits the mother's knees after birth, that does not mean that one can not be both a Conservative Jew and pro-life. What it does mean is that the Synagogue doesn't have religious position on it.

Not taking an official position ≠ pro-choice "because the Talmud says so."

Your talking point is bogus. Drop it.

Posted by: Keli Hu at March 23, 2010 6:29 PM


I'll apologize when they repeal this bill.

Thank you for that stance, Congressman Neugebauer. The arrogance of the Democrats has become insufferable. They owe the people of this nation an apology and have a responsibility to correct the injustice they have inflicted upon us.

When we the people made our voices heard, Democrats called us un-American and insulted us as being too ignorant to understand the bill. I'd like to hear from those who demand an apology what rationale they have for excusing themselves from the same standard.

While you may have breached decorum, I'd like to know how that offends worse than their breach of duty in denying us fair representation. When the Democrats excluded Republicans from any meaningful input in health care reform, they shut out the voice of each citizen represented by a Republican.

I'd also like to know from those demanding apology whether there is a ring of truth in your words. Planned Parenthood seems pretty confident they can get around the Nelson language in the law.

How is it that these special interest groups have more input in legislation that directly affects my life than the elected official who represents me? It would appear that they have more access to leadership than the minority party.

An apology is certainly in order. But it is we the people to whom it is owed.

Posted by: Fed Up at March 23, 2010 6:30 PM


Conservative Movement Statement on the Permissibility of Abortion
Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, Adopted on November 21, 1983

Jewish tradition is sensitive to the sanctity of life, and does not permit abortion on demand. However, it sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person...

http://www.uscj.org/The_Abortion_Controv5481.html

The position of Reformed Judaism, regarding abortion, is more liberal. Senator Joe Liebermann is a Conservative Jew and he is pro-choice.

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:33 PM


"Not "culpable" according to the law. If you choose to believe that they are "culpable" to God, that's your religious view. Until the law is change, it's a legal procedure. Sorry."

You're culpable to the child that you killed. Obviously the law won't hold you accountable, but that doesn't mean your absolved from blame. Also, why do you insist on making everything a religious argument? I think it speaks much more to your own religious hang ups than anything about us.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:34 PM


Artemis, what makes you think I have an idealized model of a post abortive woman? I know that many are just as heartless as you. It doesn't make their children, or your's, any less dead.

As for my Talmudic studies, I defer to those who are able to devote their lives to the study.

They say "In December 2007, the chief rabbinic council in Israel released a new opinion confirming that abortions constitute a “grave sin” and saying they are delaying the coming of the Messiah.
"The vast majority of abortions are unnecessary and strictly forbidden according to halacha because they are carried out even when the pregnancies do not endanger the mother's health," the rabbis wrote.

Pretty clear.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:35 PM


Posted by: Keli Hu at March 23, 2010 6:29 PM

Religious leaders protest abortion restrictions in health reform

"Rabbi Darah Lerner of Congregation Beth El in Bangor said that “no single religious voice” can speak for all Americans and that women must be free individually to apply the tenets of their belief systems when it comes to health care and abortion"

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/131957.html

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:37 PM


People who support the killing of human beings in the unborn stage are not, and cannot be, Christians or Jews.

Killing human beings in the unborn stage has been considered a "grave moral evil" and an "unspeakable crime" (to quote the Catholic Church) by both Christianity and Judaism. It has only been since the 1960's that some "Christian" and Jewish" denominations have taken it upon themselves to repudiate what their religions have always taught to be the revealed word of God and to adopt anti-human (abortionist) positions, which have no basis in natural law, no basis in Jewish or Christian theology, no basis in moral philosophy and no basis in human biology.

These anti-human positions have been adopted purely because they satisfy the psychological needs of those who are adopting them.

Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2010 6:38 PM


Artemis, what is your point? That people abuse scripture and twist it to allow killing? Yeah, we all know that.

That doesn't make abortion any less the intentional killing of a human being. I don't care if a nationally recognized religion came out and said that the unborn were actually lima beans, it still wouldn't change the objective facts.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:40 PM


Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:35 PM

Unlike the Pope who speaks for all Catholics, the Chief Rabbinic Council in Isreal does not speak for all Jews. You do understand that, don't you?

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:40 PM


Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:40 PM

Your opionion - not "facts." But hey, if you think that you are a repository of the truth - whatever - LOL!!! Kinda like the Pope is "infallible" - LOL!!!

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:42 PM


Yes, Artemis, I understand that. It doesn't change the fact that Jewish scholars have come to the conclusion that abortion is allowable only when the mother's life threatened.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:45 PM


Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2010 6:38 PM

And now we have another moral arbiter. LOL! But please, Joe, confront a Reform rabbi or Episcopal, Methodist, Unitarian, Congregationalist minister - please. Cuz you know so much more than they do. And remind me. Where did you get your Divinity Degree?

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:45 PM


Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:45 PM

Some Jewish scholars. Their position is not supported by all Jewish scholars. Sorry.

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:47 PM


Artemis "not "facts""

Yes, FACTS. It is a scientific fact that a new, unique human organism is formed at amphimixis.

It is a scientific fact that abortion kills this unique human organism.

There is no question. There is no debate.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:48 PM


Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:37 PM

Which means you agree with me, and so do those people you quoted. Not taking an official position ≠ pro-choice "because the Talmud says so." And that one can be pro-life and Jewish without conflict.

Your talking point is (still) bogus.

Posted by: Keli Hu at March 23, 2010 6:51 PM


"Their position is not supported by all Jewish scholars. Sorry."

I never said it was, nor do I care. Scripture can be twisted to fit nearly any agenda.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:51 PM


"The mainstream scientific community doesn't assert that fetuses are "babies" because "babies" implies that fetuses are "human" and "human" is based on ensoulment."

Artemis, the mainstream scientific community knows nothing about ensoulment because that is a religious concept. But this same community does assert that the life of each individual "HUMAN BEING" begins at conception. Check a biology textbook sometime and don't spew nonsense. You are as badly informed in science as you are in religion.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at March 23, 2010 6:54 PM


Also, you seem really hung up on this whole "christ killer" thing. You need to get a grip. Has it ever occured to you that there are pro-lifers on this board who are either Jewish or of Jewish ancestry? You just make yourself sound more and more crazy every time you make an new post.
Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 6:03 PM

Yup! That'd be me! I'm prepping for Pesach as we speak.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 23, 2010 7:10 PM


Artemis, I've been away for awhile but I see you are still posting nonsense. I've got to admire your spirit. You keep coming back even though your arguments are constantly refuted.

Posted by: psalm at March 23, 2010 7:13 PM


Factually correct, if less than gracious. You said sorry, that is enough.

Posted by: Todd at March 23, 2010 7:24 PM


Episcopalianism and Unitarianism, etc. are not true Christianity because they repudiate Christian moral teaching. Disagree with Christian moral teaching if you must but that makes you not a Christian.

Reform "Judaism" is not true Judaism because it repudiates Jewish moral teaching. Disagree with Jewish moral teaching if you must but that makes you not a Jew.

There is no way that people who believe that human beings are made in the image of God can support unlimited killing of those human beings. No way.

Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2010 7:33 PM


Artemis ~ WHOSE law? God says "Thou shalt not kill". Of course you know abortion is murder. A child has been conceived, then is ripped apart. You pretend you don't know this? A law has to say first that this is killing? Surely you jest! Remember the story of "The Emperor with no clothes"? The child seen he had no clothes, but surprisingly the adults didn't. Sound familiar? I don't need the ignoramous laws of this country to TELL me the abortion is killing. I already know that. SURELY YOU DO, TOO. Prove to me it's NOT. YOU CAN'T.

Posted by: lin at March 23, 2010 7:36 PM


Uh, you do realize that not everybody subscribes to your theology of "hell."

Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:06 PM
-------

Not everybody subscribes to your idea that the unborn aren't human beings deserving of the full protection of society. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so - it must be based on reality, and you must be able to use rationality to arrive at valid conclusions.

When reality and your perception of it doesn't square up:

1) you're most likely demented
2) it would really suck to be wrong about eternal consequences

Come now Artemis - let's debate.

There's more evidence and a solid argument to prove the humanity of the unborn and the existence of perpetual existential hell than you're aware of - but I want to know if you're willing to publicly admit the full consequences of abortion through to natural birth?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 23, 2010 7:58 PM


Good publicity stunt. Yell something now to raise money. Good to see that our politicians are now going the path of those in less civilized countries.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 23, 2010 8:06 PM


Ex-GOP he didn't yell anything. He was caught on a hot mic.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 8:12 PM


Ex-GOP he didn't yell anything. He was caught on a hot mic.
Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 8:12 PM

Yup... just like Biden was this morning saying that Obamacare was a "f--ing big deal".

