| Passing the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Does Not Solve the Abortion Problem |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 11/07/09 |
|
AMENDED AT 11.11 p.m. H. R. 3962 has passed the House by a vote of 220 to 215. The passage of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment earlier in the evening insured the votes needed to overcome pro-life opposition to the bill. As I explain below, it's clear Democratic leadership intend to scuttle the amendment somewhere along the way before it reaches the White House for the president's signature. It may be possible, however, to apply enough pressure on the Congress at the critical moment to avoid that eventuality. The victory of Stupak-Pitts this evening was a mere skirmish compared to what lies ahead. AMENDED AT 10:20 p.m. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment passed the House tonight by a vote 240 to 194 with one member, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) voting "present." But no one should assume that solves the problem of funding for abortion in the health care legislation, H. R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care in America Act. As reported in today's New York Times, the health care bill will then move from the House to the Senate and then, if passed, go to conference where the amendment barring abortion funding will probably be stripped out of the bill. More evidence for this was supplied today when Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) refused to assure Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader, that the Stupak-Pitts amendment would remain in the bill after it goes to conference. "I can't quarantee you anything," said Rangel. Boehner replied, "It is quite clear this could be a shell game underway. . . . I have my doubts this language, if it passes, has any chance of being in the final version of the bill." (Boehner had earlier asked Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same question and repeated it later to Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee - neither would give any assurance.) Earlier in the day the web site Politico published a very misleading report, "Bishops Endorse the Bill," when in fact the USCCB was merely reiterating its support of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB's pro-life office, told LifeSiteNews, the passage of the amendment would eliminate "our most serious moral problem with the bill." Yes, it would be eliminated from H. R. 3962, but there is no guarantee the amendment would remain in the final version of the bill when is comes out of conference. If Rep. Boehner is right, the Democratic leadership is playing a "shell game" with the pro-life members of the House and, it seems, with the USCCB. This is how the game is played: Allow the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to gain enough votes for the health care bill to pass the House. Send the bill to the Senate, and once it passes and goes to conference seek to strip any restrictions on abortion funding out of the bill. This is precisely the significance of Rangel's unwillingess to assure Boehner that the amendment would remain in later versions of the bill! It's important that pro-life members of the House vote for the Stupak-Pitts amendment in spite of the game being played, if only to support those Democrats who have taken a courageous stand against their party. It should be added that H. R. 3962 does not contain clear provisions on conscience protections and the "death panels" on end-of-life care remains completely intact from earlier versions of health care legislation. Finally, what about the "school-based clinics" that are mandated in Sec. 2511 of the bill? Organizations like Planned Parenthood will receive grants for these clinics which are described as not providing abortions but does not exclude abortion referrals. Funds for school-based clinics [SBHC] may be used for:
H. R. 3962 has multiple problems, only one of which is addressed by the Stupak-Pitts amendment, and even the fate of that amendment is not assured once the bill passes to the Senate.
Readers have left 37 comments. Deal will never support health reform, no matter how many abortions it will prevent and no matter if 37 million Americans are finally treated with human dignity. He has spent too many hours with the tea party crowd over the last few days and is now pulling out "death panel" language. It is obvious who is playing a shell game....Deal is. Written by BDK BDK, Do you think consigning the United States to financial oblivion is a Pro-life thing to do? We can't afford this bloated monster. Written by D.B. What price are you putting on preventing abortions, DB? Written by BDK Deal, Did you honestly mean, "if"? *If* Rep. Boehner is right? IF? sigh, Kamilla  Written by Kamill Pathetic. The Democratic dominated House is facing a very close vote on an historic bill that finally addresses the long scandal of healthcare inequality in the US, and with provisions that are not even abortion neutral but actually promise to eliminate abortion coverage from many private plans that currently cover it. This is something the GOP, when it controlled power in DC, never moved a finger to do. And it is something that if it passes will do so with little to no GOP support. It is also something the Senate, where the GOP holds far more leverage, has not done. GOP leverage there has focused on weakening regulations of insurance abuse and gutting a public option for those with no access to private healthcare. Yet, Mr. Hudson’s post, as always predictable, is all about the evil secret