Posted on 07/22/2009 4:16:30 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The Standard counts no fewer than 53 Dems on record as having problems with the House bill, but so lopsided is the blue majority that the GOP would need to peel off 40 of them to block it. Thats not going to happen on Obamas signature policy initiative. Assuming their objections are economic in nature, Pelosi will simply shower the fencesitters with legislative goodies until enough of them are willing to choke down ObamaCare.
But what if their objections are based on something more profound than economics?
Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak said he is optimistic that his campaign to include explicit language condemning the use of federal funds for abortion in the House health care bill will pass the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The congressman from Michigan did however say on todays Washington Unplugged that the House will likley not vote on the bill before their July 31st deadline.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Thanks.
Mark...
For those who don't already know:
What Obama amd Michelle "Believe" re Aborted Babies Born Alive
FR POSTED http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2253212/posts?page=6
In February 2004, US Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law (prohibiting doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls).
Michelle Obama called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure. " She urged supporters to pay $150 to attend a fund-raising luncheon for her husband, who she promised would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it.
BACKGROUND Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted. BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery. The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. Obama worried aloud that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
BAIPA passed in 2005.........after Obama left.
And if they say no to abortion, he will force them to have it.
>>Democrats literally hunger and thirst for the dead flesh of human babies. Pelosi will get the votes she needs if she has to start murdering opponents on the streets of DC.
>
>That is really helpful. /sarc
Dead people can’t vote ‘no.’ [/sarc][/cynic]
>This is shocking, I thought all the bastards hated the defenseless.
Why do they oppose deregulation of the firearm and ammunition markets then?
That sounds like a good recipie for bloodshed.
Democrats literally hunger and thirst for the dead flesh of human babies.”
There really is nothing else that I can think of to explain their motives ~ it seems to be what drives liberalism.
It’s a death cult.
You are the best!
I know you are but what am i?
"I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America...." "Jul 22, 2004 ... "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America!" [ Nationalized Healthcare ] |
Either they are blissfully clueless (You mean I have to read this bill before I vote on it?) or they think that the citizens of this country are unbelievably stupid. This is the letter I received from my senator. How dumb does he think we are????
Dear Mrs. XXXXX:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on upcoming health care reform legislation. I can understand your view that tax dollars should not be spent to fund abortion services. Please be assured, your tax dollars do not fund abortion services and it is against the law to use federal funds for this purpose.
After the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, Congress enacted restrictions on the use of federal money for abortions. The so-called "Hyde Amendment" restricted the use of Medicaid funds for abortion services.
In 1970, Congress passed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. This act contained a section entitled Title X that provides grants to public and private nonprofit agencies that supply voluntary family planning services. The law stipulates that no clinic may be fully funded by Title X funds, nor may Title X funds be used to perform abortions.
There are no plans in the current Congress to overturn these laws nor to include coverage for abortion procedures in upcoming health care legislation. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
thanks xtinct for the following, and thanks Mrs. Don-o for the ping:
House Blue Dogs flex new muscle on health care
Boston Herald | 7/23/09 | staff
Posted on 07/23/2009 11:35:58 AM PDT by xtinct
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2299386/posts
Perhaps you could write to Sherrod Brown and explain the concept of fungibility?
Absolutely! Already sent it.
.
Excellent potlatch!
“I can access your bank account from the White House!”
— Barack Hussein Obama
thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.