Most disappointing was Bart Stupak's caving to a phony executive order "compromise." A News Journal reporter called me last night and wanted my opinion on the executive order, and if I truly thought it would stop abortion funding in healthcare. My short answer - no chance. For many reasons:
1. Any executive order can be rescinded as fast as it's signed.
2. I've read the EO. It says nothing. All it does is essentially say "here's what's in the healthcare bill and I, as president, am going to make certain people aware that it says that." Pointless.
3. The EO does not prevent insurance companies that cover abortions from participating in the exchange.
4. Any budgetary issues with legislation have to be amended through legislation. An executive order can't do anything to funding issues. Which brings me to my next point...
5. If Obama & Co. were serious about not using federal dollars to pay for abortion, they would have explicitly and clearly put that kind of language in the bill ages ago.
6. Obama & Co. are SO beholden to Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby, there's no way he's going to disappoint them.
Then the reporter asked me why I thought Stupak finally gave in. Quite simply: The "D" behind his name. I now don't believe he ever had any intention of voting no on the bill. He just had to hold out for the purpose of coming across as pro-life for his supporters. All he needed was that tiny sliver of light and he always intended to give in. Plus, I told the reporter that I'm certain there were just more backroom payoffs involved. Then I came across this. Coincidence? Wow, less than a million dollars for millions of unborn lives. He's a cheap vote!
So what now? I'm not sure. There's talk of repeal, lawsuits from individual states, etc. I haven't had a chance to let it all sink in yet, but I hope there's hope to turn this around. Otherwise, we can go ahead and change our name to Amerika.
UPDATE: Just came across this video from last year, when Stupak didn't know he was being recorded! Looks like he had no principles all along!
Posts
But 400 BILLION on unconstitutional health care is ok?
ReplyDeletePrescription Drug Benefit.
The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage would be available to seniors through private insurers for a monthly premium estimated at $35. There would be a $250 annual deductible, then 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 would be reimbursed. Drug costs greater than $2,250 would not be covered until out-ofpocket expenses exceeded $3,600, after which 95 percent of drug costs would be reimbursed. Low-income recipients would receive more subsidies than other seniors by paying lower premiums, having smaller deductibles, and making lower co-payments for each prescription. The total cost of the new prescription drug benefit would be limited to the $400 billion that Congress had budgeted earlier this year for the first 10 years of this new entitlement program. The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215 (Roll Call 669).
Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR this bill.
Marsha Blackburn is a hypocrite.
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://tinyurl.com/qhayna
Mickey