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 23, 2010 8:13 PM


Artemis 6:03PM

So you are finally acknowledging that should abortion become illegal, women won't end up dying like flies from illegal abortion? Well, that blows a major PA argument out of the water.
There's hope for you after all!

Posted by: Mary at March 23, 2010 8:13 PM


Stupak asking for an apology from Rep. Neugebauer?! ROFL...He apologized to you Stupak-he really didn't need to do that! It's pathetic to ask for more than that!

Posted by: Robyn at March 23, 2010 8:19 PM


Oh, I had not read close enough. Yes - that is better, and I would agree that he shouldn't have to apologize if he said it quietly.

I don't know about the fund raising part but I suppose they are always raising money.

I apologize folks - my bad!

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 23, 2010 8:22 PM


No prob, Ex-GOP.

Posted by: Lauren at March 23, 2010 8:31 PM


Every once in a while, I come across a commenter who strikes me as pathetically sad. Sometimes it is "Megan," sometimes "Dhalgren." Tonight it is "Artemis." She needs our prayers. And I am aware that Artemis will deny the need for them. That's okay. She'll still have them.

Posted by: Nerina at March 23, 2010 8:40 PM


You stay classy, Stupak:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/stupak-says-catholic-bishops-pro-life-groups-tried-to-use-abortion-to-defeat-health-bill/

Posted by: Gerry at March 23, 2010 8:42 PM


Gerry,

Yeah Stupak, its just a coincidence you got grants for some local airports a few days before the vote. We also know you never suspected the executive order Obama issued to supposedly secure your vote was only good for wiping your fanny.

Posted by: Mary at March 23, 2010 9:00 PM


Heather---awesome response!!!

Cranky Catholic--yours was awesome also!

Dhlagren, xGOP and last but certainly never least, Artemis... you all argue and argue and argue. But you can never prove one thing. Science IS ON OUR SIDE. You cannot deny it. Who do you think you're convincing here? Each one of your lives is precious and important, as is the lives of each of your children, even before they're born. YOUR lives were precious before you were born. Life is precious. period. From the moment it exists. And science irrefutably proves that life starts AT CONCEPTION. THAT IS SCIENCE. Are you going to argue the earth is flat now too?

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 23, 2010 9:13 PM


Every once in a while, I come across a commenter who strikes me as pathetically sad. Sometimes it is "Megan," sometimes "Dhalgren." Tonight it is "Artemis." She needs our prayers. And I am aware that Artemis will deny the need for them. That's okay. She'll still have them.
Posted by: Nerina at March 23, 2010 8:40 PM
__________________________________________________
Doing just that, Nerina. :)

Posted by: Pamela at March 23, 2010 9:29 PM


I am glad he is not apologizing.

Why should the honest decent people apologize to the lowest vermin there are just on a technicality?

Posted by: hippie at March 23, 2010 9:50 PM


I understand your staunch opposition to abortion (addressing all posters here), yet actually, new healthcare doesn't use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. Taxpayer dollars are separated from abortion funds in state-run market exchange insurance plans; individuals can opt out of plans that DO cover abortion; and states have the power to limit access to abortion in the exchange plans. Oh, and Obama issued an executive order upholding the Hyde Ammendment for another year, so...there won't be much of a chance of low income women getting the procedure done on the federal dime. Which leads me to my next point...

You don't have much of an argument, presumably having blindly followed the commentary of a misled Stupak and angry conservative pundits. That's the first issue: you don't have an argument, besides the fact that healthcare reform hasn't outlawed abortion outright. Second, your condemnation of the bill outshadows the good it will do for the country's children: namely, that with health care that's more accessible, more women will receive adequate health care, including prenatal care...which will lead to better health outcomes for babies. And isn't that your goal in the first place? Or...(again), is "right to life" the only health indicator you deem important?

Also, thanks Nerina, but I'll hedge that your "prayers" amount to empty offers.

Posted by: Megan at March 23, 2010 10:20 PM


Also, it's curious that Catholic Bishops have had so much influence in the health care reform debates. Molesting children and miring evidence of wrongdoing in a quicksand of bureaucracy seems pretty contrary to "right to life" beliefs. But then again, maybe ideology that seeks to deny a huge subset of the population control over its sexual health WOULD lead to such widescale abuse.

Posted by: Megan at March 23, 2010 10:34 PM


Sydney, ultimately who cares whether "science" is on our side? Science is just what the scientists, mere human beings, say it is. God is on our side! His Word is clear, and His Church has condemned abortion for thousands of years.

I know that Dhalgren and Artemis aren't Christians. You can appeal to them by going to the natural sciences, and I would also do so. Still, I want to be clear with them that we believe as we do because the God whom they don't believe in has told us not to kill the babies whom they don't believe in.

What do they believe in? They believe in themselves. They believe in controlling their own destinies. They believe in an absolute freedom, the freedom Satan offered Adam and Eve, the slavery to their own desires that Adam and Eve (and all those in their image) also chose.

In God we trust! Congress shall make no government expansion "health care" bill. However, Congress shall make laws against murder. A law against abortion is constitutional.

Posted by: Jon at March 23, 2010 10:37 PM


Jon,
Dhalgren and Aretemis are nothing more than trolls. Everything they say is a script of a fictional character written in Obama's trolling guide and not to be taken seriously.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 23, 2010 10:48 PM


I'm wondering why Megan, Dhalgren and Artemis even bother to post comment after comment on a pro-life blog? Do they enjoy spinning their wheels? Trolling? Assuaging a guilty conscience? I don't get it.

I would think they'd much prefer to spend their time chatting with other pro-aborts and -- at least in the case of Megan -- anti-Catholic bigots.

Posted by: Matt C. Abbott at March 23, 2010 11:12 PM


There is nothing new here.

When former U.S. President John Quincy Adams was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, the pro-slavery bigots passed a rule prohibiting the discussion of slavery on the house floor.

JQA was threatened with being both censursed and removed because he would not kow tow to the racist bigots who wanted to perpetuate slavery without having to talk about it.

Hey if you are member of the 'dead babies r us' crowd in congress then cowgirl up and be proud.
Don't hide behind 'decorums' frilly skirts.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 23, 2010 11:24 PM



Posted by: Artemis at March 23, 2010 6:40 PM

"Unlike the Pope who speaks for all Catholics,..."

------------------------------------------------------
artheeamysterium,

The 'Pope' may speak for the 'catholic church', but it is obvious he does NOT speak for all catholics.

The 'dead babies r us' folks keep turning over new rocks and finding more purported catholics who have a completely different view of things than the Pope.

The latest find is one Bart Stupak and the sisters of no quarter and no mercy.

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at March 23, 2010 11:33 PM


From Wikipedia

Gag rule:Anti-slavery petitions in the United States Congress in 1831-1844

The gagging of anti-slavery petitions by Congress occurred from 1835 to 1844. Pro-slavery forces had prevented any discussion of slavery in Congress, so anti-slavery forces, starting in about 1831, had submitted petitions for the abolition of slavery, believing that since there was a right to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution, such petitions, and thus slavery itself, would have to be discussed.

The pro-slavery forces responded with a series of gag rules that automatically "tabled" all such petitions, preventing them from being read or discussed.

The House passed the Pinckney Resolutions on May 26, 1836, the third of which was known from the beginning as the "gag rule" and passed with a vote of 117 to 68 (The first stated that Congress had no constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the states and the second that it "ought not" do so in the District of Columbia.)

From the inception of the gag resolutions, Representative (and former President) John Quincy Adams was a central figure in the opposition to the gag rules. He argued that they were a direct violation of the First Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". A majority of Northern Whigs joined the opposition. Rather than suppress anti-slavery petitions, however, the gag rules only served to offend Americans from Northern states, and dramatically increase the number of petitions.[2] The growing offense to the gag rule, as well as the Panic of 1837, may have contributed to the first Whig majority, in the 27th Congress.

Since the original gag was a resolution, not a standing House Rule, it had to be renewed every session, and Adams and others had free rein until then. In January 1837, the Pinckney Resolutions were substantially renewed, more than a month into the session. The pro-gag forces gradually succeeded in shortening the debate and tightening the gag. In December 1837, the Congress passed the Patton Resolutions, introduced by J. M. Patton of Virginia. In December 1838, the Congress passed the Atherton Gag, composed by Democratic States-Rights Congressman Atherton of New Hampshire, on the first petition day of the session.