plans of the Democrats. Pathetic. Written by DC Deal, your position is anti-life and I am praying for your soul tonight. The Stupak amendment would restrict abortion funding well beyond any policy we have seen since Roe v Wade, prevent thousands of abortions, would provide health care coverage for 96% of Americans, and fundamental Catholic priorities regarding life and dignity compel us to support this bill. Written by BDK I'm talking about the Fiscal Solvency and Future of the United States. This Health Care Bill will exacerbate our slide into financial ruin. Entitlements on a Credit Card are the road to ruin. It's Madness. Written by D.B. Future of the U.S.????? Your scare tactics are uninformed, D.B. This bill cuts the deficit and will head off the problem of our health care costs equating the GDP costs, which is what we would face in a few years without this bill. Written by BDK File this post away, Deal, and when the Stupak Amendment gets tossed aside in committee, bring it back out. Really, we'll see who's naive or not while supporting this monstrosity. Written by Andy Don't file it away....support the version of the bill to get the best possible reform package that prevents abortions and saves lives. Never before (since Roe) has one chamber of Congress passed such limiting restrictions not only on public funding of abortion, but also private funding of abortion. This package is well beyond the Hyde Amendment and all pro-lifers should be backing it. And this "monstrosity" is deficit reducing and will end the number one reason for personal bankruptcy. Written by BDK The Stupak version of this bill won’t survive the Senate without at least some GOP support. If only a handful of GOP senators agree to support the basic framework just passed by the House, the president will have to sign it since it is his signature domestic issue. The problem is that unified GOP opposition, no matter what happens with abortion, takes too many pro-life votes out of the equation. It’s amazing a small number of pro-life Dems got this done last night, but they will need more support from pro-lifers across the aisle. The GOP in the Senate has a chance to do something major for both the common good and the unborn by passing what the House just passed. Written by DC We've done this song and dance before. This isn't scare tactics, this is the proven track record, both Democrat and Republican of fudging numbers to provide the illusion of being Fiscally Sound. No More. I oppose anything that creates Red Ink...ANYTHING. Written by D.B. Define red ink for us all...since it is consistent with your stance, you could mean the red letters in the scripture. And not so sure how a deficit reducing package is red ink. If we don't address the costs in health care, they will soon equal our GDP. This package does that and independent estimates agree. Written by BDK Define red ink for us all...since it is consistent with your stance, you could mean the red letters in the scripture. — BDKAnd not so sure how a deficit reducing package is red ink. If we don't address the costs in health care, they will soon equal our GDP. This package does that and independent estimates agree. How cute. Maybe if you took a moment to stop being an ass to Mr. Hudson or anyone else who disagrees with you on this. You know full well what I mean by Red Ink, but I suppose plain meaning escapes you. I am opposed to any increase in expenditures, and that includes the Defense Budget...in case you have any silly ideas of accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. We can't even pay for the entitlements we have on the books, forget adding anymore. Written by D.B. It seems as if we can never have a discussion w/o folks like DK and BDK telling us that the American health care system is awful and that the Democrats (39 of whom voted against the Pelosi bill even with the Stupak amendment in place)are our saviors who will set things right. Providing among other things for health insurance for the 37 million (or is it 50 million?) people who do not now have "affordable" health insurance and, who it is claimed (mostly falsely) are not getting adequate health care. Haven't they heard that many of the uninsured prefer to remain self-insured? Or that they have not signed up for programs for which they are now eligible? Or have incomes sufficient to allow them to buy health insurance, something that for whatever reason they choose not to do. I would hope that people who think that government run health care is God's gift to humanity would wise up to the facts before they sound off. Or wise up to the dangers of Big Government, government which promises to take care of us (whether we want to be taken care of or not). And forgetting Jefferson's warning that government which can give us everything also has the power to take away everyting. I am a 75 year old man with a serious heart condition who is left wondering what effect the proposed cuts in Medicare (ala Pelosi) will have on my future health care needs. (I would note parethetically that I wish I had some private option so that I could get out of the currently rule infested Medicare system entirely.) And all that blarney about the poor: we have spent something over a trillion dollars on aid to the poor since the Great Society days and what have we gotten for it? Good question. And what reason do we have to believe that a few more trillion will set things aright? And don't our friends on the left realize that ultimately it is the poor who tend to suffer most when the Leviathin state gets control of things. As an extreme example, consider the late Soviet Union: a highly