Posted on 12/10/2009 1:00:27 AM PST by calfit32
“The men who have brought us this [amendment] don’t single out a procedure that is used by a man, or a drug that is used by a man, that involves his reproductive health care, and say they have to get a special rider...There is nothing in this amendment that says if a man some day wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider.”
This is the latest drivel in the health care debate brought to the Senate floor by Barbara Boxer this past Monday in response to the Nelson Amendment, a proposal "to ensure that no federal funds are used to pay for abortion".
After Senator Reid's ridiculous statement comparing health care reform to slavery, this recent absurdity reminds me of the Jim Carrey movie, Dumb and Dumber. What the heck does Viagra have to do with abortion? How is there any comparison between an erection (or lack thereof) and terminating the life of a fetus? Either Barbara Boxer is on drugs, is showing her ignorance, or worse, she's demonstrating her lack of sensitivity for the unborn.
Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson noted that the current Senate health care bill does “allow taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion”. Nelson led the charge along with nine others Senators, offering an amendment that mirrored the Stupak Amendment language that was passed by the House last month and was to extend the Hyde Amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1976, barring public funds from covering abortion.
Abortion is an extremely contentious topic and even though the goal of the ten Senators was not to take a women’s "right to choose" away, but to make sure taxpayer dollars don't have to foot the bill, it was rejected yesterday by the Senate with a 54-45 vote. While I'm sure Boxer did some high fives, Majority Leader Harry Reid had a message of his own, "The legislation is about access to health care, not abortion". Do Boxer and Reid know that an abortion is an elective medical procedure with the goal of ending a life, not health care aimed at caring for and saving lives? When are these progressive Democrats going to get out of their pathetic ideology and off their "we know what is best America pedestal” for just a few minutes and do what is right? Or at least they can choose proper analogies to make their point.
The silver lining in the dark clouds looming over ObamaCare (if there is one) is that Barbara Boxer and others in Congress are up for re-election in 2010! "Call me Senator”, Boxer may be facing off with either Republicans Carly Fiorina or Chuck Devore in 2010. While a November Rasmussen poll puts Boxer ahead of both Republican candidates, there is plenty of time to expose her inadequacies.
Senator Boxer's voting record reflects a left-wing political agenda, a partisan approach, and a strong partiality toward unions. Boxer is also considered a career politician who apparently hasn’t done much legislating or communicating with her constituents, although she has plenty of time to write books and attend book signings.
This past summer, Boxer preferred to serve herself rather than conduct Town Hall meetings to address the concerns about health care reform shared by many California citizens. Who could forget her starring role as "Obama's attack dog"; condemning concerned citizens. Both proof that she doesn't give a damn about us citizens. And more revealing was Boxer's condescending racial twaddle when she addressed Harry Alford, the President and CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce.
As I continue to monitor and research the potential Republican candidates who may get in the ring with Boxer, it is clear that whoever gets the job, a knock out would be the best outcome for this political bout. Since this match will affect my state, my hope is that Boxer’s 2005 book; A Time to Run is prophetic in nature. Wake up California, we need a change; it's time to run Boxer right out of office –– three terms (18 years) is long enough!
This is a microcosm of the whole nightmare of Bummercare.
Barbara Boxer is a Viagra antidote.
One fixes a medical problem and gives life, the other ROBS life.
Gee, nice comparison.
Lol!
Barbara Boxer is an abortion.
Even Juan Williams, who was one of Hannity’s panel members on Wed. night, indicated that the comparison of abortion vs. viagra by Boxer was totally wrong. ....Seems Juan is moving more toward the center as a result of spending so much time on Fox News. LOL
Wake up California, we need a change; it’s time to run Boxer right out of office –– three terms (18 years) is long enough!
Insurance should cover neither abortion nor Viagra.
LOL. Heretofore, I’ve always accused Boxer of being incapable of forming an original thought...lol.
Where are term limits when we really need them. It isn't right that 49 other states have to suffer because of this.
I say the same thing about Massachusettes and several other states whose voters continue to foist their incumbent senators and congressasshats on the rest of us decade after decade after decade.
Term limits are sorely needed. I completely agree with you.
Precisely.
Regardless of how convoluted and irrational Boxer’s views and statements are seen by most people on “our” side of the fence, it must be remembered ...her side won the day! Feinstein’s statement that public funding of abortions is “moral” regardless of how anyone feels about it is just as irrational. Their views and votes can be seen in the condition of the state in which they are elected.
As for term limits, they exist. They are simply called by another name - elections. As study after study has shown, people are fed up with those with whom they disagree but think their Representative in Congress is wonderful and keep re-electing them. Only when Boxer’s constituents decide to “term limit” her will things change. She represents the loony left fringe because her majority voting public constituents are the loony left. If she wants to stay in congress, she is dedicated to represent the majority voting loony left that puts her there term after term.
This is the same LAME argument they use to justify convienience baby-killing. Using the phrase "right to choose", instead of "abortion", they consider pregnancy not the result of a willful act of gratification/entertainment, but rather a "health right" to convieniently kill the offspring. A man's voluntary decision to use medication has NOTHING to do with "health", but is another one of the "for fun" choices made.
Baby-killing for convienience has become beaten into people's heads as a "right to choose", but murdering an inconvienient adult is punishable.....
This country's values have been corrupted by YEARS of propoganda, and was purely created as a wedge to gain the female vote (right-to-choose).
If you are going to make this analogy, how do you explain that Viagra makes men feel good but abortion depresses most women?
Most don't cover Viagra.
The Medicare Part D drug formulary does not.
Barbara needs to return to school and learn about the birds and the bees...among other things.
Liberalism is a mental illness. Boxer is an example of an advanced and incurable case.
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.