In January 1840, the House of Representatives passed the Twenty-first Rule, which greatly changed the nature of the fight - it prohibited even the reception of anti-slavery petitions and was a standing House rule. Before, the pro-slavery forces had to struggle to impose a gag before the anti-slavery forces got the floor. Now men like Adams or Slade were trying to revoke a standing rule. However, it had less support than the original Pinckney gag, passing only by 114 to 108, with substantial opposition among Northern Democrats and even some Southern Whigs, and with serious doubts about its constitutionality. Throughout the gag period, Adams' "superior talent in using and abusing parliamentary rules" and skill in baiting his enemies into making mistakes, enabled him to evade the rule. The gag was finally rescinded December 3, 1844, by a vote of 108-80, all the Northern and 4 Southern Whigs voting for repeal, along with 78% of the Northern Democrats.[3]

[What actual number does 78% of the Northern DemocRATs represent? DemocRATs do change. They get worse.]

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 23, 2010 11:42 PM


It was blogged earlier today:

Neugebauer, quit apologizing. Stupak Tarnished the House

Regarding linked news story:
Stupak: Pro-Life Congressman Who Called Bill a Baby Killer “Tarnished” House.

Bart Stupak is a carbuncle upon the face of the house, and is owed no apology. Also identifying Obamacare for the baby killer that it is, in no way demeans the house.

In fact, the only reason the house approval number is not a single digit (the middle finger) is that we sometimes hear a Neugebauer or a Wilson speak up, and tell it like it is.

Posted by: pharmer at March 23, 2010 11:46 PM


A clever move: obscuring the politics of a current issue by invoking irrelevant history. I'd hardly say Bart Stupak suffered from Congress' crushing, pro-choice hegemony...since even pro-lifers eventually realized that "Obamacare" doesn't actually publicly finance abortions. But maybe you missed the nuances of the debate while wikipedia-ing "freedom."

Let me ask you again: do you agree that women should have access to good health care so their babies will be healthier? I'm not sure, since most of you oppose a reform measure that will a) do just that and b) doesn't really change the rules for government-funded abortions.

Oh, and why would you say I'm "anti Catholic?" Nonsense. I'm just a little opposed to, oh, some of the Church's more unscrupulous practices...like molesting children and lying about it.

Posted by: Megan at March 23, 2010 11:56 PM


Megan, you brand yourself as anti-Catholic when you state that molesting children and lying about it are Church practices, rather than the crimes of individuals.

Not that I think you care.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 24, 2010 12:05 AM


Neugenbauer rocks. I wish he were my grandfather

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 12:10 AM


Elisabeth: the fact that such events were widespread, as well as the secrecy, denial, and slow retribution/apology process indicates a church hierarchy absolutely complicit in the abuse of countless children. The scandals taint the entire Church, unfortunately, and I'll bet that some of the Bishops directly informing our lawmakers have less than clean consciences about the matter.

Posted by: Megan at March 24, 2010 12:14 AM


Let me ask you again: do you agree that women should have access to good health care so their babies will be healthier?

Posted by: Megan at March 24, 2010 12:23 AM


Hello Elisabeth, trolls like Megan,Dullgren,Artemis, Less etc are a waste of your time. They really aren't looking for any kind of real discussion of life issues. They come and blaspheme the Creator to knock the thread off topic. Let the raving lunatcs scream all night at themselves. Try it, it is even more fun then proving their idiocy over and over. With love, trutthseeker

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 12:27 AM


There is a perfect example. Megan puts out a seemingly simple question like that and then once you answer her she will go into a tirade about the church or rail against God while interspersing a plethora of lies and idiocy that you could easily refute. It really is not worth clogging up the thread with them.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 12:31 AM


What really drives them nuts is talking to each other about them and not giving them attention when they scream. lol

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 12:36 AM


Do we have IP addresses on these freaks? Is it another situation of one person spending the evening posting under various monikers? Seriously... the pro-death crowd need to get a life. Maybe then they won't feel the need to take lives away from others.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 24, 2010 12:38 AM


You may have a point there Elisabeth...we are probably saving babies lives just by keeping them occupied :)

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 12:43 AM


Ah, this is intersting. Diverting attention away from the point of this entire post: the healthcare debate. I don't understand: you pay more attention to abortion language that ISN'T in the bill than to the millions of women and children who will benefit from increased access to health care. Hmmmmmm.

Posted by: Megan at March 24, 2010 12:48 AM


Elisabeth, do you think it was fair for Neugebauer to call this amendment a baby-killer?

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 1:08 AM


It seems pretty clear to me that it fair to call it a baby killer since Sebellius can fund Planned Parenthood to build baby killing centers and all they need to do is a little deceptive bookkeeping in order to get away with it.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 1:13 AM


Can you believe that Obama still gets away with deceiving people into thinking he is a centrist when he actually actively raised funds for peoples right to deliver babies feet first to the shoulders and slide a Metzenbaum scissors up her spine to the bottom of the skull and jab the baby in the head with scissors? He is a really good at conning people. He would still be openly supporting that barbaric "medical procedure" if
SCOTUS hadn't made it illegal in 2008. Is it fair to call someone a baby killer if they actively funds to support the killing of babies, or should we reserve that title for the ones who actually jab the baby in the head with scissors?

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 1:26 AM


What do you think Megan? The topic of this thread is who should be called baby killers. Can you discuss the topic of the thread? Hmmmmmm

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 1:30 AM


I guess Megan has nothing more to say then... Being a Dumbocrat (aka baby killer) is a pitiful waste of a life. Kinda like debating with a troll is a pitiful waste of time.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 1:34 AM


Interesting thing from the pro aborts criticizing the catholic church. There's the argument over contraception and that morning after pill over the counter. The catholic church never wanted to keep the pedophiles in business with these chemical aids.

But look who advocates passing the morning after pill to underage girls, and who put it over the counter so guys could buy it for said minors, whom they statutorily rape.

Posted by: pharmer at March 24, 2010 3:17 AM


Great point pharmer. And some of those same people who encourage the sale of these pills to minors fight to pass laws that they can sell drugs to minors without parental notification. And then if the pills don't work correctly and she gets pregnant they can stick foreign objects up your daughter's vaginia and tear her baby from her womb in little bloody pieces WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.

The whole way through covering up for the rapists and pedophiles who are doing this to the girl. Have you seen any of those undecoxer Lila Rose videos. She identifies herself as a minor with a 28 year old boyfriend who got her pregnant and they tell her not to say that any more or you could get your boyfriend in trouble.

We have to figure a way to keep them away from our kids, even if it means getting them banned completely cause they endanger our children. I'd hate to think what would happen if they commited abortion on one of my daughters without my ever being notified. We either need to out them out of business or at least pass laws to protect our kids. Why should I have to go kill some abortionist for mutilating my 14 year old daughter and sticking foreign objects in her and tearing out my grandchild in bloody pieces. They are doing that to minors every day and keeping it a secret. wtf.

Can we put a proposition on the ballot this November to ban Planned Parenthood from servicing minors without parental consent. We do it to adult book stores why not to a drug selling baby killing mill?

I am going to e-mail my Senator Paul Ryan and ask him if it is possible.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 4:27 AM


Ya, Truthseeker, and it's been Planned unparenthood fighting parental notification in law and in the courts for years and years. Someone needs to cork them up.

Posted by: pharmer at March 24, 2010 7:28 AM


@ Megan: Also, thanks Nerina, but I'll hedge that your "prayers" amount to empty offers.

Actually, they don't.

I've already said several prayers since last night specifically for you, Artemis and Dhalgren imploring God to rid the scales from your eyes, to offer you comfort and consolation (especially if any of you are post-abortive) and to grant you understanding. I also prayed and will continue to pray for all of us on this board and throughout the pro-life community - that in our passion we will faithfully, but charitably defend our views.

Regarding the Church's abuse scandal: you are clearly, clearly well-steeped in the bias of the mainstream media. I am NOT denying that there is a HUGE problem. Not at all. To do so would make me naive to the extreme. No, there is a problem, but this particular problem transcends the Catholic Church to other faith communities and the public at large. Try investigating the incidence of sexual abuse in public schools! Regardless, the Church still has a right to preach morality even though individuals have failed to live up to it. For goodness sake, would you advocate a repeal of laws against murder and say the state has no say in the matter since so many people kill? Of course, not. Why should the Church abdicate her responsibility?

No one is afraid of real and fruitful dialogue, Megan. It helps if there are willing participants and not propagandists engaging in the dialogue.

Posted by: Nerina at March 24, 2010 7:41 AM


I've just said some more prayers, Megan. Heck, I can say them every hour on the hour. I think I might do that today. Just for you :).

One more thing, it is amazing to me to watch people outside of the church get so upset about the abuse scandal. Try being a member in the church. You don't think we're disillusioned, upset, disappointed and mad? It's like having a family member who has done something horrible yet still trying to love that family member. Think about that when you throw out your arguments. No one wants the clergy to clean up their act more than faithful Catholics. No one.

