|
NAVIGATION
|
NEWS TIPS!
RightMichigan.com
Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?Tweets about "#RightMi, -YoungLibertyMI, -dennislennox,"
 |
MI Democrats At Center Of Abortion Controversy In The Healthcare BillBy Theblogprof, Section News
Gee - I thought Obama said that nationalizing healthcare wouldn't actually pay for any abortions. Or illegal immigrants. Or ration care. Uh - did dear leader - egads! - lie? Was Joe Wilson right? Actually, yes; yes he was! Turns out, nationalized healthcare would pay for illegals either directly from upcoming amendments offered by the most liberal Democrats, or indirectly by having no provision to confirm citizenship (not a bug, but rather a feature of HR 3200). Comparative effectiveness research only takes 2 things into account - treatment cost and age. How is that not a death panel? And then there is abortion. Here's what Obama had to say about it a few short weeks ago, and then there's Bart Stupak (D-MI-1st district) who called Obama a liar without using that word:
Got that? HR 3200 has a little-known amendment that mandates that at least one of the plans in the "exchange" cover abortion. Again, not a bug - a feature. Obama lied through his teeth. In any case, Stupak (more on him later) isn't the only Michigan pol involved heavily in the abortion healthcare controversy. Just recently, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) scuttled a Senate amendment that would have forbidden abortion coverage by taxpayer dollars. From The Detroit Free Press: Abortion entrenched in health care debate. More below the fold...
...in the Senate Finance Committee, Democratic senators, including Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, held off an amendment by Utah Republican Orrin Hatch that would have prohibited public subsidies for plans offering abortion services, instead allowing women to buy supplemental coverage. Opponents said it essentially takes away a right that women have: to pay for coverage as part of their overall plans.As usual, evil is good and good is evil. See, in liberal la-la land, filleting a conscious baby in the womb as it recoils from pain is fine but withholding taxpayer dollars from paying for such butchery is offensive. Makes sense in the liberal worldview. Somehow. The complicated situation, however, is Stupak's: This is softer than many may read. They could block, but that doesn't mean they will block, the legislation. And the exception is that they get to vote on the amendment, not that it passes. As I have mentioned many times before, this is entirely consistent with what is coming out of the Stupak camp off-camera through the dinosaur print media: It's not make-or-break to his support of the bill ultimately, [Stupak] said. But he wants it considered.Here's another snippet: Stupak ... "doesn't oppose a public option," his spokeswoman, Michelle Begnoche , said. "No one issue will dictate his final vote. He will look at the bill in its totality when he makes his decision."About says it all regarding Stupak. You have to wonder about the game within the game here. 41 purported pro-life Democrats exist that could block the legislation, and all of them are needed. What do you think the odds are that 3 or 4 of the safest ones will peal off from that crowd allowing the other 37 to save face, vote against it to look good to their constituents, but still let the horrible legislation pass anyway. It's typical modus operindi for Democrats. Lie, cheat, steal. I find that offensive.
Share This:
MI Democrats At Center Of Abortion Controversy In The Healthcare Bill | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
MI Democrats At Center Of Abortion Controversy In The Healthcare Bill | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
|
 |