privileged society in which the party hacks and the bureaucratic apparatchicks got the prime cuts and most othe rest got whatever was left over.As for Deal's comments, he may be onto something. My guess (emphasize guess) is that the Dems will be forced to retain the Stupak amendment (or something like it) in order to get their horrendous health care "reform" proposals enacted. Written by Thomas S As a left-leaning Catholic and pro-life Democrat, one who takes seriously the peace and justice teachings of my church and their political implication, I am often told by right-leaning Catholics that it isn’t that they don’t take such peace and justice teachings seriously, but that they think abortion is just more important. Fair enough. But sometimes you can work for both. You don’t always have to choose. Sometimes this even happens on one bill before Congress. Last night the House voted on a bill that is the most dramatic step toward addressing the lack of healthcare for the poor and sick in this country, a long-standing and crucial peace and justice issue in our national life, that also included the most dramatic restrictions on abortion availability in a generation. A landmark bill for both abortion and peace and justice causes. Yet, only one out of 178 Republicans in the House supported this bill, and he explicitly cited his Catholic faith and the potential of the bill to protect both the poor and the unborn as the reason he supported it. Most of the right-leaning Catholic blogs I have seen opposed it too. While certainly not true of all right-leaning Catholics, I think many don’t actually mean it when they say the respect all the Church’s social teaching but just give abortion a priority. I think many actually oppose addressing peace and justice issues, and this have been evident from the Iraq war to heathcare reform. They often invoke “prudential disagreement” like a magic wand to allow them to take any position they like and call it Catholic, but deep down I think they have no interest in peace and justice issues. Perhaps I am being unfair, but I can tell you it is difficult to be pro-life in the Democratic party, to witness to the truth of Catholic teaching among a party that largely rejects it on this issue. So I was thrilled to see 64 brave pro-life Democratic votes last night. What I find so frustrating is a lack of counterparts to us on the other side. Where are the consistent Catholics in the GOP? We could use some help over there. Last night showed me how little there is. Written by DC There are conservative Democrats and virtually all Republicans who are so totally insurance lobby shills that they would not be moved by the Second Coming to vote in support of healthcare insurance reform which includes the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Protecting insurance company profits, finances for the next campaign, GOP First, Party of NO, selfishness and greed and anti-social justice, "death panels" goofiness, continuing anti-life industry practices like pre-existing conditions (pregnancy, previous ceasarean section, live donor kidney donation, intention to adopt a child, victim of domestic violence and abuse, chubby babies, smallish toddlers, etc.)-- these are what the opponents of healthcare insurance reform are really supporting. Their support has zero to do with saving the unborn and fiscal responsibility, neither of which they gave a hoot about the previous eight years. Republicans are no more pro-life than the Man in the Moon. They will vote to defeat reform because they want to defeat a Democratic president. Have the guts to admit it. Your leader did. Written by Dan Sherman The "greedy" insurance people need to make a living just like anybody else. I suspect there are many people in America of both political parties who are satisfied with their insurance. The intention of the liberals in the democratic party is a power grab that will create a voter base beholden to them. Government healthcare will be no different than welfare. Just like the democrats economy features 10%-17% unemployment, so the health reform will have its extreme faults as well. The democratic leaders will always have a job, and they will have their own health care as well. Written by Mark The GOP will not support healthcare insurance reform legislation of any description. (Their own proposal is not reform.) If it weren't the bogus death panels or the benign school-based clinics, it would be the color of Pelosi's nail polish. There would always be something that would prevent the GOP from supporting anything that would threaten the immoral and unethical practices and profits of the insurance industry. The GOP knows what side its bread is buttered on. Written by Robert To all the 'death panel' naysaysers, the death panels are a reality. People like you try to pretend the idea is bogus, but anyone who is paying attention knows they were real, which is why the language was removed, and they will be real again if this monstrosity passes. Just because the Democrats call them something other than death panels doesn't mean they aren't exactly the same thing. What would you call it when government agency determines if you are eligible for treatment? Take the UK health service that denies young women access to pap smears because they are too young to be in the risk category, yet young women are dying. I'd say it is pretty fair to call that being condemned by a death panel. The same thing will happen here. Sarah Palin was not the one bearing false witness... Socialized medicine Does. Not. Work. It has failed, bringing rationing, lack of innovation for new treatment, long waits, bankruptcy, doctor shortages, etc... wherever it has been tried. Some claim that this will stop the inequality of our care. I'll grant that to a point. It will bring all care down to a substandard level. Well, except for those in power. Our 'representatives' will continue to have a high standard of care and the rest of us will wait in line/be told to go home and take an aspirin. Just war theory states that there must be a reasonable expectation for success and that it must not make matters worse than before the war. Well, this healthcare 'reform' does not have a reasonable expectation for success as it has failed/is failing in all countries it is tried in. *Google father of Canadian healthcare says it is broken.* While claiming to be an attempt to make care better and more accessable for a few, it will make it worse for the vast majority who are relatively satisfied. And D.B. is right; it will tax us into poverty, and bankrupt our country, which provides more financial support to poor countries like Africa, as well as a better standard of living to our own 'poor' than any other in the world. We will not be able to take care of our own, much less offer charity to those in need. The U.S. is far from perfect, but Government takeover is not the answer. There are many things that can be done to improve our current system, such as tort reform, interstate competition, etc...But above all, the compassion of the Church, Catholic hospitals, and private charity is the answer for the truly poor. Returning God to His proper place in our society so that charity can prevail is the answer, though the ACLU (and we know which party they support) keeps doing more and more to remove Him. 'Social Justice' Catholics are demanding a King (the government) to take care of/rule over us all. As in 1 Samuel 8, He will give us what we ask, and we will lose our freedom. God have mercy. Written by Pamela File this post away, Deal, and when the Stupak Amendment gets tossed aside in committee, bring it back out. Really, we'll see who's naive or not while supporting this monstrosity. — AndyAmen. I don't dare write any more just yet. Thank you! Written by Sarah L Have you ever had anyone come to your door with a offer to sell you something that seemed at first a great deal, but as you looked more at the details, you realized not only was it NOT a good deal, but it would a disaster. and many times it was the comments of your spouse or your parent before you signed on the dotted line that opened your eyes to the seemingly good offer. And the lessons learned have been reduced to cliches, such as "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." "The devil is in the details." "It's always a good idea to spleep in a major decision." And you all could add to the list. So why - why is it that the House had to "push" this bill this weekend? Why could we, the people, not have some time to review the 1900 pages before our representatives are forced to vote? Maybe even allow the representatives to read the bill before voting on it? Why could the House not consider amendments to the bill? Why not allow it to go through the normal process? Why the pressure? Never trust government - no matter who is in power - to do the right thing. In fact, if we think about it, we as Catholics ought to proactively decide to take ownership of these issues like health care and NOT wait for the government to do it. Why do we not promote personal responsibility for our own actions? Why is the government the solution? Why should not we as the Church act to address the needs of our brothers and sisters? As for the weakness of the free market system, those "evil" insurance companies, the terrible trial lawyers, the problems of government and the problems of politics, remember that we are all fallen creatures who NEED God's grace ALL the time. But I suppose that am honest effort to apply the Gospel message is not in the interests of those in power. Neither does it appear to be in many of those who are posting on this site. Deal is justifiably concerned with permanent government funded abortion pushed by an extreme pro-abortion Speaker of the House. Would that more of us were concerned with the 35000 dead babies killed every day in this country. Written by john Jakubczyk Have you ever noticed that our leftist friends often (typically?) do not respond to specific criticisms of their views. Instead they seem to prefer gneralizations about "greedy" insurance companies, helping the poor, appeals to some vague "scial justice" mantra and the like. Also, I would remind them that there is, in fact, a very clear difference bettween prudential issues and issues involving the direct, deliberate and, in the instance of abortion, massive destruction of innocent human life. Written by Thomas S DC, Abortion IS more important - it is an intrinsic evil, period. How the peace and justice teachings are worked out is a different matter, which the Church often speaks of in terms of the principle of subsidiarity. That's something this bill violates on a grand scale. Abortin could be said to be the first act of violence and injustice. Until we come to terms with that, little else matters. For, unless you have life . . . Kamilla Written by Kamilla Where do I start? The bishops misplayed their hand for sure. Their (real or perceived) support, after getting the abortion funding assurances they needed, gave the pro-life Democrats exactly what they wanted in order to vote for the bill. Even the mainstream media, not just the Catholic media, cited the bishops' influence in obtaining the abortion funding restrictions, as a main reason