Today's horror provision isn't just a horror, it is also in direct violation of both they Hyde Amendment and the Smith Amendment.
Nancy Pelosi is determined to force her far-left progressive agenda down our throats. One of the major provisions that Americans are against is government funded elective abortions. The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under Medicaid/care, and the Smith Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions under the federal employees health benefits plans.
Pelosi's plan requires at least one insurance plan offered in the government exchange to cover elective abortions. On top of that, a monthly abortion premium will be charged to anyone enrolled in the government option. These premiums will be paid into a Treasury account that will be an abortion pool to pay for elective abortions.
Well, only people who opt into the plan will have to pay that, some will argue. The problem is, the way the bill is set up, eventually the only option will be the government (excuse me, consumer) option, and so all of us will eventually be paying into the pool. Maybe not next year or in five years, but, down the road, when all the private insurers are eventually driven out of business (which is the ultimate end result of the legislation), we will all be subject to it.
It will be interesting to see what the blue dogs make of this. So far, there are 43 democrats who have vowed to vote no on the health care legislation if there is abortion funding in it, so I'm sure Nancy will be twisting arms extra hard over the next 48 hours. Hopefully the blue dogs will stand firm against this abomination.
Yesterday they said the vote would be held Saturday, but I am hearing now that it will be Sunday. Sounds like Nan took a count and realized she's coming up short. What I'd really like to see is some blue dogs telling her they will vote yes so that it comes to the floor and then vote no to kill it once and for all. They would be heroes in my mind, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be alone.
UPDATE: A Planned Parenthood director just stepped down after two events - she witnessed an abortion ultrasound, and she got a directive to stop pushing prevention and start pushing abortions due to tough economic times. According to Ms. Johnson, "her bosses told her to change her "priorities" and focus on abortions, which she said made money for the office at a time when the recession has left them hurting." I mention this in this update because I find it interesting that A) Planned Parenthood is 'hurting' and needs to promote more lucrative abortions, and B) that Pelosi, a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, has conveniently opened the floodgates of federal funding. Let's not forget C) it turns out Pelosi's former deputy chief-of-staff, Cecile Richards, is now President of Planned Parenthood.
What a coincidence.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Friday, November 6, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
PELOSICARE HORROR PROVISION OF THE DAY: PART 2
Today's horror is two-fold.
First, the scoring of Pelosi's bill rings in at $1.2 trillion. But she still insists that it will help reduce the deficit - not just in the first decade, but also in the second. I don't know what she's on, but it must be in the hallucinogen family.
So what does that $1.2 trillion buy us?
111 brand spanking new bureaucracies.
Oh goody, just what we need - more government!
Oh, and just for good measure, the word 'shall' appears 3,345 times in the bill. How much you wanna bet each one of those 'shalls' is backed up with a penalty or fee if we don't comply?
Democrats are denying that there are so many bureaucracies, saying they are 'demonstration projects', and the new agencies are just new 'projects' (rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!):
"A Democratic source dismissed the list of "bureaucracies" as an exaggeration, calling them "demonstration projects" instead.
"The programs and demonstration projects they list aren't new agencies but rather new projects," the source told Fox News. "And they're sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. ... Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported." "
Yes, because we all know that programs and projects the government implements are hardly ever made permanent. If you read the quote carefully, you will note that the source says they are "ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them", which means they will be implemented eventually, right? Unless they are trying to get us to believe they will admit to a mistake and dismantle an agency...sorry, I need a minute to get the laughter under control.
Anyhoo, of course they have to mention that there are republican ideas included in those 'projects' to give it an air of acceptability. What ideas would those be? Not funding abortion? No. Tort reform? No. Opening up state lines for a free-market insurance solution? No. Restricting illegals from accessing coverage with the public option? No.
Yeah, sounds real bipartisan.
I'm an optimist at heart, so the silver lining of this behemoth is that 111 new bureaucracies should mean more jobs.
Well, at least in 2013, when the plan goes into effect. I'm sure we can hang on 'til then....it's not like our taxes are going to go up astronomically in the meantime!
Oh, wait....
First, the scoring of Pelosi's bill rings in at $1.2 trillion. But she still insists that it will help reduce the deficit - not just in the first decade, but also in the second. I don't know what she's on, but it must be in the hallucinogen family.
So what does that $1.2 trillion buy us?
111 brand spanking new bureaucracies.
Oh goody, just what we need - more government!
Oh, and just for good measure, the word 'shall' appears 3,345 times in the bill. How much you wanna bet each one of those 'shalls' is backed up with a penalty or fee if we don't comply?
Democrats are denying that there are so many bureaucracies, saying they are 'demonstration projects', and the new agencies are just new 'projects' (rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!):
"A Democratic source dismissed the list of "bureaucracies" as an exaggeration, calling them "demonstration projects" instead.
"The programs and demonstration projects they list aren't new agencies but rather new projects," the source told Fox News. "And they're sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. ... Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported." "
Yes, because we all know that programs and projects the government implements are hardly ever made permanent. If you read the quote carefully, you will note that the source says they are "ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them", which means they will be implemented eventually, right? Unless they are trying to get us to believe they will admit to a mistake and dismantle an agency...sorry, I need a minute to get the laughter under control.
Anyhoo, of course they have to mention that there are republican ideas included in those 'projects' to give it an air of acceptability. What ideas would those be? Not funding abortion? No. Tort reform? No. Opening up state lines for a free-market insurance solution? No. Restricting illegals from accessing coverage with the public option? No.
Yeah, sounds real bipartisan.
I'm an optimist at heart, so the silver lining of this behemoth is that 111 new bureaucracies should mean more jobs.
Well, at least in 2013, when the plan goes into effect. I'm sure we can hang on 'til then....it's not like our taxes are going to go up astronomically in the meantime!
Oh, wait....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)