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!!
Showing posts with label pro life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro life. Show all posts
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
ENSURE YOUR CONSISTENCY WHEN CLAIMING TO BE A BELIEVER IN THE CONSTITUTION
I have teenagers, so I am quite familiar with the “know it all” mentality that they often display during these years. After all, I'm not so old that I don't remember having a very similar attitude when I was their age. Even as a young adult, I was proud of my conservative beliefs and very stubborn about defending them, sometimes to my own detriment, when I would end up deeper in a debate than my knowledge and wisdom should have allowed me to go. Yes, as a young man I had a belief system that I was confident was right, and staunchly defended it under the flag of the Constitution of our United States. The only problem was my own knowledge of this amazing document which set our country on a solid foundation was very limited.
I remember arguing quite fervently with the pro-choice crowd over abortion. I am positive that several times I referred to the Roe v. Wade decision as a decision which should be overturned, and that abortion should be made illegal by the government. Okay now be honest. Those of you who believe fully in the Constitution of our land, please tell me the err of my ways back then. It seems like a quite sound belief from a conservative standpoint. Make abortion illegal. It's a very morally positive outcome, right? Wrong! Now, before all moral conservatives stop reading this please hear me out. First of all, Roe v. Wade is a decision that should be overturned, because it is not constitutional...but the reason it is not constitutional is the same reason why the federal government cannot pass legislation to make abortion illegal. According to the Constitution, the federal government may not exercise that power over the land. The Constitution is quite clear in stating that these decisions are left to the individual States to decide. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear on this matter. I bring this point up to simply to point out that it is so important in this day and age that we educate ourselves in what we believe in. If we are to believe that the government should follow the Constitution in governing this land, we have to educate ourselves on exactly what the founding fathers wrote in the document, lest we be labeled by the liberals (statists) as hypocrites.
This is one example of the founding fathers saving us from ourselves if you think about it. Though it would seem like a great moral victory for the government to pass legislation which would eliminate the killing of innocent unborn children, we have to think deeper about the power that we give our federal government each time we allow them to step in and dictate a rule or law over the people of this nation. That same power we give them today to do something in our favor will, tomorrow and forever be wielded by the federal government. History would show that when a federal government gains enough power over it's people to make decisions, allegedly on their behalf, that inevitably they begin to abuse that power to their own selfish and/or greedy benefit. See, the founding fathers understood that man is an imperfect being. They knew that even they, themselves, if given enough power would govern to their own benefits eventually. It is human nature, and you can trace it all of the way back to the very first story in the bible, with Adam and Eve.
Therefore, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that the individual States are to make these decisions. Which actually works out if you think about it. If you are Pro-Life, you may choose to live in a Pro-Life State, and vice versa if you are Pro-Murder. This allows everyone over the long term to be happier citizens, and the federal government's power to be limited.
I remember arguing quite fervently with the pro-choice crowd over abortion. I am positive that several times I referred to the Roe v. Wade decision as a decision which should be overturned, and that abortion should be made illegal by the government. Okay now be honest. Those of you who believe fully in the Constitution of our land, please tell me the err of my ways back then. It seems like a quite sound belief from a conservative standpoint. Make abortion illegal. It's a very morally positive outcome, right? Wrong! Now, before all moral conservatives stop reading this please hear me out. First of all, Roe v. Wade is a decision that should be overturned, because it is not constitutional...but the reason it is not constitutional is the same reason why the federal government cannot pass legislation to make abortion illegal. According to the Constitution, the federal government may not exercise that power over the land. The Constitution is quite clear in stating that these decisions are left to the individual States to decide. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear on this matter. I bring this point up to simply to point out that it is so important in this day and age that we educate ourselves in what we believe in. If we are to believe that the government should follow the Constitution in governing this land, we have to educate ourselves on exactly what the founding fathers wrote in the document, lest we be labeled by the liberals (statists) as hypocrites.
This is one example of the founding fathers saving us from ourselves if you think about it. Though it would seem like a great moral victory for the government to pass legislation which would eliminate the killing of innocent unborn children, we have to think deeper about the power that we give our federal government each time we allow them to step in and dictate a rule or law over the people of this nation. That same power we give them today to do something in our favor will, tomorrow and forever be wielded by the federal government. History would show that when a federal government gains enough power over it's people to make decisions, allegedly on their behalf, that inevitably they begin to abuse that power to their own selfish and/or greedy benefit. See, the founding fathers understood that man is an imperfect being. They knew that even they, themselves, if given enough power would govern to their own benefits eventually. It is human nature, and you can trace it all of the way back to the very first story in the bible, with Adam and Eve.
Therefore, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that the individual States are to make these decisions. Which actually works out if you think about it. If you are Pro-Life, you may choose to live in a Pro-Life State, and vice versa if you are Pro-Murder. This allows everyone over the long term to be happier citizens, and the federal government's power to be limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)