Tag Archives: Democrat

News

Democrats vote to subsidize Viagra for child molesters and rapists

1 Comment

Story from the Washtington Times.

Excerpt:

Senate Democrats voted almost unanimously Wednesday night to ensure the right of rapists and child molesters to have guaranteed access to government-subsidized Viagra under the president’s health care plan. Only Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana broke ranks with his Democratic colleagues.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, put the Senate’s majority party on the spot by offering an amendment denying convicted sex offenders coverage for erectile-dysfunction medications. Dr. Coburn’s proposal would also have prohibited health care exchanges from offering any coverage of elective-abortion drugs like RU-486 at taxpayer expense.

[The Democrats also] defeated an amendment barring tax increases on families earning less than $250,000. So much for the president’s promised “middle-class tax cut.” They also defeated an amendment requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges – just like everyone else under Obamacare.

So it’s not just abortions that will be taxpayer-funded.

This is scary. It seems to me that people on the left don’t believe that anyone should ever be punished for doing anything immoral. They often oppose concepts like “good” and “evil”. They refrain from making moral judgments. They condemn those who are good, and lift up those who are evil. They don’t want anyone to feel excluded or judged. No one is responsible for their own decisions, they say. But what about the victims of immoral actions? And who is going to pay for all the goodies they hand out (to get elected)?

News

Why did Bart Stupak vote for the health care reform bill?

2 Comments

Here’s a story from the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

When Bart Stupak announced Sunday he was now a “yes” on the health-care bill, six Democrats stood with him. Even that handful would have been enough to defeat the bill. Instead, they accepted the fig leaf of an executive order—and threw away all the hard-won gains they had made.

[…]Even more troubling… is that few accept the idea that the executive order really adds anything. In fact, on this point National Right to Life, the Catholic bishops and the Susan B. Anthony List are largely on the same page as Planned Parenthood. As are the pro-life Republican leader Mr. Smith and the pro-choice Democrat Diana DeGette of Colorado.

Planned Parenthood calls it a “symbolic gesture,” and says “it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.” Rep. DeGette, who screamed so loudly when the Stupak amendment passed, said she had no problem with the executive order because “it doesn’t change anything.” She’s right, because an executive order cannot change the law.

Take the $7 billion in new federal funding for the community health centers. As my former White House colleague Yuval Levin points out, all that has to happen for these federal dollars to start flowing for abortion is for NARAL Pro-Choice America to sponsor a woman demanding an abortion. The center will initially deny funding, citing the executive order. The woman will then sue, arguing that abortion is a part of health care. Given the legal precedents, and the lack of a specific ban in the actual legislation, the courts will likely agree.

Why did Bart Stupak change his vote?

Here’s a press release from his web site. (Dated 3/19/2010)

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements.  The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.

Could this be the reason? Thirty pieces of silver?

Fox News reports that Obama skipped signing the executive order on Tuesday.

News

How Obamacare took away my liberty

4 Comments

From Health Care BS. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

1. Don’t need or want a health insurance policy? Sorry, the individual mandate makes it a federal crime not to buy insurance.

2. Want to pay less in premiums by buying health insurance coverage with limits on coverage? Sorry, Obamacare also dictates how much coverage you must buy (including maternity coverage if you are a single male).

4. As an employer, you’d like to offer your employees high-deductible coverage or policies that don’t cover “children” as old as age 26? Sorry, that’s now illegal.

5. As a business-owner with 100 employees, you want to expand your sales and hire a few more people? Sorry, if you hire one more person, Obamacare requires you to buy insurance for all your employees.

6. You’re a physician and don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Sorry, the HHS is now authorized to use your claims data to measure the resources you use.

Taking money from small businesses? That reduces the supply of jobs. Making doctors jump through hoops? That reduces the supply of doctors.

From Carrie Lukas at National Review. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Last night, Speaker Pelosi reiterated that passing the health-care legislation means that “Being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition.” It’s true that outlawing gender ratings will effectively shift women’s health costs to men (which means young men will see their health-insurance premiums rise disproportionately). Yet the Senate bill makes being a single mom a new kind of pre-existing condition: Instead of higher insurance premiums, these women will have fewer employment opportunities. Congratulations Mrs. Speaker.

What happens when you take money away from healthy single men? They don’t marry because they can’t afford to become husbands and fathers. Government replaces men as husbands and fathers. That’s what this health care bill does.