Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Defeat Any Fed Health Care Bill Requiring Anything

Interview with Megyn Kelly on the Health Care legislation HR 3200 CAPPS Amendment) reported out of House Energy and Commerce committee, Bart Stupak, emphatically highlights the CAPPS Amendment to the original bill makes public funding for abortions first time ever!

Not since 1976, says the legislator has Congress authorized such IN THE WAY OF federal funding of abortions.

While apparently the Congressman's bill (with Pitts) was voted down, and the CAPPS Amendment passed, the wording in the Congressman's own amendment is troubling...

Read it closely... pay attention to

"except in the case where

"a woman suffers from a physical..."

In Stupak's bill, read closely, abortion would have been covered and paid for by taxpayers' monies and who doubts clever use of the 'exception' clause' by so-called abortion rights supporters and enablers?

Also while the Stupak and Pitts Amendment was defeated in committee, even had it passed, other language in the original bill may still enable the federal funding of abortion.

That Congress is considering any measure to mandate health care coverage/insurance be purchased or obtained by individuals, and as reported, if not the individual would actually be fined some several thousands of dollars should raise the concern of all "individuals."

Each and every one of YOU. Yes, you.

Sadly, and unfortunately, there is a lack of education about our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

This health care 'reform' effort is nothing less than a power grab by both political parties and what came before this proves without a doubt Republicans are no more to be trusted to refrain from trampling the U.S. Constitution than Democrats.

Just look up SChip. Just look up the Hyde Amendment. Just look up Social Security Act.

This all is not only socialistic, it is anathema to the very foundation of our nation.

One that was founded upon the idea of freedom of the individual and possession of unalienable and inseparable from the individual - rights. Guaranteed rights.

The Federal Government was not founded to impose its will on individuals but to secure our unalienable and individual rights.

Secure. Protect. Defend.

The Federal Government was not founded to "give" us rights, nor was it founded to "find" what rights we individually possess.

It was founded to "secure" individual rights.

How far have we moved from that concept.

So far it is not a concept that is on the tip of the tongue of all individuals who are indeed citizens of the United States.

See the World Magazine article Killer Bill, August 15, 2009.

We're just getting into dangerous territory when the federal government intrudes further and further into matters which are supposed to be in the domain of the "states" and "the people" according to the Constitution of the United States Bill of Rights Tenth Amendment.

What's not to understand about the Constitution's intent that the federal government be a government with defined and limited "powers?"

Any true individualist who believes that status is what the Constitution guarantees should thwart any attempt to bring any health care reform to the United States which mandates or requires anything of anyone or of any insurance company, etc. Anything the federal government requires in this way is simply unconstitutional. Period.

Below find a variety of info pertaining to the issue of so-called Health Care 'reform.'

Be aware any talk, any talk of applying this legislation to an 'individual' is simply unconstitutional and I'd dare say, traitorous.

This situation highlights dramatically what is afoot at this time in our nation's history.

And Republicans are not to be trusted on this either even though many mouth how they don't want legislation that mandates individuals be insured and if not they'll face fines.

In the past, look at what they've voted FOR. Even one vote for one measure that does not pertain to the defined and enumerated powers of the federal government shows the hypocricy. One single vote.

Net the Truth Online

Fact Check President Barack Obama's Denial Abortion Funding nonexistent in Health Care Reform legislation

Abortion foes quickly denounced Obama’s statement as untrue. The NRLC’s Johnson said "the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions." And our analysis shows that Johnson’s statement is correct. Though we of course take no position on whether the legislation should allow or not allow coverage for abortions, the House bill does just that.


Congressional Committees Rejected Pro-Life Amendments
Finally, the health care reform bills mandate abortion services as evidenced by the Energy and Commerce and HELP Committees’ rejection of amendments which would have prohibited mandatory abortion coverage, ensured that taxpayer money did not fund abortion, and prevented preemption of state laws on abortion. The Senate HELP Committee rejected each of these amendments, offered by four different Senators (Enzi, Hatch, Roberts and Coburn) by a vote of 12-11.

