The last couple of weeks have been spent setting up the battlefield for the next round of fights on Capitol Hill. We’ve had a number of skirmishes. Next week some of the biggest battles will be engaged. Here are three that conservatives must engage.
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Health care reform has taken up practically all the oxygen inside the beltway. And for good reason—we need health care reform. Unfortunately, the people in charge of that debate have a much different idea about what that reform ought to look like than most of the people in the country. The main points of contention are:
1. The determination of liberals to include abortion as a covered benefit.
2. Their insistence that all health insurance plans in America must provide a government-approved set of minimum benefits.
3. Their insistence on including a public health component for all Americans.
Liberals believe that abortion should naturally be covered in health plans. They think of it as an essential part of “women’s reproductive health.” Just think about these quotes:
“We [the Obama Administration] happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion …”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Testimony Before House Foreign Affairs Committee, May 20, 2009
“In my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose… Insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care … that’s going to be absolutely vital.” President Obama’s statement to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Conservatives tried numerous times in the House and Senate to introduce language that would prohibit abortion except in the cases of danger to the life of the mother, rape and incest, but were defeated every time.
But the liberals aren’t content to simply provide abortion in some insurance plans. They intend to force every insurance plan to cover it. In the House bill, HR 3200, you run across this language:
LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
Some are saying this language means that no insurance company will be able to write new policies once the government system goes into effect. Investor’s Business Daily, http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854, first raised that concern. It’s possible to interpret it that way. What I am absolutely convinced the language means is that no insurance company will be able to write new policies that do not meet the government’s set of minimum benefits. And while you’re thinking about this, think about the fact that it probably won’t be only minimum benefits they must comply with but also maximum benefits. A mainstay of the liberal answer to run-away health care costs is to ration health care services. So, it is likely that all health insurance policies will also be required to follow the government’s review board policies on acceptable health care options.
The liberals are also insistent on including a public health care plan for all Americans. They will tax businesses, upper-income people, and anybody else they need to in order to fund this plan. In case you missed it in the President’s press conference on Wednesday, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/News-Conference-by-the-President-July-22-2009/, here is what he said about all the rest of us:
“The one commitment that I've been clear about is I don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle-class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy. And so if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families, I'm going to be opposed to that because I think there are better ideas to do it.”
Now, contrary to the President’s campaign promise, taxing everyone to pay for his plan is acceptable, just so long as the middle-class isn’t the “primary” source of the funds.
So, what’s standing in their way? Conservative Democrats. We are witnessing the most unexpected display of Democrat pushback I have ever seen. Most of the Republicans are standing firm in their opposition, but the Democrats can pass anything they want without them. However the liberal Democrat leadership doesn’t even have the support of all the Democrats. In the Senate things have come to a complete standstill. They are wrestling with runaway costs, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25331.html.
In the House, things are more contentious. All attention is on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is chaired by Henry Waxman. The hold-up? Blue Dog Democrats! They are insisting on changes in the health care plans government will offer. Here is a story on their stand, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-healthcare-talks-break-down-in-anger-2009-07-24.html.
It’s important to note that they are holding out primarily over costs and various impacts of the health care proposals, not over the principle of government take-over of health care, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/house.health.care/index.html. I know this because one of the most conservative Blue Dog Democrats spent 40 minutes last week telling me that we needed a public health plan. You can read this letter they sent to Speaker Pelosi, http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/july/polis%20health%20care%20reform%20surcharge%20letter.pdf .
How this turns out is in the hands of these Democrats. They are under tremendous pressure. If one of them is your representative, I encourage you to get in touch with his office and let him know where you stand.
If these Blue Dog Dems don’t get with the liberal program soon, Speaker Pelosi has a plan B. She will take the bill from the committee and bring it directly to the floor for a vote. She has the power to do this. Here is a story on where that stands http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/house.health.care/index.html. It should be a fight like nothing you’ve ever seen if she does that, but she’s up to it. The rest of us had better be up to it as well.
The Ryan-DeLauro False Compromise
The press is telling us that there is a new movement afoot on the abortion wars—a compromise position around which everyone can rally. They claim that Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) have fashioned a bill that represents true middle ground on the contentious abortion battlefield. Here’s what they are saying, http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090723/us_time/08599191228400.