Posted by: Nerina at March 24, 2010 7:54 AM



Also, it's curious that Catholic Bishops have had so much influence in the health care reform debates. Molesting children and miring evidence of wrongdoing in a quicksand of bureaucracy seems pretty contrary to "right to life" beliefs. But then again, maybe ideology that seeks to deny a huge subset of the population control over its sexual health WOULD lead to such widescale abuse.

Posted by: Megan at March 23, 2010 10:34 PM


I am not Catholic but statistically speaking Catholic clergy have the lowest incidence of sex abuse when compared to other denominations and are very much lower than other religions and public school teachers.

Catholic scandals however lead in media coverage, so your confusion is understandable. Those who disagree with the Catholic ideology are highly motivated to find any problem and give it non stop coverage. The media ignores the crimes of those with whom they agree and sympathize.

That is why crime reporting does not even remotely resemble the Department of Justice crime statistics. The media knows people will believe their hype and won't go look up the facts.

Posted by: hippie at March 24, 2010 8:50 AM


Thanks to "hippie" for some sane input.

More prayers offered for Megan, Dhalgren and Artemis and all those men and women deceived by the lie of abortion. Prayers for repentance, forgiveness, comfort, consolation and healing.

Posted by: Nerina at March 24, 2010 8:59 AM


You know, all sites are monitored these days and I am wondering if those that come on to taunt us are actually monitoring. You know, people that stand up for life are dangerous, right? NOT! However, our own government has said so,

I am starting to think that taking truthseekers advice to ignore and not skip a beat in our thread might be the thing to do. Don't feed the trolls. Many of them are teens with too much time on their hands We can still say a prayer for them, but might it not be in our best interest to do so silently while ignoring them. Ignored behavior can disappear, There would be no payoff for them if we ignore. Could we just try it for at least a day?

Posted by: Eileen at March 24, 2010 9:57 AM


I engage liars because other people have heard the same lies but not their refutations. Most people read comments but do not comment. The refutation of lies is a service to those readers, and there are many thousands of them including young people who have only vaguely formed ideas and are looking for info.

Posted by: hippie at March 24, 2010 10:06 AM


Elisabeth, do you think it was fair for Neugebauer to call this amendment a baby-killer?
Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 1:08 AM

Absolutely! Because it IS.

And, although he apologized, he would have been well within the bounds of reason to call each and every member of the house who voted for it a babykiller, too. It may have not been their idea of "decorum", but the truth has a way of coming out.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 24, 2010 10:13 AM


I'm willing to give your proposal a try, Eileen. I just didn't want people to think I offer prayers and then leave them unsaid.

Posted by: Nerina at March 24, 2010 10:42 AM


Why should Neugebauer apologize for shouting the truth? I want to hear Stupak apologize for his lies.

Posted by: imom at March 24, 2010 10:43 AM


...except that health care reform DOESN'T publicly finance abortions.

Argue all you want about a point that is a non-issue while millions of women in this country (including pregnant women) don't have the healthcare they need. THAT sounds pretty anti-life to me.

Also, hippie, I'm not making a judgment call on other religions or even crime rates. The way the Church RESPONDED to the allegations is reprehensible. I'm merely appalled at the hypocrisy of an ideology that purports to uphold the "rights" of unborn children while delaying/obstructing justice for children who have been harmed at the hands of their own priests.

Posted by: Megan at March 24, 2010 10:45 AM


Jon, I know and I agree with you. But you're acting like science is somehow not related to God at all. Science was created by God. So using science to implore to the minds of unsaved people is not wrong. Science can lead people to Christ (Romans 1:20)

I've personally heard many stories from folks who studied science and were so amazed by the complexity of our universe and of nature that they KNEW there was a loving Creator and in turn searched the Scriptures and found Christ and His love and forgiveness!

So yes, GOD is on our side (which is the most important) but science is too! And there is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing that out to hard hearts that won't care about God.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 24, 2010 1:50 PM


Megan, poor pregnant women already have access to prenatal care through Medicaid. Now...they might not anymore, since they're draining money out of that program to pay for this monstrosity, but they USED TO ALREADY. I know, I had to utilize the services with my first pregnancy.

Megan, would you have allowed your child to live if you would've been able to get healthcare?

Posted by: xalisae at March 24, 2010 1:59 PM


...and for those who don't fall below a certain percentage below the poverty line (the near poor, working poor, what have you), healthcare is hard to come by. not to mention lack of provider availability, reimbursement, etc...the new system won't solve all these problems, obviously, but by introducing more people into the pool (particularly that 20-26 population, who are, by most standards, healthy), there will be more of a safety net for those who are truly needy.

and nope, still would've gotten an abortion. I can't think of anything less responsible than bringing an unwanted kid into the world. :)

Posted by: Megan at March 24, 2010 4:11 PM


"lack of provider availability"

Megan,
We aren't guaranteed that provider availability will not continue to fall and this new systems will bering about new problems.

A doctor shortage already exists and it is predicted that many older doctors who are at the end of their careers will retire so they don't have to work under this new system. Medical offices will close and the doctor shortage will be worse. It is also predicted that physicals will be done by physician's assistants and the like to make up for this. The level of Medical care will change for all of us.

Posted by: Janet at March 24, 2010 4:26 PM


"and for those who don't fall below a certain percentage *below the poverty line* (the near poor, working poor, what have you), healthcare is hard to come by"

Actually, no. Pregnant women can make up to 200% of the poverty line and still get prenatal chip that will cover all of their bills and the child for the first year of life.

I just looked it up and we (as a family of 4) could make 45,000 and still qualify for prenatal chip. The "working poor" women are covered, at least when it comes to pregnancy.

Posted by: Lauren at March 24, 2010 4:46 PM


Dhalgren, I believe the bumper sticker I saw last week applies to you:

"I've noticed all those people who are pro-abortion have already been born."

Posted by: R. Neustadt at March 24, 2010 5:07 PM


Lauren, there are women, such as myself, who are not eligible for any sort of health care. I am not pregnant, not receiving social security benefits, and not on welfare. I have a preexisting condition, so I cannot get health care that way. I am currently unemployed, too old for my parents' health care plan and too young for senior care. I also have medications I need to manage said preexisting condition, but are unable to afford, because of said unemployment.

Under the new health care bill, I will be eligible for health care again. I'm torn, because women ought to have access to abortion, but this bill will help women like me, people like me, get those benefits.

Posted by: Less at March 24, 2010 5:08 PM


Less,

I am sorry to hear that you have not been able to get the health care you need. However, I would have loved to see some real reform that would not have FORCED me to buy health care, but would have still benefited you.

My 'American Dream' will take much longer now that I have to shell out more money each month for health care I don't currently want.

Welcome to the United Social Nations, formerly the United States of America.(may she rest in peace)

Posted by: Heather M at March 24, 2010 5:45 PM


Less, my solution for you, since you are unemployed, would be to apply for Medicaid since you would meet the income guidelines. Once you get on medicaid for a period of 63 days, you can no longer be refused medical insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Or, if you don't mind manual labor, get a job working for UPS. The insurance is great, a "cadillac plan" if you will, though the pay is only about 10/hour. Whole Foods also offers a good insurance plan including a pre-paid card to fund costs incured before your deductable is met.

Of course, it's a moot point now that Obamacare has taken over the land.

Posted by: Lauren at March 24, 2010 6:05 PM


Heather, you are forced to buy car insurance; is that also socialist?

Lauren, neither of those employers are currently hiring. As I'm living with someone who foots the bills for food and the like, I don't believe I would qualify for Medicaid, however I could be wrong.

Posted by: Less at March 24, 2010 6:15 PM


What man, woman or child in American today, last week, last month does not have' access' to health care?

No one is denyed access.

No one is denyed treatment.

The question was and is, 'WHO' is responsible to pay for it?

Health care is NOT a right enumerated in the federal constitution or any state constitution of which I am aware.

You tofu for brains liberal/progressive/humanists want to use the power of the state to steal my wealth to assuage your convoluted conscience.

You do not have no legitimate claims on my wealth.

You have no entitlement, nor right to the fruit of my labors.

Does the telephone marketer have a right to your money just because he has your telephone number and he has a product that he is sure you or your neighbor just can't live without.

If you want to guarantee every one in America has health care regardless of their ability to pay, then find everyone who agrees with you and steal the money from one another, not from me.

You decide to whom and to what you will donate your wealth and leave it up to me to make my own decisions as to whom and what is deserving of my time, my enery and my money.

I am not your cash cow.

Go plant your own money tree.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 24, 2010 6:35 PM


Less, I believe that if you are not married and not a minor, your income is all that is counted twoards medicaid.

Posted by: Lauren at March 24, 2010 7:25 PM


Oh my gosh, I honestly cannot believe the hypocrisy. It abounds, it abounds! There are ALARMING health disparities in this country, and even fast under-enrollment in child healthcare programs like Medicaid and Schip. And while many of these programs DO cover prenatal care, healthy pregnancies and children require healthy women. Women suffering from so-called "diseases of the poor"--asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, bad oral health--are at a higher risk for having pregnancies with poor health outcomes. Having access to good healthcare all along, rather than just during pregnancy, will ensure healthier moms and kids.

