Archive | Politics

Abortion Coverage Is in Healthcare Reform

Michael Gerson writes in today’s Washington Post on the Healthcare Bill making its way through the House:

“Those who support the Senate bill are participating in what is effectively the largest expansion of federal involvement in abortion since the Hyde Amendment limited that role in 1976.”

Gerson is right on the money in this statement. Nevertheless, there are some who are claiming that the Senate bill doesn’t cover abortions.

Ruth Marcus, for instance, argues that abortions will decrease under the Senate Bill and that there isn’t that much difference between the House and Senate bills. But here’s a question she cannot answer with credibility. If there isn’t very much difference, then why is the pro-abortion lobby (Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc.) moving heaven and earth to keep the Senate Bill as is without the Stupak restrictions on abortion?

The bottom line is this. The American people overwhelmingly oppose tax-payer funded abortions. Therefore, supporters of this bill are doing everything they can to conceal the fact that it funds abortions. Don’t be deceived.

If you haven’t called your representative yet, call now and tell him/her to oppose this bill.

8

Political Cowardice

It looks like the House of Representatives may try to pass healthcare reform (with tax-payer funded abortions) without actually voting on it (read about it here). It would involve a parliamentary procedure that stinks to high heaven. Albert Mohler calls it “unbelievable political cowardice,” and I couldn’t agree more.

28

Health Reform Bill Is Pro-Abortion

It’s time for you to act.

The debate over healthcare reform has reached a fevered pitch as the House of Representatives moves toward an up or down vote on the measure this week. Actually, that last sentence is a bit too simplified. The series of votes that is about to begin this week with the House would take a professional parliamentarian to explain, but the bottom line is this. Healthcare Reform is on the cusp of becoming the law of the land.

At this point, many citizens are tempted to tune-out this debate. Americans are tired of the fighting in Congress, they have issue-fatigue, and they are just ready for this to go away. I understand that impulse, but I also think that it is wrong to give in to it. As Charmaine Yoest recently argued, this bill requires tax-payers to fund abortions and would result in “the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.”

So don’t tune-out yet. For the sake of the unborn, you need to contact your Representative and tell him/her to vote against the Senate Healthcare Reform bill. Tell him to do so because the bill as written will require tax-payers to fund abortion. You can find out your congressman’s name and phone number here, and I urge you to take a few minutes and make the call.

———————–

If you want to understand more about how the current Healthcare Reform bill funds abortions, then read Albert Mohler’s article, “‘This is Life We’re Talking About’ — Abortion and the Health Care Bill.” Also, listen to Mohler’s conversation with Charmaine Yoest on the same topic below.

[audio:http://www.sbts.edu/media/audio/totl/2010/AMP_03_15_2010.mp3]
4

Abortion and Healthcare Reform

Don’t miss Charmaine Yoest’s column in today’s Wall Street Journal. She argues that the Senate’s healthcare reform bill would be the greatest expansion of abortion since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973. It would mandate tax-payers to fund abortions in the following ways:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

For these reasons, Bart Stupak and 11 other pro-life Democrats are threatening to kill healthcare reform if this abortion problem isn’t fixed. Stay tuned. In the meantime, read Yoest’s column.

21

Stupak Fighting the Good Fight

Democratic congressman Bart Stupak continues to fight the good fight against abortion. He told Chris Matthews earlier today that pages 33-44 of the Senate health bill requires tax-payer funded abortions. He’s a Democrat, and he wants to pass healthcare reform as much as anybody. But he also says that he will not compromise on this issue. He and a handful of other House Democrats will kill healthcare reform if the publicly funded abortions remain a part of the bill. In his own words:

“It’s accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it.”

Grateful beyond words that there are still some pro-life Democrats.

0

Russell Moore on Ministers Opting Out of Social Security

Russell Moore was recently asked whether it was okay for ministers to “opt out” of paying social security. Today, he posts his answer. He writes:

“Social Security may or may not be around when you retire. I don’t know. I do know this: your money definitely won’t be around when you’re dead. So why waste your religious liberty on holding on to a little bit more of it for a little while longer?”

Read the rest here.

0

Very Sad Picture from March for Life

I just came across this picture from a Washington Post video report on the 2010 “March for Life” in Washington, D. C. When I saw it today, it reminded me of another outrage from a 2006 “March for Life” (see below). I don’t think the pro-choicers realize how much these types of protests work against their cause. I think most people recoil at such displays.

The national Sanctity of Human Life Day is tomorrow.

3

Neuhaus on Roe Anniversary

“The most consequential cultural and political event in American history in the past half century was the Roe v. Wade decision of January 22, 1973. An argument can be made that it is rivaled by September 11, but that fateful day did not result in the deep realignment of religious, cultural, and political dynamics resulting from the Supreme Court’s ukase, which established an unlimited abortion license that wiped from the books of all fifty states any legal protection of unborn children. . . This Monday marks the thirty-fourth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On January 23, 1973, the New York Times reported that the Court had ‘settled’ the dispute over abortion. Thirty-four years later, there is no more intensely contested issue in our public life.”Richard John Neuhaus, First Things (January 2007)

What Neuhaus said on the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is still true today. Read the rest here.

1

Children in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage

The New York Times reports that the New Jersey state house welcomed children to speak out in favor of gay “marriage.” Ten-year old Kasey Nicholson-McFadden talked about the sadness he feels that his mothers aren’t allowed to marry:

“It doesn’t bother me to tell kids my parents are gay,” he said in a clear voice. “It does bother me to say they aren’t married. It makes me feel that our family is less than their family.”

Why would anyone want a child to speak-out in a public forum in this way? It’s a new strategy on the part of supporters of same-sex “marriage.” They are trying to reframe the debate about how such marriages affect children. Many assume (or at least know instinctively) that homosexual “marriage” works against the best interests of children. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” are trying to dislodge that assumption with appearances like this one. They want to plant this question in the popular consciousness: “What about the children now being raised in families headed by gay men and lesbians? How does the lack of marriage benefits for their parents affect them?”

The strategy is clear. Let’s pray that it doesn’t work. Read the rest here.

21

Supreme Court Strikes McCain-Feingold

“The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns. . . The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.”

This is big political news. Read the rest here.

20

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes