The more I read this healthcare legislation, the more I am amazed at how vaguely it is written. It does not spell out in any way what the basic care package will or will not fund. What it does say is that a committee will be formed to decide the ins and outs of what will be covered. Please see my last posting to get the specifics on the all-powerful committee that will decide the definition of our coverage, which we, the people, will not know until after the legislation has been passed.
The most disturbing aspect of this committee is how it will be formed. The Chair of the committee will be the surgeon general (appointed by thePresident), there will be (9) members who are not federal employees or officers directly appointed by the President. (9) members will be appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States, which, is currently being filled by an interim, Gene Dodaro, until...you guessed it, President Obama appoints a new one. I'm seeing a trend here. The final (8) members will be federal employees and officers appointed by; of course, President Obama. So let's do the math...(18) members of this committee will be directly appointed by President Obama, and (9) will be indirectly appointed by President Obama. It is quite obvious to see who will be molding the clay of the coverages in this bill.
A lot of discussion has been raised as of late in regards to abortion funding in this bill. As stated previously, the bill is worded so vaguely as to not specifically say that abortion will be funded. The bill speaks only vaguely about "family planning" coverage. What exactly will be covered under "family planning?" I cannot be completely sure, but because President Obama will be in direct control over who sits on the committee which will make these decisions, It is my guess that many of his viewpoints will make their way into the coverage. So, let's look at Barack Obama's political history regarding abortion:
President Obama supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest.
During the election last year, then Candidate Obama promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, allowing an individual to abort a fully developed child!!
Obama opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning them.
He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not have to endure.
Obama has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, which is meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
When in the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to term. So, to clarify...child born alive and completely separated from it's mother...Obama believes in killing the baby. That's not even abortion at that point. It's INFANTICIDE!!
Last but certainly not least, Obama wasted no time once he took office in signing an executive order to repeal the order by Former President Bush, which banned funding abortions worldwide.
So, I'm not here to tell you that the new socialized healthcare debacle specifically details our tax dollars funding abortions, but the facts listed above would give any logical pro-life American cause for alarm.
Am I overreaching on this one??? Before you answer "yes" to that, know that Congress has voted down several health care bill amendments seeking explicit assurance that abortions will not be funded. Why would Congress do that unless they specifically plan to fund them? This is arguably the most dangerous bill our elected representatives have ever voted on. A bill which will give away all of our freedom and independence regarding healthcare to a government which seems to have lost it's moral compass. We must get the word out to our elected officials that we will not stand for, much less fund, this type of morally apprehensible behavior!!