for the bill's passage. Pro-life Democrats got what they needed. Without the bishops negotiating the changes, the bill would probably not have passed. Please note that I do not fault the pro-life Democrats at all. They stood for what they believed in - they are adherents of big government, but with pro-life beliefs. They stayed true to their beliefs. I commend them even though I don't agree with them on the bill. Question: why didn't the US bishops fight against all the morally unacceptable provisions in the bill? Why only abortion funding (although I don't dispute that it's of utmost importance)? Pelosi would not have made concessions on all of these, and she would not have had enough votes for passage. I refer to school-based (Planned Parenthoold) clinics, conscience protection, reductions in Medicare, end of life issues, etc. Answer: The bishops want universal healthcare more than anything. If it comes with school-based clinics, well, so be it. If it means rationing and "quality adjusted life years", well, so be it. If it means transferring healthcare decisions to Washington and away from patients, then so be it. The bishops knew they needed to press the abortion funding issue. Wonderful and proper. But they didn't want a deal-breaker, they wanted the bill. So they didn't press the other issues. Better to let pro-death (no "Infants Born Alive") Barack Obama, pro-death Sebelius, pro-death Pelosi, and pro-death Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel dictate what healthcare we all get. Don't let the faithful Catholic in the pew decide! We're just around to pay ever-increasing taxes to support an ever-growing socialist program. Thank you USCCB! Written by Annely ...because Obama's agenda just got a kick in the groin. The Senate isn't moving on this...and Senator Graham summed it up when he said the House bill was DOA. Written by D.B. Should the Stupak-Pitts language remain in the bill signed by the President, it looks like private health insurers, in order to participate in the "exchange", will have to exclude abortion services from the coverage they offer. To the best of my knowledge, very little political pressure has been placed on insurers to offer more flexible kinds of employer-based group policy options excluding abortion and other anti-life services. Has the creation of a massive new federal bureaucracy become the only way to start to accomplish this in the broader health insurance market? Written by Matt As a left-leaning Catholic and pro-life Democrat, one who takes seriously the peace and justice teachings of my church and their political implication, I am often told by right-leaning Catholics that it isn’t that they don’t take such peace and justice teachings seriously, but that they think abortion is just more important. — DCFair enough. But sometimes you can work for both. You don’t always have to choose. Sometimes this even happens on one bill before Congress. Last night the House voted on a bill that is the most dramatic step toward addressing the lack of healthcare for the poor and sick in this country, a long-standing and crucial peace and justice issue in our national life, that also included the most dramatic restrictions on abortion availability in a generation. A landmark bill for both abortion and peace and justice causes. Yet, only one out of 178 Republicans in the House supported this bill, and he explicitly cited his Catholic faith and the potential of the bill to protect both the poor and the unborn as the reason he supported it. DC, I'm one hundred percent with you. You said exactly what I feel. I think I have a new hero, and his name is Joseph Cao. He, more than the rest of Washington, seems to "get" the full implications of his Catholic faith. Written by Frank It wasn't my intention to be an "ass", so if I was...I apologize. I was more than a bit angry with Deal's posting and "intelectual dishonety." Perhaps I could have disagreed strongly without becoming so disagreeable. I do believe we have a fundamental obligation to promote the human dignity of everyone and our current health care system does that in so many ways. It begs for sweeping reforms. Death panels choose death everyday, but they are in corporate insurance companies that decide that anything from a pregnancy to acne is a pre-existing condition and deny care. They exist when people can not afford coverage and that leads to people having a health crisis at being the number one reason for personal backruptcy. This bill seeks to elimnate both of those. Catholic teaching tells us that abortion is a foundational and fundamental teaching of our church, which should lead us all to support this bill. It will prevent abortions in a number of ways and in its current form goes much further than any previous restrictions on funding that we have seen since Roe. It not only makes Hyde language part of the law, as opposed to an annual amendment to appropiations, but it also restricts a large number of private programs from funding abortion. If abortion is the most important issue, then why are so many people making the issue that it is all about big government spending? Where is the push-back on that? Written by BDK The Stupak Amendment was great. The problem is that the Abortion Lobby will not let it stay...this is a fact. That isn't being pessimistic, that is realistic. They knew full well that the amendment wasn't going to make it to President Obama's desk, which is why it was even allowed for a vote. It was a placating measure to pass this bill and avoid an embarassment for President Obama. It was pure politics. Written by D.B. Quote(31) With any