Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Health Care Reform

The below is a direct quote from Focus on the Family. It is just one of the many reasons I am against socialized medicine. I don't want my tax dollars going for abortions!!
"In less than two weeks, Congress will come back from August recess and health care reform will return to center stage. As we have mentioned in recent weeks, the current government-mandated health care reform plan will be the greatest expansion of abortion rights and abortion funding since Roe v. Wade.

But it is not just the preborn who will be impacted. The elderly, the infirm ... every family facing difficult end-of-life decisions ... may soon come up against a government-mandated health care system that is the single greatest legislative threat to our families that we have seen.

Government-mandated health care gives government officials unprecedented influence over health care decisions that have always been the responsibility of the family. And it will include mandated abortion coverage through the public plan and through private insurance premiums."

We are loosing our rights in this country. Now our president wants control over the Internet. He has raised our national debt dramatically since he took office. He is against homeschooling. One of the first bills he signed was to approve partial birth abortion. There is also a bill that is in the process to tax people who have gardens!! Add all of these together (and there are more) and you have to see these are just baby steps to eventually make us be completely dependent on our government. There are also people in congress working to do away with the term limits, meaning the president could be president for the duration of his life, not for one or two four year terms.

Did you know that Section 163 of the heath care bill states that the government would be allowed real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers??

Read Through The ENTIRE Obama Care Bill!

Did you know that 1/3 of nurses and 60% of general practitioners say they will refuse the swine flu shot YET the goverment wants to force us to get it?!!

Did you know that Obama says 'We are God's partners in matters of life and death'

This nation, which was founded on the freedom of religion needs to wake up and see what is going on at take action.


Anonymous said...

I hear a lot of "Christian" people who are for this. I doubt they are thinking of it from the abortion stance. In fact I think we are in the dark about a lot of it.

Anonymous said...

From where do you get your claim about controlling the Internet? What are you referencing? Are you saying that he wants to "control" the Internet by having a Myspace and a facebook? There seems to be a lot of unresearched claims in this argument.

April said...

The bill about the internet has been all over the radio, TV, newspapers (see Sundays paper), CNN. Below is from Fox News--just one of many.


A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

"In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

"We think it's a very bad idea ... to put in legislation," he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

"The current language is so unclear that we can't be confident that the changes have actually been made," he said.

The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.

"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CNET News.

A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported.

Spokesmen for Senator Rockefeller and the Commerce Committee did not return calls seeking comment before this article was published.

But Rockefeller, who introduced the bill in April with bipartisan support, said the legislation was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records.

"I know the threats we face," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest."

The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures.

But many in the technology sector believe it's a job the government is ill-equipped to handle, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance.

"Simply put, who has the expertise?" he told FOXNews.com in April. "It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard."

Clinton, of the Internet Security Alliance, praised President Obama's May science policy review, which he said would take cybersecurity in the right direction by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures.

But he faulted the Senate bill, which he said would centralize regulations for an industry that is too varied to fall under the control of a single set of rules without endangering the economy and security.

"We think a lot of things need to be done to enhance cybersecurity," he told FOXNews.com, but this bill is "not something that we could support."

Anonymous said...

I see where in 1997 he voted against it. Then as president he signed it (partial abortion bill)in favor. Why?

April said...

NO! In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Not only did he vote against it, but his wife was writing letters as fund raisers to support the bill to ok partial birth abortions.

Perhaps yu think he voted against it because he voted NO. But, the bill was to prevent partial birth abortions. So, a no vote was a vote against it. A yes vote would have been what would have been God's way.

FYI, a partial birth abortion is an abortion at 20 weeks up to and including the due date of the baby. It basically sucks out the brains of the baby, then the mother delivers a dead baby.

April said...

Sorry, I hit enter too soon regarding my above post. The baby is first partially delivered, in order to reach the head. Brains removed, and then the delivery is finished.

Yes that is graphic. But, that is how it is done.

These above issues, he considers to be normal womens reproductive health. They are NOT excluded in his health plan.

Right now, nearly 50% of private insurance carriers already pay for abortions. In some states right now, state assistance is available for abortion.

There are too many vague statements. No where does it say that abortion will NOT be covered. Yet is does say reproductive health is covered. He has said over and over and over this is "normal" reproductive health. What is "normal" about a mother killing her child?

Anonymous said...

I thought no federal money could be used for abortions. Isn't that the law? If that was changed, please state when and give a reference.

April said...

Here is a reference--it is from CNN (an accurate well known news agency). http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/
It is dated Sat Jan 24, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.

President Obama says he doesn't want family planning to be used as a "political wedge."

Obama said in a statement that family planning aid has been used as a "political wedge issue," adding that he had "no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."

The policy says any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.

"It is time we end the politicization of this issue," Obama said. "In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world."

Obama's memorandum reversing the policy comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave a woman autonomy over her pregnancy during the first trimester. Watch CNN's Bill Schneider on how Obama is handling abortion issue »

The memorandum reverses the "Mexico City policy," initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.

The policy, referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was initially announced at a population conference in Mexico City.

Reversing the previous administrations' stance on the policy was one of Clinton's first acts as president in January 1993 and the very first executive order issued by Bush on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Don't Miss
Obama backs 'right to choose' on Roe anniversary
Critics, including Planned Parenthood, called Bush's move a "legislative ambush."

He defended his action, saying, "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."

The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

"Family planning should not be a political issue; it's about basic health care and well-being for women and children," the group said.

"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president's action.

"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.

"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."

