Posted on 03/25/2010 7:13:56 PM PDT by Chet 99
06:39 p.m., March 25, 2010, updated 07:01 p.m., March 25, 2010
EDITORIAL: Obamacare's subsidy for the sexually depraved
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
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.
According to Senate Democrats, however, the drugs themselves were never the issue. Party leaders insisted subsidized Viagra would have to be provided to sex offenders because any changes to the reconciliation bill would have required the House to vote once again on health care legislation. Apparently, saving the House from an embarrassing vote was more important than protecting the public from chemically empowered predators.
This justification is nonsense. When the Senate makes any change to a bill, no matter how small, it must be sent back to the House for another vote. In this case, it had been clear for some time that the reconciliation bill would have to be changed. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that at least two provisions of the health care plan had to be stripped out to avoid parliamentary challenge. The Senate took up these changes yesterday, requiring the House to take the vote that was supposed to have been avoided at all cost. That means the original excuse given for defeating Dr. Coburn's amendment simply does not hold up.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Our problem is that we have too many brain-dead voters out there who don’t know anything about the crap that’s going on in Washington. Neither are they seeking information.
Now they want to allow ex-felons to vote. I wonder why?
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.