Similarly, the House Energy and Commerce Committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would have excluded abortion from the required basic benefits that any government or private plan must offer, but included an exception for cases involving a danger to the mother’s life, rape, or incest. On the initial vote, the amendment passed by a vote of 31-27, but upon revote, Democrat from Tennessee, Rep. Bart Gordon changed his vote to No, sinking the amendment by a vote of 30-29.

In place of the Pitts/Stupak amendment, the Committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) by a vote of 30-28. The Capps amendment allows for immediate federal funding of elective abortion coverage through the public plan pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, requires that all areas of the country contain one private plan that covers abortion, and permits taxpayer subsidies of private plans that cover elective abortion.

"New faces of New Orleans" August 15, 2009
Killer bill
Healthcare: Pro-life lawmakers raise alarm: Absent amendment, healthcare bill will subsidize and mandate abortion coverage | Edward Lee Pitts

Illustration by Krieg Barrie
WASHINGTON—On July 17, House lawmakers rode to the rescue of the nation's wild horse population, passing a bill to prevent their slaughter by adding millions of acres to their roaming lands.

But while lawmakers devoted tightly doled out floor time to debating the welfare of the West's estimated 36,000 wild horses, another life-and-death debate has been relegated to committee rooms: the fate of unborn children in the pending transformation of the nation's healthcare system.

A growing number of lawmakers from both parties are fearful that passage of the current healthcare proposal as written would lead to taxpayer--supported abortions.

Just days after the wild horse vote, concerned House members decided to kick-start the abortion debate. Gathering together inside the new Capitol Visitor's Center, the bipartisan grouped warned in a press conference that a "stealth abortion mandate" is real and would require insurance companies to include abortions as part of a basic coverage plan.


Already two amendments in the House and one in the Senate specifically to ban publicly funded abortions have been defeated. Meanwhile Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag responded, "I'm not prepared to" when asked if he would rule out abortion funding in the legislation.

"Obamacare is the greatest threat to the lives and well-being of unborn children and their mothers since Roe v. Wade," says Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican.

This is not just a Republican concern. Recently 20 House Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warning that "we cannot support any healthcare reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion."

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., now puts the number of pro-life House Democrats opposed to the proposal at 39. That's a number that, combined with House Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats, could hold back party leaders' plans to push a healthcare bill through Congress in the fall. The timeline has already been altered once after the proposal's $1 trillion price tag and its creation of a controversial government-run insurance plan forced congressional leaders to abandon an August deadline.

Among the biggest red flags for pro-life legislators is the bill's creation of a Health Benefits Advisory Committee that would determine what procedures are covered under a public plan. The bill requires every American to have insurance that meets certain standards. "According to the president, in his own words, central to the idea of healthcare is the idea of reproductive health or abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. "That will be considered a minimum benefit."

Unless the legislation explicitly excludes abortion procedures, pro-life lawmakers predict that abortions will soon become part of the required insurance package. The stakes are high, Stupak argues, because buried in the 1,017-page health bill is language making it clear that federal standards would preempt any state law. That could put 200 state laws aimed at protecting life in jeopardy, Stupak says.

But requiring abortion coverage is not the only potential change. Healthcare legislation could also lead to taxpayers footing the abortion bill. The measure authorizes subsidies to purchase healthcare premiums for individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provision alone would cost taxpayers $773 billion over the next decade. "Without such restrictions this legislation would certainly result in the federal funding of abortion on an unprecedented scale," Stupak says.

Supporters of current legislation say the bill doesn't specifically include abortion. But pro-life lawmakers say they have heard that before. Indeed, this current fight has echoes of the effort that resulted in the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, that bars the federal government from using tax dollars to pay for abortions through Medicaid. Medicaid didn't mention the word abortion, but courts ruled that the procedure fit under many of the broad categories outlined and had to be covered. Until the Hyde Amendment passed, Medicaid paid for hundreds of thousands of abortions.

Today pro-life advocates fear this could happen again as the reach of the Hyde Amendment may not extend to provisions in the current healthcare bill.

No comments: