Texas Kaos
TAKE TEXAS BACK!TM

RSS Feed
TexasKaos.com FeedBurner


Regional Coverage
Hot Topics
Blogads
Keep your Internet costs Low!  Protect Net Neutrality!

TAKE TEXAS BACK!
A bunch of thieves, thugs, and nutcases took over Texas. Then they used it as a stepping stone to Washington, DC.

They raided our treasury, stripped our schools and handed it all to their corporate cronies.

Y'all ready to do something about it?

We're taking Texas Back. Join us!


Search




Advanced Search


News in Texas

TX U.S. House Rep: "Demons have Invaded the Capital"

by: Libby Shaw

Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:49:34 AM CDT


There they go again.  The GOP clown shows complete with its outrageous signs are out in full force this week. Health care reform has Republicans and its teabagger wing in a state of hysteria.  

Too bad most do not understand that they will actually benefit from health care reform legislation. But oh well, I've given up on expecting rational thought and reason to prevail among a bunch of misled and manipulated extremists.

Glenn Beck must have spiked U.S. Rep. Gohmert's iced tea. Or maybe the weather has been so cold in Washington that most of Gohmert's brain cells have frozen. Or perhaps the fact that over 30 million uninsured Americans will now be able to afford health coverage and the insurance companies will no longer be able to hand out death sentences to patients is simply too much for Gohmert to bear.

Speaking shortly after he riled up a crowd at Tuesday's Tea Party protest, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) declared that "demons" - yes, demons - have invaded the capital (and likely the souls of Democrats), forcing lawmakers to mislead the public about the content of the health care bill.

 

Libby Shaw :: TX U.S. House Rep: "Demons have Invaded the Capital"
U.S. Rep. Gohmert is the one who is doing the misleading.  He lied to the group of teabaggers, insisting that $700 million would be appropriated for abortions.

"I brought an abortion to show you today," he said, hosting a copy of the health care bill in his right hand. The crowd responded with a chant of "Abort the bill!"

And then, out of nowhere, Gohmert began spreading the word that underworld spirits were lurking around the Capitol building behind him.

"There's a whole lot of demon going on," he said. "There are a lot of demons around here apparently."

I guess Louie Gohmert cut work on the day the Stupak (anti-abortion)Amendment passed in the House.

In the end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided that abortion opponents would be allowed to offer an amendment that would impose tight restrictions on abortions that could be offered through a new government-run insurance plan and through private insurance that is bought using government subsidies. Sponsored primarily by Michigan Representative Bart Stupakhe, the amendment to the legislation passed 240 - 194.

It is also obvious Gohmert has not read or he fails to understand the bill.

I have news for Louie Gohmert.  There are a lot of demons in Washington.  And those demons are Wall St. and health insurance lobbyists who keep politicians like Louie Gohmert in their pockets.

I am sure Louie Gohmert, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison and in my case, John Culberson, will enjoy spending the next two decades explaining why they were dead set against health care reform.  One would have thought Republicans had learned their lesson when hugely popular legislation such as civil rights, social security and medicare passed.  I guess when a political party works exclusively for fat cat it must be hard to grasp the real needs of the people.  It also seriously underestimates the people's will.  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Louie Gohmert is bat shit crazy (4.00 / 2)
He can't even use the excuse of demon possession - he's just plain run of the mill nuts.  All of his own choosing too.

You would be right about that (0.00 / 0)
Louie has a thing for psycho babble.  One has to wonder if Louie does this stuff to grab attention or is he in serious need of psychiatric intervention?

One has to wonder.


[ Parent ]
Re: Demons... (0.00 / 0)
Too bad most do not understand that they will actually benefit from health care reform legislation.

Methinks it's Libby Shaw who doesn't understand the full impact of the bill(s) currently being considered.  Follow me below.

U.S. Rep. Gohmert is the one who is doing the misleading.  He lied to the group of teabaggers, insisting that $700 million would be appropriated for abortions...I guess Louie Gohmert cut work on the day the Stupak (anti-abortion)Amendment passed in the House.

Apparently Ms. Shaw does not understand that the House Bill is virtually dead, and the Senate Bill and Obama's Bill both contain language that provides federal funding for abortion procedures.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Heal...
http://www.wrtl.org/resources/...

It is also obvious Gohmert has not read or he fails to understand the bill.

It's obvious Ms. Shaw does not understand the bill(s), or its impacts, for if it passes...

"More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey (by the New England Journal of Medicince) said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

What is that going to do to healthcare costs and availability?

I am sure Louie Gohmert, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison and in my case, John Culberson, will enjoy spending the next two decades explaining why they were dead set against health care reform.  One would have thought Republicans had learned their lesson when hugely popular legislation such as civil rights, social security and medicare passed.  I guess when a political party works exclusively for fat cat it must be hard to grasp the real needs of the people.  It also seriously underestimates the people's will.

Speaking of the People's Will:

"According to a 2008 Zogby poll, 71 percent of Americans do not want to pay for abortion nor have their employers provide health care that pays for abortion...In an April 2009 survey by The Polling Company/WomanTrend, 87 percent of adults felt 'it is important to make sure that healthcare professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.' Further, 95 percent of 2,865 faith-based health care professionals said, 'I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience.'"
http://spectator.org/archives/...

And by the way, it's off-subject, but I can't let the civil rights comment above go without posting this:

"After all, for 100 years, the Democratic Party showed its tone deafness to the rights of blacks. Democrats opposed the 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), the 14th Amendment (making ex-slaves citizens) and the 15th Amendment (that, on paper at least, gave blacks the right to vote). Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan -- some even call it the "terrorist wing of the Democratic Party." And a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Alabama Gov. George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace was a Democrat. Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox, who as a restaurateur, left pick handles hanging on the walls to provide customers recourse in the event an uppity black tried to enter his restaurant. He was a Democrat. Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus attempted, in 1957, to prevent the integration of Little Rock High School. He was a Democrat. Bull Connor, the commissioner of public safety for Birmingham, Ala., turned water hoses and dogs on civil rights activists. He was a Democrat."
http://millenniumfreedom.org/v...



So, what else did Ann, Rush and Glenn (0.00 / 0)
have to say today?
Where polls are concerned all incumbents are in danger. This includes the party of obstruction, no, and hypocrisy.

As far as abortion coverage is concerned until recently the RNC itself had health coverage that included abortions. I am sure a lot of Republicans women screamed behind closed door when they learned it had been pulled.  And the only reason the RNC pulled it was b/c of course Republicans can't be exposed for yet another act of shameful hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy continues to pervade the GOP where abortion is concerned.  Why don't you do some exhaustive research and find out how many Republican women including the wives and daughters of male lawmakers who oppose abortion have had abortions themselves.  I think you would be a bit stunned.  And if abortion were illegal here most would fly off to countries where it is legal.  

Republicans like to say one thing in public but they do quite the opposite privately.  That, my friend, is a known fact.

After Louie did his grandstanding outside he likely had a meeting inside with a bunch of health care lobbyists who slapped his back and congratulated him for his stunt.

The reason I ask over and over why you folks vote for politicians who have  no regard for you is because the RNC has been openly exposed for trashing its donors and members.  I guess you missed that piece of news.  But of course FOX, Glenn, Ann and Rush would not want to talk about that, now, would they?

In which category of Republican do you fall?

Visceral giving.  Those to manipulate and scare.

The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed "RNC Marketing 101." The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.

The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading "Visceral Giving." Their motivations are listed as "fear;" "Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;" and "Reactionary."

Appealing to deep pocketed fat cats.  Whose butts to kiss and how.

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed "Calculated Giving."

Their motivations include: "Peer to Peer Pressure"; "access"; and "Ego-Driven."



[ Parent ]
Re: So, what else... (0.00 / 0)
You responded to my comment, but nothing in your reply addressed anything I said in direct reply to your diary.  There are legitimate problems with this healthcare bill.  Do you not understand the bill well enough to comment on these concerns?

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I don't "debate" with folks (4.00 / 1)
who consider Ann, Rush and Glenn credible sources of information.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I don't "debate"... (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, I don't "debate" with folks who consider Ann, Rush and Glenn credible sources of information.

Go back and read this: http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

I brought up Cato, Ann, Rush, Heritage, and conservatives like Jonah Goldberg not to reinforce the points they make (or their credibility).  I brought them up as sources to prove incorrect a point you made, namely that "when W. did it Republicans, conservatives and libertarians were AOK and totally cool with racking up the deficit."  As you can see, conservatives and libertarians were, in fact, critical of Bush's spending.  Therefore, it is not inconsistent or hypocritical that conservatives and libertarians are critical of the Obama deficit.

But that's not really the subject of this diary.  My response to this diary raised specific problems with the current healthcare bill without mentioning, referencing or in any way relying on Ann, Rush, or Glenn.  That being said, apparently the answer to my earlier question about whether or not you understand the bill(s) well enough to hold a discussion about it is no.


[ Parent ]
Your souces are not credible. (0.00 / 0)
Therefore they are ignored.

Go back and read this:
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...  

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
If your "side" is really so concerned about the "problems" in the healthcare bill (0.00 / 0)
Maybe they should try a strategy besides sabotage.

And by the way, there is no funding for abortions.  Shocking to see R's publicly lying (again).  Almost as shocking to see you dutifully regurgitate your spoonfed BS.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: If your side... (0.00 / 0)
And by the way, there is no funding for abortions.

I assume by this you mean in the Senate Bill, given that the Senate Bill is the only one left with a glimmer of hope of passing.

Okay. Here we go:

"The House bill contains a ban on tax-funded abortion, which has been the law of the land for more than 30 years. The Senate bill is a big change, say critics. It would require women to have a separate private insurance policy if they want abortion coverage, but contains no explicit ban on tax-funded abortion as the House bill does."
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

But because you, JFrank, and Ms. Libby Shaw don't approve a Fox News as a legitimate source, let me look further.

"The so-called abortion limits that are in the Senate bill are all very narrow, riddled with loopholes, or booby-trapped to expire.  Some of them were drafted more with the intent of misleading superficial analysts (which unfortunately includes some media "factcheckers") than actually effectuating a pro-life policy...
http://www.lifenews.com/nat607...

Who's ever heard of lifenews.com?  If I've never heard of them, they must not be on the official JFrank list of credible sources.  They're probably liars, too.

Oh wait.  The lifenews.com article lists specifics.  That's worth a further look, I guess.

"The Senate bill departs from longstanding federal policy by authorizing tax subsidies to help tens of millions of Americans buy private health plans that could cover abortion on demand.  Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Ne.) attached to this provision a badly flawed requirement under which anyone enrolling in such plan would be required to make separate payments into an abortion fund.  In a recent statement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (which strongly opposes the bill) said, "The bill requires each American purchasing such a plan to make a separate payment to the insurer every month, solely to pay for other people's abortions.  This is an enormous imposition on the consciences of the millions of Americans who oppose abortion."   In its first analysis of the Nelson language, NRLC recognized it as a convoluted bookkeeping scheme inconsistent with the principles of the Hyde Amendment."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?  Definately not a JFrank-approved-source.  Liars.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/arch...

What else does the lifenews.com article say?

"The Senate bill would establish a new program under which a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), would administer private "multi-state" plans.  It has been reported that the bill guarantees that one plan will be available everywhere that does not cover abortion.  In fact, it guarantees no such thing, because even this narrow requirement is rigged to depend on annual renewal through a separate appropriations bill.  Moreover, other plans in the federally administered program would be allowed to cover all abortions -- a break from the policy that has long governed the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which is also administered by OPM."

and

"The Senate bill would empower federal political appointees to expand access to abortion by federal administrative decrees.  The bill contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters.  One analyst recently wrote that the Senate bill "contains more than 2,500 references to powers and responsibilities of the secretary of health and human services," to say nothing of other federal authorities.  Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as authority for pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it."

and

"One clear example is the Mikulski Amendment, under which any service listed as a "preventive" service by the Department of Health and Human Services must be provided (without copayments) in all types of private health plans.  (Sec. 1001, pp. 20-21.)  Sen. Mikulski refused to modify her amendment to exclude abortion from the scope of this mandate authority.  (The Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment, similar to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, would have prevented abortion mandates or subsidies under any provision of the bill -- but that amendment was tabled, 54-45, on December 8, 2009.)"

and

"The Senate bill lacks language to protect health care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions (known as the "Weldon language"), even though such language was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was included in Speaker Pelosi's original bill even before adoption of the Stupak Amendment.  (See Section 259 of the House-passed H.R. 3962.)  Yet, because such language is offensive to the pro-abortion lobby, it was excluded from the Senate bill."

and

"The Senate bill, due to a last-minute amendment, provides $7 billion for the nation's 1,250 Community Health Centers (CHCs), without any restriction whatever on the use of these federal funds to pay directly for abortion on demand.  (These funds are both authorized and appropriated by the bill, and thus would be untouched by the "Hyde Amendment" that currently covers Medicaid funds that flow through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.)  Two pro-abortion groups, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, are already actively campaigning for Community Health Centers to perform elective abortions.  In short, the Senate bill would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers."

and

"The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180).  Only bill-wide, permanent language, such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, can ensure that none of the vast amounts of federal money authorized and appropriated through the Senate bill are tapped by pro-abortion political appointees and bureaucrats to pay for abortion."

But those must all be lies, right?  Let me look for JFrank-approved-sources.

"First, the Senate bill allows elective abortions to be offered through the newly-created individual state health insurance exchanges and multi-state health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and through federally-subsidized plans in already-existing community health centers. Second, there is nothing in this legislation that requires any of these programs to live up to both the spirit and letter of the Hyde amendment that Congress has included each year in spending bills that fund the government. This not only prevents federal funding of elective abortions, but also erects an iron-clad firewall against any private money for abortion being mixed with any federal or state health program receiving federal dollars. This applies, for example, to Medicaid, a health program for the economically disadvantaged that is funded by both federal and state governments. If any resources are used for elective abortions that money must be kept completely separate from Medicaid. This is sound policy that must be maintained. Regrettably, the Senate-passed bill doesn't include this firewall. Anyone who doesn't earn enough money would qualify for a federal subsidy to help pay for their health plan in the state exchanges, including plans offering elective abortion coverage. Some argue that under the Senate-passed bill, federal funding would be "segregated" so no federal money would pay for abortions. But this is a violation of the Hyde amendment, which also prevents the federal funding of insurance that covers elective abortion."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

Doh! Fox News again.  Sorry.  I guess I just can't help myself.



[ Parent ]
I'll see your BS and raise you some nuns (0.00 / 0)
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/...

and ...

I guess I just can't help myself.

Yeah, we know.  It's just that as the awful evil inferior subhuman "progressives" and "liberals" that we are, we can't help but hope that one day, some day, you might matriculate to adulthood.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
You are lying. (0.00 / 0)
Flat out lying now.

Guess that means we are almost in the home stretch for reals.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Re: You are lying (0.00 / 0)
You are lying. Flat out lying now.

If these are the only two possibilities -- I'm lying or you are wrong -- then you might want to rethink your position.


[ Parent ]
I'll take that bet (0.00 / 0)
... without hesitation, and twice on Sundays.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

[ Parent ]
I guess there is one other possibility (0.00 / 0)
that you are actually that stupid, but me and 59,000 nuns ain't wrong.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

[ Parent ]
Re: I guess there is one other possibility (0.00 / 0)
...but me and 59,000 nuns ain't wrong.

http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/...

The Mikulski Amendment language:
"A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for, and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements (other than minimal cost sharing in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) for, with respect to women (including pregnant women and individuals of child bearing age), such additional preventive care and screenings not covered under section 2708 as provided for in guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration."

"The second part of the amendment applied to health insurers participating in government-run insurance networks-so-called "American Health Benefit Gateways"-that the bill directs each state to create. These "gateways," consisting of a government-run insurance company plus "qualified" private insurance companies, would offer federally subsidized insurance to Americans earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level (currently $88,000 for a family of four)."

The debate:
Pointing to the language mandating that health insurers participating in government "gateways" must include "essential community providers," (Sen. Orrin) Hatch asked: "Would that include abortion providers? I mean it looks to me like you're expanding it to where you-well, say for instance, like Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?"

"It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services, and under the definition of a women's health clinic it would include Planned Parenthood clinics," said Mikulski. "It does not in any way expand a service. In other words, it doesn't expand, nor mandate an abortion service."

"No," said Hatch, "but it would provide for them."

"It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate," said Mikulski.

To eliminate any ambiguity that Mikulski's amendment was intended to mandate abortion coverage in the proposed health-care reform, Hatch asked her a final question.

"Madame Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in that says, 'Not including abortion services'?" Hatch asked. "Then I think you would have more support."

Mikulski concluded with a convoluted response, saying, "So, no, I would not be willing to do that at this time." Mikulski's amendment passed.


[ Parent ]
No, it's just you and your typical deceit (0.00 / 0)
Quoting at length partisan advocacy masquerading as legitimate reporting.  Are those words too big?  You lie.

L. Brent Bozell III "founded CNS" with "... the goal of 'documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.'[2]"

From the "About Page":

CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues.

From the Front Page:
obamacare

So once again, I wonder.  T-bag, are you one of the mindless zombies parroting what your overlords have told you, a worker ant hastening his own demise for no noble purpose?  Or are you of the landed gentry class that wants to turn the USA into India, circa 1850, with 95% of Americans as Harijans?

