Government Healthcare = You Cost Too Much

Doctors treating the baby say he has such poor quality of life that it’s not in his best interests to keep him alive.

Gosh, I thought somebody did say something about possible death panels in government-run health care.  But with government-paid doctors like the ones in the UK’s universal healthcare system, who needs death panels?  Your own doctors will seek to pull the plug when you get to be too expensive.   

Obama’s Blood Money

I am tired of the finger-pointing, politicking, nuanced meanings, smoke and mirrors, and outright lies.  Worse yet, all of it may end up working.

Here’s a thought: healthcare reform should be about maximizing the health of a nation and extending coverage for everyone — including the unborn.  Healthcare reform must promote and encourage better health for generations yet to come — not destroy them.  

On October 7, 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the following when asked about federal dollars for abortion : “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.”

I give Mr. Gibbs all the credit in the world for such an accurate, skillful and deliberately misleading non-answer.  The expertise necessary to dissect such a disarming reply is most remarkable.  Thank goodness for fact-checkers like the National Right to Life Committee.

“[T]here’s a law… that isn’t going to be changed.”  Accurate ?  Yes.  Misleading?  Absolutely.

Pro-life people just want to know the truth.  Are government monies going to be used to help pay for abortions in Obama’s healthcare reform?  

Yes.  Assuming proposed reform ultimately passes–yes.

FACT #1: There is no current federal law that would prevent the new programs created by the pending healthcare bills from paying for abortion on demand.  And every attempt to add such limitations to the healthcare bills has been blocked.

Democrats are hiding behind the “Hyde Amendment” when they say federal funds cannot be used for elective abortions.  Guess what folks?  Democrats are completely bypassing the Hyde Amendment which only applies to appropriations bills.  The new premium subsidy programs are not funded through appropriations bills.

FACT #2: Under H.R. 3200, as amended by the Capps-Waxman Amendment, under the public option, the Department of Health and Human Resources is explicitly authorized to pay for elective abortions using funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account.

“[T]here’s a law… that isn’t going to be changed.”  Accurate ?  Yes.  Misleading?  Absolutely.  It ignores the real question.  What about the unborn?

Any person intentionally misleading the public on the critical issue of federal funding of abortion will have blood on their hands if the proposed healthcare reform passes.  Tax dollars, federal funds, Treasury accounts, federal subsidies–whatever you want to call it–is blood money if it helps to kill the unborn.

The Battle to Save Marriage

These ADF folks are your unsung heroes.  Pray for them in ‘09.  And if you didn’t already know, marriage means something.

Constitution May Bar Obama Presidency

Hat Tip: Bob McCarty Writes  The video also addresses controversy concerning McCain’s “natural born” status.

“Marriage” Means Something

Ellen’s position is that marriage only between a man and a woman violates her inalienable or Constitutional rights or her right to pursue happiness. But this is simply not the case. Gays and Lesbians have NEVER been denied the right to marriage in America based on sexual orientation! (That I am aware of.) Any man, gay or straight, can marry any other woman gay or straight. This has always been the law and the case as long as those individuals have met the other requirements for marriage such as consent, age and not being genetically related, etc.

Just show me one instance of a man wishing to marry a woman either of whom were denied the right to marry each other because either one or both were homosexual.