The social services system, as it exists now, is fragmented and needs to be bolstered and expanded. If helping pay for some kid in the Bronx to be treated for asthma means buying into a state insurance exchange, then so be it. We pay for roads, schools, libraries, even wars--why is health not a guarantee?

KBHVAC: You preach about how "precious" life is and then condemn approaches that attempt to improve the health of millions of individuals and CHILDREN. In terms of concern, do only fetuses make the cut? I'm seething with disgust at your horribly myopic definition of the "sanctity of life"--one that seeks to control women's bodies, but which would have nothing to do with caring for the children you demand to be born.

Posted by: Megan at March 24, 2010 7:48 PM


you are forced to buy car insurance; is that also socialist?
Posted by: Less at March 24, 2010 6:15 PM

Can't believe that tired old argument is still being tossed around. People choose to buy a car. Many people never own a car their entire lives. They buy car insurance because it's state law not federal law.

With car insurance, you select your policy deductible. With obamacare, HHS decides your deductible. With car insurance, you decide how much to spend annually for coverage. Under obamacare, HHS decides how much you pay annually, broken into monthly premiums. With car insurance, you can get a different policy any time if you're dissatisfied. With obamacare, your selection will be more limited and HHS will determine when you can change policies. With car insurance, you select any company you like to do business with. With obamacare, HHS will decide which companies you can do business with.

Not quite the same thing, is it? And by the way, drivers are not forced to buy car insurance. They are required to have it in order to drive, but the IRS doesn't monitor compliance as they will be doing under Obamacare. And my auto insurance company never contacts my employer, as the IRS will be doing under Obamacare.

Posted by: Fed Up at March 24, 2010 8:34 PM


did this bill even have pre natal care mentioned? Pro aborts only care about aborting the children of the poor, not caring for the women who are pregnant.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 24, 2010 8:34 PM


income is all that is counted twoards medicaid.
Posted by: Lauren at March 24, 2010 7:25 PM

Depends. Household income may be the determinant.

Less, I don't know much about your situation, but you can go to NeedyMeds.org to see if the meds you need are listed there and download assistance applications. There is a link you can take to find clinics that will see you based on sliding scale fees or no cost. If nothing is listed for your area, you can call your local health department to inquire about free clinics. Or call your nearest hospital and ask to speak to their discharge planning or social work department. They will know where the closest low cost clinics are located. They may also know of any disease-specific foundations or resources available to you. If you can find a clinic to see you, explain your situation and ask if your condition can be managed with meds on the low cost generic list that most large chain pharmacies offer if the meds you need aren't listed on NeedyMeds.org

Posted by: Fed Up at March 24, 2010 8:56 PM


Fed-up, I'll look into that.

With regards to health insurance versus car insurance, there are other aspects of the country that are socialist. Schools, for instance, and public libraries, as well as fire departments, police departments, roads, parks, public transportation....

Posted by: Less at March 24, 2010 9:34 PM


Less,

I don't know if you would call these socialist. Yes they are taxpayer funded, usually by property taxes. They may get federal or state assistance as well.
They are more public service and are locally controlled. We certainly need fire and police protection, we need schools. Again, some people prefer private schools and pay on their own.

You pay for public transportation when you ride it though it is subsidized. Rescue squad services may also be private pay though they certainly won't leave you laying on the street.
There are city hospitals for indigent patients that are taxpayer subsidized. The staff are considered city employees.

Also Less, check out wal-mart, they have low cost prescription services. I would also speak with a social worker.

Posted by: Mary at March 24, 2010 10:11 PM


Megan 7:48PM

You overlook a very important aspect, and that is personal responsiblity. Health services may be there but what do you do for people who will not take the responsibility for their own health? The "diseases of the poor" you describe largely result from poor personal health habits, not lack of care. Practicing good nutrition, exercise, no cigarettes, regular teeth brushing, etc. would go a long way toward preventing the problems you mention.

I'm sorry to say Megan, some people are simply irresponsible or indifferent. We all know people who don't take responsibility for their lives, who can't keep their priorities in order, and people who we know that take no responsiblity for good health habits or medical care.

How many people are permanently disabled or require long term hospitalization because of irresponsible drinking and driving? I refer to both victims and drivers.

What about people who make no connection between bad living habits and their bad health?
You'd be surprised the intelligent, educated people I see who fall into this category.

Posted by: Mary at March 24, 2010 10:22 PM


And Mary, what about for people who have no children? I have none, plan to have none, and yet must pay local taxes for schools that I will never utilize again. Why is that, and how is that not socialist?

The nation has an interest in keeping children well-educated, just as the nation has an interest in keeping the nation healthy.

Posted by: less at March 24, 2010 10:53 PM


Hi Less,

Do you have nieces, nephews, cousins that attend schools? When you attended school did only people with children pay taxes for your education?
I have never had need of cerebral palsy services but my tax dollars provide them for local families. Your local tax dollars, like mine, have likely paid for any number of services we will never utilize and let's hope we never have to utilize.

What about parents being responsible for their children's health with proper nutrition, exercise, good sleep habits, and regular checkups?


The gov't isn't going to keep anyone healthy, that's our personal responsibility. FedUp and I both suggested services you can seek out for your needs and the resposibility is yours to do so, not the government's. I know I can speak for FedUp when I say that we both wish you the very best.

This is a gov't power grab, nothing more. If you think insurance agents are mean wait til you're dealing with the thousands of IRS agents who will be hired to monitor this program. The gov't will control the purse strings which means there will be rationing. Obama himself said grandma may have to forego a pacemaker and take a pain med instead. The dimwit doesn't know that pain meds wouldn't help in this situation, which gives you some idea what we can look forward to.
Did you hear breast cancer patients in England were denied a life saving drug judged to be too expensive by the gov't? Better luck next time girls, assuming you have one.
An American patient of mine who credits the drug with saving her life was appalled when hearing this.

Oh did you hear children with pre-existing conditions are not covered in this bill? Someone left it out. Hey, I thought they read the bill!

Also Less, who do you think is paying for this? They're already starting to tax tanning salons, i.e. small business people. Think that won't put people out of work and cause more business failure?

Posted by: Mary at March 24, 2010 11:37 PM


...try exercising when you're a single mother working almost full-time to support your family in a decaying inner city. Sometimes circumstances are beyond one's control, and "personal responsibility" doesn't even begin to some up what must be done to make life decent for oneself.

And yeah, health reform means paying for treatment of conditions that are preventable, or procedures I might find objectionable. But it's worth it to ensure that everybody has a safety net, including kids, the poor, those who've lost their jobs, have pre-existing conditions, etc. Tell a child with rotten teeth to get some personal responsibility so he can get to a dentist. riiiiight.

Personal responsibility, personal responsibility. Such empty rhetoric. Usually coming from the mouths of middle class white folk who can't see past their pot bellies.

Posted by: Megan at March 25, 2010 12:43 AM


Oh, and an afterthought: nobody asked me if I wanted to wage war along a whole swath of the middle east, and yet you're worried a physician's assistant might be taking your temperature?? Logic, please? I'm sure it'll be good.

Posted by: Megan at March 25, 2010 12:49 AM


Since when is it the government's responsibility to keep everyone educated? Or fed? Or able to access books? Or roads? Any government is going to have SOME socialist aspects. Have you ever read any Marx? Public schools are one of his major points with regards to socialist government. Why is health not a government's responsibility, but a school is?

Again, I'm 100% for public school AND public health care; this isn't an argument against the former.

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 1:05 AM


Megan and Less, You scampered away last night when I asked you to answer THE question of this thread. "Is it fair to call Stupak a baby killer just cause he faciltates abortion by passing laws that skirt the Hyde amendment and funding Planned Parenthood, or should we save the baby killer moniker for abortionists alone?"

Posted by: truthseeker at March 25, 2010 1:53 AM


By baby killer, you mean people who would deny healthcare to needy families and kids? Smack the govt's hand away from your cookie jar, but keep donating to the March of Dimes. At least it'll assuage your guilt.

Less' point is well-received. There are elements of socialism permeating every aspect of our existence. If you're a hardline believer in "personal responsibility," go live off the grid in the mesa desert or something. See how well you fare without water sanitation. In the meantime, please do not dictate what I should do with a pregnancy I created and am responsible for making decisions about.

Posted by: Megan at March 25, 2010 3:18 AM


TS, you really ought to cite where you asked that, as I'm not seeing it. But perhaps it was in a post where there were more insults than content, in which case I might have skimmed it.

Perhaps you didn't read my previous posts. "Calling names" is never appropriate in a debate, and frankly, shows a lack of intellectual maturity. Your debate tactics leave much to be desired.

Posted by: LessT at March 25, 2010 3:58 AM


Megan,

Believe me, if you're a single mother you will be exercising whether you want to or not. I don't mean a formal exercise program, but more things like using the stairs instead of the elevator. Get up and move. By personal responsibility I mean avoiding junk food, etc. For heaven's sake people can brush their teeth! Sorry Megan, but yes we do have to take some degree of personal responsibility and some people simply do not.
When you own a home you must take a degree of personal responsibility, right? When you get a job? When you rent? If you don't then you pay the consequences.

What good is any kind of health care "reform" if parents don't care to bring their children to a doctor or see they eat properly or brush their teeth? You think some nanny from the gov't is going to come to your door to check on you? More likely it will be one of the thousands of IRS agents that will be hired to enforcec this and they will be coming after you for not paying up.

Oh did you hear children with pre-existing conditions are covered in this bill? Bureaucratic snafu. Almost makes ones think it wasn't read.

Megan 12:49PM

????

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 7:01 AM


Less,

I mentioned city hospitals for the indigent and programs to assist people in need of medical help.
Many are run with local taxes, like our local county mental health facility and CP services.

The gov't is not responsible for feeding us, we feed ourselves.

Certainly in emergency situations the gov't steps in and assists but they don't run grocery stores or make sure you buy the right food.

No the gov't is not responsible for making sure we read. Libraries are a local service paid for by local taxpayers.

Yes I'm aware of Marx and I'm convinced we have a bunch of people who think the world owes them because of it.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 7:10 AM


Megan,

Do you brush your teeth? Maintain good personal hygiene? Avoid junk food? Avoid cigarettes and drugs? Do you get up and move? Do you see a doctor when necessary? Are you sober when you drive?


That's called personal resposnbility. Not terribly expensive or difficult is it?

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 7:14 AM


LOL ----- Mary it wasn't read. True, the Dems touted coverage for kids with preexisting conditions, that would start very fast.
It's not addressed in the actual bill itself.

WHUPS!

Also the amusing thing is backtracking to obamanator's past criticism of Hillary's mandate to buy health insurance. He has tured 180 and mandated the same thing.

Posted by: pharmer at March 25, 2010 8:36 AM


But but Pharmer,

We were assured this bill was read cover to cover by the Democrats, and that they knew this bill chapter and verse. I can only say I am absolutely stunned that they may have lied about this.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 8:45 AM


Hi Pharmer,

I just noticed my typo in my 7:01am post. Indeed I meant to say children with pre existing conditions are NOT covered.

I was typing in a hurry before leaving for work, as you can probably tell.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 8:48 AM


LOL, Mary.

I'm not stunned. Those lefties are incompetent. How about that Dingell tape put out yesterday.

Go to the 'naked emperor news' to see video of these people, with their foot in mouth syndrome.

Ya, knew what you meant about the coverage.

Posted by: pharmer at March 25, 2010 9:46 AM


Less...I actually agree with you. Public education is socialism. I am angry I must pay taxes to educate other people's children when I could really use that money to educate my son in the school of MY CHOICE.

And look how much money is thrown into the school system and WASTED!

My aunt is a school R.N. and the school gave her boxes and boxes of notebooks and pencils etc...to distribute to her grandkids. These items were bought with tax payer money, filling a whole room, and then the school decided just to throw it all out. HUH? What WASTE!

I remember in the news there was a minority school where the kids had NOTHING and yet a reporter found a whole room filled with NEW COMPUTERS just sitting there not being used!

Public "education" is a joke and schools should have to compete. Parents should have vouchers to send their kids to the schools they CHOOSE. And people without kids should not have to pay school taxes. I really believe that. It is not your job to educate my son.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 25, 2010 9:57 AM


Mary, you're falling prey to the pernicious assumption that poor people are sick because they're lazy and stupid. I thought we had packed the welfare queen trope away long ago, but unfortunately not. I've worked with inner city families and they and their kids are sicker than people in the suburbs because a) there are fewer skilled labor jobs now that companies have packed up and gone overseas b) they live in crappy housing with issues like lead paint and poor air quality c) their neighborhoods are dangerous d) they face a general lack of resources. Detroit has no grocery stores. And guess who's typically relegated to the inner cities? People of color. So please stop the crap about personal responsibility. It's just an excuse for middle class selfishness.

Posted by: Megan at March 25, 2010 11:22 AM


Hi Megan,

Personal responsibility IS an issue. A spanking new health clinic was opened in the city near me and do you know that they couldn't get people in the neighborhood to come because the didn't trust doctors?

But, I agree with you that there are major problems in the inner cities and most are run by Democrats.
You mentioned grocery stores. Good example. Walmart has been trying to open stores in the city of Chicago for years (maybe even decades) and the labor unions will NOT let them in.
There are no grocery stores within a mile or two from the resident's homes where they can get fresh fruits and vegetables. IMHO, it's almost criminal to deprive them of that. How's that for Democratic politicians taking care of the poor? Many families are moving to the suburbs to get away from this. This is awesome. Those who can't are doomed to a very difficult life. Why do you blame that on "the middle class"? Most of us have no say in what happens in the cities. The local governments are to blame.

Posted by: Janet at March 25, 2010 12:13 PM


Mary @ 8:48 AM

"Indeed I meant to say children with pre existing conditions are NOT covered."

I'm shocked to hear this. Are children covered eventually when adults are?

Posted by: Janet at March 25, 2010 12:20 PM


Getting rid of a Liberal saves babies,
increases the population of the next generation to pay into Social Security, saving the program and miraculously makes Global Warming disappear!

Posted by: DD at March 25, 2010 1:13 PM


Janet, yes, when that takes effect then all people will be covered, including children.

What I hate is how the left is acting like children are covered now (Obama even said so) and people are accusing those of us against ObamaCare against children having healthcare.

Yes, reforms are needed. They should have been introduced on their own merits. We could have had a dozen or more valid laws that everyone on both sides of the aisle agreed on in the time frame it took to pass this monstrosity.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 2:50 PM


Less, I don't receive benefits from my public education tax dollars either... and I have seven children (homeschooled).

I happen to disagree with federal control of schools. I believe that is the responsibilities of the states and communities (and as it is not listed as a part of the specific duties of the federal government... therefore reserved to the states and the people, the constitution agrees with me.)

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 2:54 PM


Than why are you not protesting federal use of funds for schools JUST as ardently as the health care bill? Is it solely the abortion issue? Are you more resigned to the former than the latter? At what point would you say the government should "draw the line," so to speak, in terms of involvement with the populous?

Mary, I didn't ask if you were aware of Marx, I asked if you'd read any. Large difference. Many are aware of him; few have read him. It would be as if I was railing against Christianity without reading the Bible--not effective, because I wouldn't know what I was railing against.

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 3:02 PM


...and for those who don't fall below a certain percentage below the poverty line (the near poor, working poor, what have you), healthcare is hard to come by. not to mention lack of provider availability, reimbursement, etc...the new system won't solve all these problems, obviously, but by introducing more people into the pool (particularly that 20-26 population, who are, by most standards, healthy), there will be more of a safety net for those who are truly needy.

and nope, still would've gotten an abortion. I can't think of anything less responsible than bringing an unwanted kid into the world. :)
Posted by: Megan at March 24, 2010 4:11 PM

1) In Arizona, that certain percentage is 1-1/2 TIMES the federal poverty limit.

2) Just because YOU didn't want the child didn't mean someone else didn't. You think it is kinder to murder a child than give it up for adoption?

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 3:04 PM


Than why are you not protesting federal use of funds for schools JUST as ardently as the health care bill? Is it solely the abortion issue? Are you more resigned to the former than the latter? At what point would you say the government should "draw the line," so to speak, in terms of involvement with the populous?

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 3:02 PM

I do. But that is not the focus of THIS site. Why do you assume that simply because I discuss ONE topic here... the topic of the site... that I m incapable of having other areas of concern?

Also, children aren't murdered by federal funds for schools. (Although, even that is beginning to change, with schools intervening in medical affairs of students...)

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 3:11 PM


Mary, you're falling prey to the pernicious assumption that poor people are sick because they're lazy and stupid.
Posted by: Megan at March 25, 2010 11:22 AM

It is equally false to assume that no poor people are lazy or stupid and that there are no effects on health in the poor due to laziness or stupidity.

I'm a nurse. I have worked at an inner city county hospital for the past few years... and I can guarantee you... there are plenty of medical issues of people of ALL levels of socio-economic status that are due to laziness and/or stupidity. The poor are not some noble class immune from that.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 3:17 PM


Elisabeth, and at what point is the government doing what's necessary, and at what point is the government doing something socialist? It seems like a fine, perhaps artificial, line.

And just to clarify terms, could you define what you mean when you say socialist, please?

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 3:36 PM


That's easy... just read the constitution.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And the limitation: The tenth amendment which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 3:48 PM


Less 3:02PM

I was being facecious. I've read some of Marx's teachings, yes.
BTW, Thomas Jefferson was the first American leader to speak of creating a public education system.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 3:52 PM


Elisabeth, again, could you define socialism, please?

Additionally, the Constitution does not specify the removal of slavery, or any sort of welfare, or the building of roads, or a postal system, or libraries, or fire departments, etc.

Are those unacceptable as well?

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 4:01 PM


Megan,

Where did I refer to poor people or welfare queens? Irresponsible health habits cross all economic boundaries.

I think you are falling to the pernicious assumption that poor people cannot be held responsible for any aspect of their lives. Poor people can't brush their teeth, keep themselves clean, avoid cigarettes and junk food? They can't make certain their children study, stay away from the TV and eat properly? They can't make arrangements for medical care or see to it their chidlren get regular checkups?


Megan, its likely the businesses you talk of packing and leaving did so because of high taxes and an unfriendly business climate, not to mention union greed.

Megan, the conditions you discuss were caused by the damned gov't to begin with!

The great liberal genius social programs such as urban renewal (also dubbed Negro removal) destroyed neighborhoods and communities and targetted minority and or poor neighborhoods.

Then there was forced bussing, a failed experiment in social engineering that created racial animosity, destroyed neighborhoods, and emptied cities. It also took control of schools and involvement in children's education away from parents.

Government run "anti-poverty" programs that black conservatives argue destroyed the black family and trapped black Americans into lives of dependency. Are you aware that in the years following the civil war black Americans established schools, colleges, churches, businesses, farms, and thriving communities with large professional and middle classes? That black Americans had a long tradition of very strong family and community ties? Until the gov't stepped in, that is.

Look at my hometown of Detroit to see what happens when liberal Democrats run a city for 50 years.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 4:11 PM


Those are all states' issues and should be handled at that level. Interstate roads fall under the federal jurisdiction due to interstate commerce.

How many federally funded fire departments do YOU know?

Straw men.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 4:24 PM


Actually, I worked with several fire departments, and all received federal grants at one point or another for equipment. Yes, local taxes paid for that too, but via the Department of Homeland Security, many fire and police departments receive federal grants at this point. Libraries also receive federal and state monies on a regular basis.

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 4:27 PM


And I disagree with that. Leave the money in the states with the people or the states and let them pay for those services.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 4:32 PM


And what about my previous post? The Constitution does not specify the removal of slavery, or any sort of welfare, or the building of roads, or a postal system, or libraries, or fire departments, etc.

Are those unacceptable as well? Why or why not? How do you define socialism, and at what point the government's actions fall under socialism?

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 4:38 PM


Just for the record, the fact that the federal government has overstepped its bounds in other ways in no way requires me to approve of the fact that it is massively overstepping its bounds now.

Socialism is a political theory that advocates government ownership of industry... such as say, automobiles, banks, healthcare, etc.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 4:40 PM


Of course not, Elisabeth. I'm trying to figure out where you stand. Do you agree that those actions (removing slavery, welfare, postal service, etc) are inappropriate?

Additionally, socialism, by definition, is PUBLIC/worker ownership of industry. Not government.

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 4:53 PM


Additionally, socialism, by definition, is PUBLIC/worker ownership of industry. Not government.
Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 4:53 PM

Well, you can take that up with Princeton University. (I borrowed their wording as I'm busy homeschooling my brood and didn't have time to write my own.) But hey, way to insinuate that you know more than others. I don't need a lecture on WHAT socialism is from some random person on the internet whose credentials I do not know.

The slavery issue was correcting a wrong that shouldn't have happened in the first place. HOWEVER, it would have been better for the country as a whole if that had happened state by state rather than requiring civil war... and the civil war was not expressly about slavery.

As for the others... I believe those would be better handled by the states. I believe UPS and FEDEx have definitely proven that private industry is far better than the government at providing that particular service.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 5:05 PM


Just clarifying, Elisabeth, there's no need to be confrontational. In a republic system of government like what the US has, in theory, the government represents the public--it's an easy line to cross.

As for the rest of your post, thank you for clarifying. At what point do you believe the government takes a socialist action versus an acceptable government action? For instance: why is taxing the country as a whole not socialist, or why is making copyright nationalized not socialist?

Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 5:12 PM


Finally, someone willing to call it what it is.

Posted by: why does abortion exist at March 25, 2010 7:51 PM


For instance: why is taxing the country as a whole not socialist, or why is making copyright nationalized not socialist?
Posted by: Less at March 25, 2010 5:12 PM

Taxes and copyrights are covered in the Constitution as a part of the federal government. Seriously, do you read?

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 8:06 PM


As for confrontational... I get that way when someone is condescending to me.

"In a republic system of government like what the US has, in theory, the government represents the public--it's an easy line to cross."

What a condescending load of hooey. What does your resume state that entitles YOU to be the arbiter of what is or is not "proper" socialism?

Quit being a condescending know it all twit and you might get a better discussion.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 8:17 PM


maybe there would be more resources to go around and less debate about who health care should cover if people like elisabeth didnt spit out 7 kids...social responsibility???

Posted by: Elli at March 25, 2010 10:05 PM


Megan,
If you are using even 1 cent of my money to pay for your abortion then I have a right to tell you it is wrong. And would you call yourself a baby killer if you willing layed down on a gurnee and spread you legs and lifted them up in the air so that they could rip a baby from your womb. Or would hold the abortionist completely responsible for the killing?

Posted by: truthseeker at March 25, 2010 10:22 PM


Less, I cited that I had previously cited the question the previous night so you cannot accuse me of a lack of citation....and btw, you still avoided answering the question..

Posted by: truthseeker at March 25, 2010 10:25 PM


elli,

What's the problem with 7 children if Elizabeth takes responsibility for the care of the children?

Oh and as for resources, please point out someone who has no food, no home, or no car because Elizabeth has seven children.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2010 10:37 PM


Elizabeth, you have seven children? You "spit" them out? Why did my pregnancy and labor seem so much harder than spitting? I must have been doing it wrong.

I love those who judge women who make the reproductive CHOICE to HAVE CHILDREN. Good for you Elizabeth!

Pray for me. I would love seven also. I have been trying for 6 months to get pregnant and no luck so far. Docs say an allergic condition I have might be inhibiting conception but they're not sure. They said since I have a son they know I CAN conceive and 6 months of "trying" isn't really all that long so they're not concerned yet. But I can't help but dwell on it. Everyone, please pray for me! Thanks.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 25, 2010 11:12 PM


maybe there would be more resources to go around and less debate about who health care should cover if people like elisabeth didnt spit out 7 kids...social responsibility???
Posted by: Elli at March 25, 2010 10:05 PM

People like Elisabeth? Really? What sort of people is that? Oh, yes, the educated, self-sufficient, married, healthy, employed sort of people. The horrors!

I am a pediatric registered nurse and my husband and I pay for our own health insurance, thank you very much. Our children eat food we grow in our own gardens. They see a doctor once every two years because they are extremely healthy... a dentist twice a year and an optometrist once a year.

We pay taxes towards the schools but homeschool, so we receive no benefits in that way.

Social responsibility? Try showing some yourself. My children will be paying for YOUR social security, should the politicians not destroy it before then.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 11:33 PM


Sydney, you are on my prayer list, dear one! Absolutely!

What type of allergic reaction? I have access to medical journals and may be able to find something out if you let me know. Email me at ellahalligan@live.com.

And, I don't know about "spitting" out... although I've had no c-sections... no episiotomies, either. #1 was 6 hours, #2 was 3, #3 was 1-1/2, and #4 was ten minutes from the time I walked in the hospital door. But #5 went back up to 1-1/2 hours, #6 was 1 hour and #7, my precious little man... was over 18 hours!!! Little stinker. I hope any future blessings don't follow THAT plan!

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 25, 2010 11:38 PM


Elisabeth, perhaps you aren't used to common courtesy on these boards, but I can assure you I am not being condescending. I simply did not want to mistake your position, and I find that clarifying as much as possible is absolutely essential to that. Additionally, I'm legitimately interested in wanting to know where you draw the line. Clearly, your position is very consistent, and I can respect that.

Unless I'm mistaken, your position is that anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution is socialistic. Is that correct?

Posted by: Less at March 26, 2010 12:16 AM


TS, link me or tell me where you initially asked the question, and so long as you aren't twisting your wording or being generally insulting, I'd be happy to answer. However, I won't play your games.

