Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Sebelius -- You will contribute to the abortion fund, and shut up!

No, she didn't actually say that, but it's more than implied. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a longtime proponent/ advocate/supporter of abortion, has assured us that EVERYONE will pay into the abortion fund whether we like it or not. What's worse is that based on the transcript provided by Captain Ed (the video is up at the Hot Air link) it's not just any fund. You'll notice that it sounds a lot like a slush fund, which Congress is notorious for creating to avoid any public oversight:

SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

BLOGHER: It’s a bit confusing, but …

SEBELIUS: Okay. It is a bit confusing, but it’s really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.

BLOGHER: Oh, that’s good, that’s good.

Yet, Ms. Sebelius is counting on this money to pay for abortions on the taxpayer's dime. As the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, and in subsequent abortion cases, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for this. The choice of abortion is a woman's choice, alone, and no one should be forced to pay for them. The Senate has decided that they're going to trump the decisions of the Supreme Court and force Americans to pay for this heinous procedure. Furthermore, language in the health care non-reform is stripping the "conscience clause" from any power. That clause was enacted by Congress under President Bush, and it allows health care professionals to opt out of any active participation in an abortion based on the person's deeply-held beliefs.

We need to remember that Barry is the most pro-abortion president we've ever had leading this nation. He's surrounded himself by people who wholeheartedly embrace the practice of abortion. Kathleen Sebelius is a prime example of this sort of political ideology. Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and others in the Senate have equated the practice of abortion to the prescribing of Viagra. Not even close, ladies. That's a comparison between apples and oranges, and a non-sequitor to boot. Neither have anything to do with one another. And Viagra, as I recall, is covered under the Medicare/Medicaid drug plan enacted by Congress under President Bush. But abortion, as dictated by the Supreme Court, isn't to be covered by taxpayer dollars.

The Nelson agreement doesn't end the public funding of abortion. the Stupak amendment from the House version of the bill did. Given the extremist tendencies of the Democrats in Congress, it's no surprise they're trying to ram this down the public's throat. But the idea that the money will be set aside, and not directly earmarked for anything, should have fiscal hawks howling with indignation.

I think Congress has wasted enough of our money on pet projects and pork bribes. It's time this was stopped. Hopefully the midterms will be a better barometer of the nation's attitude towards who's in charge, and what they're being trusted to do. It's clear that the majority of the nation who put these fools in charge got horn-swaggled by a bunch of slick, used-car salesmen. Now there's buyer's remorse, and they're ready to take it out on the party in charge running roughshod over our Constitution, and the legacy the Framers left for us.

Publius II


Blogger L A Neumann said...

I agree with you that this bill is not reform but you have a few facts regarding funding of abortion mixed up. Roe v. Wade doesn't say federal dollars can't be used to fund abortions.

The Church Amendment, passed just after Roe determines that providers can't be discriminated against if they or if they don't provide abortions.

The Hyde Amendment wasn't passed until 1976 and it applies only to Medicaid allocations.

If you're upset about your money being used for abortions, why don't you check your private insurance and see if they cover abortion, as about 85% of such policies do.

I'm just as upset about my tax dollars going to Christian schools or organizations that trade food or social services for prayer.

The truth is that this reform doesn't change the essential idea of Hyde. The Catholic church and "pro-life" groups have been working it for effect, abetted by Republicans and the medical industry who have their own agendas that have nothing to do with patients' rights.

And it's worked royally! This reform bill has no reform in it. It's a bail out of the insurance industry. Pick your allies with more discernment next time! Access to affordable health care that doesn't impose religious ideology on a pluralistic nation is a right.

December 22, 2009 at 2:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home