The only problem is that most pro-life people haven’t joined this grand compromise. And for good reason. The Ryan-DeLauro bill is hardly a compromise. Granted, it has many good components that will encourage pregnant women to keep their babies and provide them the safety net services they need, but it also includes many provisions that are certain to result in more pregnancies and more abortions.
1. The bill provides more money for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider. They aborted 300,000 babies last year. Federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion, but that doesn't mean very much. Planned Parenthood simply uses the federal dollars for the rest of their operation, which frees up more of their other money to perform abortions.
2. The bill includes support for Plan B contraception, which is a misnomer. Plan B is an over-the-counter abortion drug. It is taken by women and girls after they have sex and are worried that they might be pregnant. The drug aborts the fertilized egg if one exists. It is not a pregancy prevention plan, but an early abortion plan.
3. The bill provides funding for sex education classes, which, I'm sure you are aware, are used to teach kids how to have "safe sex" and how to engage in many different forms of sex with so-called minimal harm. In other words, these sex education programs are more about harm reduction in sexual activity than anything else.
4. The bill will also increase the distribution of contraceptives, including condoms, to school age children.
5. The Ryan-DeLauro bill will result in more abortions.
If the grand compromise means we must accept more liberal intrusion in the lives of children, more teen pregnancy, and more abortions in order to get some help for pregnant women, that’s more than I’m ready to give. I can understand why NARAL and Planned Parenthood are enthusiastic about the bill. They don’t give up anything. On the other hand pro-life people must give up plenty. Think of it as an abortion-plus bill.
If you are looking for a positive, pro-life approach to the dilemma of unintended or challenging pregnancy, the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 1032, H.R. 2035) is the right choice. The bill provides safety nets for women who find themselves pregnant and unsure if they can care for their babies. It provides everything from prenatal care, to assistance with continuing education, to childcare assistance. It is supported by most of the pro-life groups, and has bipartisan backing. Democrat Bob Casey is the lead Senate sponsor, and Democrat Lincoln Davis is the lead house sponsor.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S CONFIRMATION
I watched practically all of the hearings with Sonia Sotomayor. Some people have deathbed conversions. Judge Sotomayor had an armchair conversion. In a matter of hours, while seated in that armchair before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she renounced all her worldly ideals and kissed the Constitution. Gone was the wise Latina, the policy-making judge, the empathetic champion of the little person.
If words alone were all we had to guide us, we would have to say Judge Sotomayor passed the test. But we also have the pesky decisions she made, which just cannot be scrubbed or revised. Despite all that she has said, her decisions reveal that she does not possess the commitment to the Constitution that is required of a Supreme Court justice. Here are the most prominent decisions that should be cause to deny her confirmation:
On Religious Speech, Okwedy v. Molinari (2003)—She ruled against a man who rented a billboard to post a Bible verse against homosexuality because local leaders thought it was offensive and had it removed.
On Private Property, Didden v. Village of Port Chester (2006)—She ruled against a man who wanted to build a pharmacy on his property. The city had taken his property under eminent domain and gave the exact same piece of property to a developer who built his own pharmacy on the same piece of land.
On the Right to Bear Arms, Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)—She ruled that the 2nd amendment is not a fundamental right and that the state’s have the power to restrict the right to bear arms.
On Racial Discrimination, Ricci v. DeStefano (2008)—She ruled that New Haven had acted properly when it nullified the results of a promotion test a group of firefighters had passed because no African-Americans had passed it.
On Enviromentalism, Riverkeeper v. EPA (2004)—She ruled that the EPA should not consider cost in requiring businesses to adopt the most effective means of controlling environmental hazards.
When you add her 12 years with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, where she helped advocate for unrestricted abortion rights, and her numerous reversals by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear that Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed as a Justice on the nation’s highest court.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on her confirmation next week. The full Senate vote will follow shortly after.
The battles are engaged. May the Lord grant us wisdom and strength as we all seek to bring His values into public policy.
Blessings,
Barrett
No comments:
Post a Comment