Elisabeth, FYI, if you post e-mails in forums like this, put spaces between some of the letters. I know I've gotten spam from doing things like that before, and it's a bear to get rid of.

Posted by: Less at March 26, 2010 12:29 AM


Elisabeth, Less really ONLY here to waste your time citifully citing and is chock full of disingenuous requests for citations that were previously cited many times. I can't believe I am saying this a second time but what we really don't need around here is Less trolling.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 26, 2010 1:30 AM


Trolls are a lot like Dumbocrats. They get you to believe that they are credible and then they sucker punch you.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 26, 2010 1:39 AM


maybe there would be more resources to go around and less debate about who health care should cover if people like elisabeth didnt spit out 7 kids...social responsibility???
Posted by: Elli at March 25, 2010 10:05 PM
Elli, do your part to save oxygen, never speak.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 26, 2010 1:47 AM


Oh, and never blog either Elli. And if you do blog then try not to type anything cause you use less energy that way.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 26, 2010 1:50 AM


Ah, so you can't tell me where you originally asked the question, can you? Such is life. Again, however, I point out that a troll contributes nothing to the topic up for discussion (health care) but serves only to antagonize other posters. As I've been nothing but respectful to Elisabeth, (I really didn't mean to come off as condescending) you tend to fit the definition of troll much better than I do.

Posted by: Less at March 26, 2010 2:48 AM


almost 7 billion people on the planet? so your 7 kids go on to have 7 kids each...you can take care of your kids now, financially speaking, but how much food is it going to take to feed your little population explosion in the future, when kid A decides to have 5 kids, and these five kids decide to have five kids each, etc? how many cars will your progeny buy, how many houses, how many will be trying to find jobs in a sad economy, etc? we are legion, right?

all major wars are really fought over scarcity...you can take care of your kids now, but the fact of the matter is that society/the environment is only equipped to support so many people.

im not advocating for abortion, and having children is one of the most fulfilling decisions a person can make. but when youre wagging fingers at poor people and people who lack responsibility and are draining the system, i have to question why 2 kids werent enough, or 3, or 5...birth control?

Posted by: Elli at March 26, 2010 10:27 AM


Less, here is the first question I ever asked you on this blog. It was Posted by: truthseeker at March 22, 2010 2:35 AM

Do you think government should fund the killing of the babies of poor mother's who can't afford
to hire a killer themselves?


Posted by: truthseeker at March 26, 2010 11:02 AM


Posted by: Elli at March 26, 2010 10:27 AM

Many women have zero children so a woman who has 7 or eight is not "draining the system. She's replenishing the population to ensure it doesn't die out. Most importantly, she is creating future productive citizens who will grow food, create markets, have their own families, etc... Elli, are you reproducing? If so, why?

Posted by: Janet at March 26, 2010 11:27 AM


Elli...really. Aren't you aware that Europe right now is dying? There aren't enough babies being born to replenish the population.

I hardly think Elizabeth and her descendants are draining anything.

And as to how many cars they might buy...ask you beloved Al Gore how many cars he owns, how many houses, how many toilets he flushes in his mansions. And yet he has brainwashed people like YOU to lecture people like US as to how many kids we can have.

But if you're so concerned about resources, please feel free to remove yourself from the planet. You sticking around is really a burden on dear old mother earth.

And lest you accuse me of being un-Christian, I am, of course, being sarcastic.

Posted by: Sydney M. at March 26, 2010 12:18 PM


im not advocating for abortion, and having children is one of the most fulfilling decisions a person can make. but when youre wagging fingers at poor people and people who lack responsibility and are draining the system, i have to question why 2 kids werent enough, or 3, or 5...birth control?
Posted by: Elli at March 26, 2010 10:27 AM
**********************

You're not advocating for abortion, Megan/Elli? Really? Because the last time you were here, you most certainly DID advocate abortion, under a different name. I think a person who advocates abortion and claims to have aborted probably has no business telling anyone how many children they should have.

Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at March 26, 2010 12:43 PM


Ah yes, TS, and I suggested you look up response bias. I'm going to suggest you do so again.

Posted by: Less at March 26, 2010 1:36 PM


im not advocating for abortion, and having children is one of the most fulfilling decisions a person can make. but when youre wagging fingers at poor people and people who lack responsibility and are draining the system, i have to question why 2 kids werent enough, or 3, or 5...birth control?
Posted by: Elli at March 26, 2010 10:27 AM

1) Point out where I was "wagging fingers". I stated that poor people are not saints and have the same rates of irresponsible behavior as those at other socio-economic levels. That is hardly wagging fingers at poor people.

2)Why should I have to poison my body with chemicals to prevent healthy pregnancies that result in healthy children? As a nurse, I am aware of the negative consequences of hormonal medications and choose not to subject my body to them.

3)Battles are more often fought over control and power, not scarcity. In fact, in most of the regions where scarcity is the worst, it is due to those in power who prevent aid from getting to the people who actually need it and who put blockades in the path of capitalism and self-sufficiency.

4) I am raising my children to be job-creators. My 17 year old is starting her own web-publishing business and my 11 and 14 year olds own their own lawn care service. Too many people is never the problem... it is ridiculous regulations that stifle entrepreneurship and free enterprise. More people mean... more customers, more workers, more ideas, more innovation.

You see, more people in an area means that more food is needed... more grocery stores... more grocery store employees... more distributors... more distributor employees.... more manufacturers and food producers.... more manufacturer and food producer employees....and that's just one industry.

More people means more schools of some sort (I would prefer privately or locally controlled and owned) or homeschoolers. This means more curriculum sales. More supplies sold. Hey, more people working at Staples....

It is the mindset of scarcity that exists in people like yourself that causes problems.

It's like people who tell me I can't give my children enough love... as if somehow my love for one of them diminishes or takes away my love for others... as if it is finite. It is not.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 26, 2010 2:59 PM


Less....
1) I'm not worried about spam... my email address is all over the net since I'm a web-based publisher (when I'm not busy being a nurse) and one more source of spam isn't going to destroy my inbox. I already have filters in place. But thank you.

2) I believe that for the federal government to overstep the bounds set for it by the U.S. Constitution is wrong. Call it socialistic, call it purple-unicorn-fairy-tale-istic, I don't care. It's wrong and violates the intent of the founders. That does not mean that states and communities should not come together to fund or manage some very positive things that can best be done by group effort... just that it is wrong for the federal government to overstep the very clear bounds placed upon it. The lie of the "living Constitution" is just that... it's a lie. It's a document not designed to give the federal government the right to control our lives.... it is a document designed to put on the reins and keep government from overly interfering in our lives. Even a cursory study of the events leading up to the Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, and reading the documents written by the different founders discussing their rationale for different beliefs shows this to be abundantly clear.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 26, 2010 3:07 PM


Ah, okay, so you're wanting the Constitution to remain *static? That makes perfect sense. I disagree with the opinion, but wholly understand your disagreement with the health care bill, if only on those grounds.

I don't know that I have anything else to ask you or add to the discussion, but I feel like I understand your opinion quite a bit better, as well as your frustration. As a curiosity, do you feel that your pro-life position stems more from your position towards the Constitution, or from a moral stance?

* I realize static has a negative connotation, and no offense is meant. I know there's a more technical term for someone who believes as you do, but I can't for the life of me remember it! Regardless, it's just the best word that came to mind, and not meant offensively.

Posted by: Less at March 26, 2010 3:33 PM


My pro-life position stems from the fact that science has proven that independent life with its own unique DNA is formed when sperm and egg unite. That is combined with a religious belief in the sanctity of life (others here share the belief in the sanctity of life but are not religious, fyi).

I believe the term you're looking for is strict constructionist who believes in limited government.

A republic we have... if we'll keep it. Right now the American people need to become educated on the value of that republic and that which it stands for and mobilized to defend it.

Now, I've answered your questions, you answer mine. Using the words of the founders, explain to me where the concept of a "living" Constitution that can be changed with anything less than a Constitutional amendment can be supported.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 26, 2010 4:20 PM


Ah, thank you, strict constructionist is EXACTLY the term I was looking for; I"ll have to remember that. And thank you for answering my questions, I do appreciate it.

As for your question, of course I'll answer! Let me gather my sources, and I'll get back to you? Want to post now so you didn't think I was ignoring your question or anything.

Posted by: Less at March 26, 2010 4:46 PM


I don't see why the representative should apologize for having the guts to speak the truth. If more people would do that, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now to begin with. Don't apologize.

And don't stop speaking out. Every chance we get, we speak up. And we should call things what they are. Abortion is murder. Those who perform or procure abortion are performing or procuring murder. Embryo, fetus, baby, human being, person. Not an it or a thing or an inanimate object but a human person. Not disposable, not hazardous waste. Human. Person.

Posted by: Disciple at March 26, 2010 11:03 PM