Luck, Stupak-Pitts will go down in flames along with Hy November 09th, 2009 | 11:52am It's about time we got the church out of politics. If they want to play at politics, I say that we should strip away their tax exempt status. Written by Bill Dalton I suppose Free Speech applies to everyone else but the Church. The Church is not endorsing political candidates or parties...this is a Social Issue of National Importance that the Church has a large stake in. But I suppose that is irrelevant to someone who is obviously clueless about such things. Written by D.B. BDK: it's not only about abortion.That, of course, is the most repugnant aspect of the Pelosi health care legislation as orginally proposed (i.e. before Stupak). Getting abortion out of the bill (if that happens in the end) is, however, NOT the only reason for opposing it. Unfortunately, the cost and the borrowing/tax implications of the thing are legitimate factors to be considered. Also, the possibility (probability)of health care rationing, especially for the elderly is another factor. And all the ranting about insurance companies -- a line peddled by the left ad infinitum/ad nauseam -- does nothing to advance the ball. Do you really believe that a "benevolent" government would be any less likely to engage in the bad behavior that you condemn private insurers for? Look at Medicare: I am told that, on average, it pays only about 80 percent of the true cost of care (less in my state), the effect of which is to "shift" costs to those that can pay, thereby raising insurance premiums. So my advice: get analytical and look at other provisions of the bill and quit assuming that just because abortion is out, the rest of the thing in OK to go. Written by Thomas S. This year, President Obama announced to the world: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation… We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." If that quotation sounds eerily Orwellian to you, then you probably get it. What the Bishops, and many others, seem to be missing is the big picture understanding of what is really going on. Religion, is being marginalized while the State (capital S intended) is being glorified. We are admonished as being intolerant, insensitive and closed-minded. We are told we must sacrifice our individual liberties, common sense, and our outdated “fringe ideology”(read traditional Judeo/Christian values) for the common good, as that is defined by the State. Wherever religion poses an obstacle to the State, it is vilified and ruthlessly attacked by supporters of the State. We’ve seen examples of this in recent attacks on the Church for its defense of marriage in Maine, and its defense of life in the healthcare bill. In these cases the Bishops, and by association the Church, have been labeled hateful, unloving, corrupt, and other untruthful epithets. So, in a very real sense, religion is the enemy of the State. Vladimir Lenin understood this. Mao Zedong understood this. Barrack Obama understands this. The administration’s push to cut tax deductions for charitable donations provides but one illustration of the State’s combative orientation toward religion. False, secular, compassion is being strategically positioned as superior to authentic Christian love. And seemingly, many Christians are falling for that lie. Ask yourself why healthcare is suddenly such a crisis that it takes precedence over unemployment rates above 10%. Hopefully, you’ll recognize that the State ideologues in power believe they have a limited window of opportunity to advance wide-spread dependence on the State. They recognize that nothing could more rapidly advance the dependency of the middle-class than State run healthcare. So, healthcare reform has become the Holy Grail for the left. But healthcare reform is not the only issue. Our traditional views on marriage, business and industry, and our American exceptionalism are also under assault. Certainly, our traditional views occasionally conflict with Christian ideals for social justice. It has to be that way because human ideas and institutions are imperfect, flawed by our fallen nature. But I can not imagine how making our flawed human institutions bigger and more powerful is an answer to any of these problems, especially when such an answer demands the marginalization of the one voice of truth – our Catholic Church. Written by Ken Heim Ken, Excellent post. If America makes a mess of democracy by means of an Hegelian puscht like the one you've described, then I, for one, may need to p/u and move to a country having a Catholic monarchy...another reason to pray for Queen Elizabeth's and the Church of England's full communion with Rome. Written by Matt You have put your finger on the BIG ISSUE... the accelerating usurpation of God by the State, before which, if it is allowed to continue, every knee shall bow. May God give us the will and the strength to resist. Written by James As it stands now, Medicare has somewhere close to 50 TRILLION dollars in unfunded liabilities. Compare this to the annual Gross Domestic Product of the USA which is only 14 trillion dollars. It is no secret that Medicare is bankrupting the country. Prudence dictates that we look for other options for running our healthcare system then to hand it over to the government which has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy with the healthcare system it currently runs. Passing legislation that we simply cannot afford is morally wrong. And what will happen to the poor and sick if we bankrupt the country? One would think that they are the ones who are likely to be hurt the most! Written by Dan |
|
 |