One thing is certain, there's no reason to pay attention to you or your uncious unctuous drivel.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: No, it's just you and your typical deceit (0.00 / 0)
No, it's just you and your typical deceit Quoting at length partisan advocacy masquerading as legitimate reporting.  Are those words too big?  You lie.

What I quoted was not opinion, but a factual conversation that showed your words ("And by the way, there is no funding for abortions.) to be incorrect.  Are you denying that this conversation took place?  Here is a video of the same transcript I quoted earlier if it helps.

 


[ Parent ]
From the NY Times (0.00 / 0)
   "We strongly support a woman's right to choose and are disturbed by the restrictions in both the House and Senate bills on a woman's ability to buy insurance that covers abortions. But the opportunity to provide coverage for 30 million of the uninsured - and more security for all Americans - is too important to miss.

   We are puzzled and dismayed that these legislators are willing to waste that opportunity because they say the onerous anti-abortion provisions in the Senate's bill are still not onerous enough....

   Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, says that unless the Senate's anti-abortion provisions are strengthened, perhaps a dozen House Democrats who voted for the House version won't vote for the Senate's bill. Before they push their party's signature domestic issue over a cliff they need to recognize how incredibly restrictive the Senate's provisions already are.

   Most of these restrictions would apply to insurance policies sold on new exchanges where individuals and small businesses could choose from an array of private plans. The Senate bill would allow any state to ban insurers on the state's exchanges from offering policies that cover abortion. In states that don't impose that ban, the exchanges would be required to offer at least one policy that excludes abortion coverage. They would not be required to offer policies that cover abortions....

   All people who buy a policy that covers abortions - not just those receiving tax credits to help buy insurance - would have to divide their premium payment in two: a small part (at least $1 a month) to cover the plan's projected cost of paying for abortions and a much bigger payment for the rest of the premium. The insurers would have to keep two separate accounts for the subsidized group, one to pay for abortions and one for all other care. It would be so cumbersome that it would likely discourage insurers from offering plans that cover abortion.

   Those restrictions are a blatant government interference in a serious health care decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor. But for some House members they are still not enough....

   Abortion is a legal and medically valid procedure that should be covered by insurance - without government interference. Legislators who support abortion rights are the only ones who have given ground in the interests of passing health care reform. Anti-abortion Democrats need to show similar statesmanship and accept the Senate's restrictive provisions. They owe it to all Americans."

I don't understand how someone can think that the government should decide to choose for women what procedures that they can or cannot do. Further, I don't understand what makes any of these people believe that this health care bill is ultimately "pro-abortion" when in fact, it seems to limit womens choices further by forcing more insurance companies to exclude abortions if they are trying to receive government funding.

People who want to get abortions still have to pay money out of their pockets to get them. In other words, trying to say that this bill covers abortions is dishonest.


Re: From the NY Times (0.00 / 0)
People who want to get abortions still have to pay money out of their pockets to get them. In other words, trying to say that this bill covers abortions is dishonest.

"One clear example is the Mikulski Amendment, under which any service listed as a "preventive" service by the Department of Health and Human Services must be provided (without copayments) in all types of private health plans.  (Sec. 1001, pp. 20-21.)  Sen. Mikulski refused to modify her amendment to exclude abortion from the scope of this mandate authority."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat607...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

I don't understand how someone can think that the government should decide to choose for women what procedures that they can or cannot do.

One of the few, legitimate purposes of government is to protect us from one another.  The Declaration of Independence says that all of us have a right to life that comes directly from our Creator.  Life inside the womb deserves the same protection as life outside the womb for that very reason.

I don't understand what makes any of these people believe that this health care bill is ultimately "pro-abortion" when in fact, it seems to limit womens choices further by forcing more insurance companies to exclude abortions if they are trying to receive government funding.

"The Senate bill, due to a last-minute amendment, provides $7 billion for the nation's 1,250 Community Health Centers (CHCs), without any restriction whatever on the use of these federal funds to pay directly for abortion on demand.  (These funds are both authorized and appropriated by the bill, and thus would be untouched by the "Hyde Amendment" that currently covers Medicaid funds that flow through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.)  Two pro-abortion groups, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, are already actively campaigning for Community Health Centers to perform elective abortions.  In short, the Senate bill would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat607...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

"The Senate bill lacks language to protect health care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions (known as the "Weldon language"), even though such language was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was included in Speaker Pelosi's original bill even before adoption of the Stupak Amendment.  (See Section 259 of the House-passed H.R. 3962.)"
http://www.lifenews.com/nat607...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

"The Senate bill would empower federal political appointees to expand access to abortion by federal administrative decrees.  The bill contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters.  One analyst recently wrote that the Senate bill "contains more than 2,500 references to powers and responsibilities of the secretary of health and human services," to say nothing of other federal authorities.  Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as authority for pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat607...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

All people who buy a policy that covers abortions - not just those receiving tax credits to help buy insurance - would have to divide their premium payment in two: a small part (at least $1 a month) to cover the plan's projected cost of paying for abortions and a much bigger payment for the rest of the premium. The insurers would have to keep two separate accounts for the subsidized group, one to pay for abortions and one for all other care. It would be so cumbersome that it would likely discourage insurers from offering plans that cover abortion.

"The Senate bill departs from longstanding federal policy by authorizing tax subsidies to help tens of millions of Americans buy private health plans that could cover abortion on demand.  Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Ne.) attached to this provision a badly flawed requirement under which anyone enrolling in such plan would be required to make separate payments into an abortion fund.  In a recent statement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (which strongly opposes the bill) said, "The bill requires each American purchasing such a plan to make a separate payment to the insurer every month, solely to pay for other people's abortions.  This is an enormous imposition on the consciences of the millions of Americans who oppose abortion."   In its first analysis of the Nelson language, NRLC recognized it as a convoluted bookkeeping scheme inconsistent with the principles of the Hyde Amendment."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat607...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

Most of these restrictions would apply to insurance policies sold on new exchanges where individuals and small businesses could choose from an array of private plans. The Senate bill would allow any state to ban insurers on the state's exchanges from offering policies that cover abortion. In states that don't impose that ban, the exchanges would be required to offer at least one policy that excludes abortion coverage. They would not be required to offer policies that cover abortions....

"The Senate bill would establish a new program under which a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), would administer private "multi-state" plans.  It has been reported that the bill guarantees that one plan will be available everywhere that does not cover abortion.  In fact, it guarantees no such thing, because even this narrow requirement is rigged to depend on annual renewal through a separate appropriations bill.  Moreover, other plans in the federally administered program would be allowed to cover all abortions -- a break from the policy that has long governed the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which is also administered by OPM."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat607...
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...



[ Parent ]
Once again you're misleading (0.00 / 0)
The Declaration of Independence says that all of us have a right to life that comes directly from our Creator.  

The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, The Constitution is.  Exactly how many times does your faction need to be told that?

If you and yours weren't so insistent on instituting stupidity and ignorance throughout the land, and dutifully participating, (and yes, I'm looking at the TX schoolbook conflagration congregation commission), you might be able to make a legitimate point.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: Once again... (0.00 / 0)
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, The Constitution is.

Evidently, JFrank does not understand the importance of our founding documents.


[ Parent ]
pot, meet kettle (0.00 / 0)
Maybe, maybe not.  But at least I've read them.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


TexasKaos Tools
Blogging 101

Add My Link!

RSS Feed
TexasKaos.com Feedburner
Add to Technorati Favorites (Why 2?)
Add to Google

Texas Elections

2006 Election Results
- Statewide Results
- US Senate Results
- US House Results
- TX Senate Results
- TX House Results

National Elections
US Congress
- US Senate Results
- US House Results
All States
- Governor Results
- Ballot Initiatives
TKaos Voter Tools
TX Democratic Party (TDP)
- TKaosopedia on TDP
- Current TDP Officers
- TDP Handbook
- Party Structure
- SDEC Mission
- SDEC Members
General
- Roberts Rules of Order
- Roberts Rules Online
- Democratic Party
- Who are my Reps?
- Contacting US Congress
- Contacting your state legislator (also legislative research and more!)
- Texas Almanac
- Direct Link to Texas Legislature, including online Video, when in session
Democratic Orgs
- Democratic Party
- Wise County Active Dems
- Harris County Dems
Texas Progressive Alliance
National Voices
- Atrios
- Blog for America
- Daily Kos
- The Field
- Firedog Lake
- Huffington Post
- Iraq Casualty List
- Jesus' General
- Kid Oakland
- Media Matters
- MyDD
- Open Left
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- Shakespeare's Sister
- Talking Points Memo
Other Sites of Interest
- Army of Dude
- Latina Lista
- Pandagon
- Para Justicia y Libertad
More Tools
Technorati Profile

(Why 2?)

Texas Kaos logo design courtesy of Snarko!
Powered by: SoapBlox