In his statement, however, Obama said he had directed his staff "to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies."

"They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls."

Anonymous said...

I don't see why all you religious zealots are in an uproar over this. The Hyde bill prevents abortions in the Health Care Reform bill....

April said...

You need to read the Hyde Amendment, which is explained below. It is from http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoHydeAmendmentWillNotApply.html
(This is long and will not fit in the comment box, so you will need to read several-sorry)


TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director
Susan T. Muskett, J.D., NRLC Senior Legislative Counsel
Why the "Hyde Amendment" will not prevent government funding of abortion under H.R. 3200, the House Democratic leadership health care bill
September 3, 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Many members of Congress, and the President, have suggested that the Hyde Amendment will prevent federal government funding of abortion under H.R. 3200. This claim is entirely erroneous. Under H.R. 3200, the new federal insurance program (the "public option") will pay for elective abortion with federal government funds, and public funds will also directly subsidize private insurance plans that cover all abortions. However, as review of the bill language clearly demonstrates, and as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed in two recent memoranda cited and linked below, neither program requires any future appropriations through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

Since the Hyde Amendment applies only to funds appropriated through the annual HHS appropriations bill, the Hyde Amendment will not apply to any of the funds used to establish or operate either the "public option" or the premium-subsidy program created by H.R. 3200. Members of Congress who assert that the Hyde Amendment would prevent federal government funding of abortions under H.R. 3200 are misleading their constituents, in some cases perhaps inadvertently and in other cases perhaps by design.

It has been well established elsewhere that H.R. 3200, particularly as revised by the "Capps Amendment" (or Capps-Waxman Amendment) that was adopted in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30, 2009, would (1) authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to pay for elective abortions under the "public plan," and (2) allow the "affordability credits" to subsidize both the public plan and private insurance plans that cover all abortions. See, for example, the August 21, 2009 FactCheck.org analysis "Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating," and the August 13, 2009 NRLC factsheet "What Do the 'Health Care Reform' Bills Backed by President Obama Have to Do With Abortion?" The sole purpose of this memorandum is to correct the erroneous assertions that the Hyde Amendment would somehow prevent those results.

April said...


Some of those who recently have asserted that the Hyde Amendment would apply to the proposed new programs may have believed, wrongly, that the Hyde Amendment is a government-wide law. In reality, the Hyde Amendment is a limitation that is attached annually to the appropriations bill that includes funding for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and it applies only to the funds contained in that bill. (Like the annual appropriations bill itself, the Hyde Amendment expires every September 30, at the end of every federal fiscal year. The Hyde Amendment will remain in effect only for as long as the Congress and the President re-enact it for each new federal fiscal year.)

Others apparently have assumed that the public option and the premium-subsidy program created by H.R. 3200 would receive their funding through the annual HHS appropriations bill. That assumption is entirely erroneous, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed in two recent memoranda. None of the sources specified in H.R. 3200 for funding the public option and the premium-subsidy program will flow through the HHS appropriations pipeline; therefore, the Hyde Amendment will not govern them.

The Hyde Amendment is sometimes referred to as a "rider," but in more correct technical terminology it is a "limitation amendment" to the annual appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services and a number of smaller agencies. A "limitation amendment" prohibits funds contained in a particular appropriations bill from being spent for a specified purpose. The Hyde Amendment limitation prohibits the spending of funds within the HHS appropriations bill for abortions (with specified exceptions). It does not control federal funds appropriated in any of the other 11 annual appropriations bills, nor any funds appropriated by Congress outside the regular appropriations process. [However, because of an entirely separate statute enacted in 1988, the HHS policy is automatically applied as well to the Indian Health Service, as explained below.]

The limited scope of the Hyde Amendment is evident even to the non-specialist simply by reviewing the language of the amendment. What follows is not the entire Hyde Amendment, but the initial and primary component. It clearly applies only to "funds appropriated in this Act," which is to say, the HHS appropriations bill for any given year, to which it is attached.

"SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion. (b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. . . SEC. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion-- (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed." (from Public Law 111-8 , H.R. 1105, Division F, Title V, General Provisions, italics added for emphasis.)

April said...

The Hyde Amendment was initially approved by Congress in 1976, and initially went into effect on August 4, 1977. But federal health programs that received funds through appropriations bills other than the HHS appropriations bill were entirely unaffected by enactment of the Hyde Amendment, and continued to pay for abortions until separate laws were passed to deal with them. One example is the Indian Health Service, which receives its funds from the annual Interior appropriations bill, not the HHS appropriations. In a 1979 letter to Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Il.), the agency explained as follows:

"You ask where the Indian Health Service is specifically permitted in authorizing legislation to pay for abortions. Neither abortion nor any other medical procedure or health service, nor the payment for such is specifically provided in authorizing legislation. The authorizing legislation for IHS is the Snyder Act (25 U.S.C. 13) which permits the expenditure of appropriated funds for the 'benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the United States' for a number of purposes including the 'relief of distress and conservation of health.' . . . In providing any of our health services we are governed by applicable laws, both Federal and State, court decisions and Departmental policies. All current requirements having been met, and procedures followed, we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions. There is, as you inferred, no restrictions on the use of appropriations for payment for abortions under the present Interior appropriations bill."

[In 1988, Congress enacted a revision to the U.S. Code (25 U.S.C. § 1676), which says that any abortion funding limitations found in the HHS appropriations measure will also apply, while in effect, to the IHS.]


H.R. 3200, Section 222(b)(1), provides: "There is established in the Treasury of the United States an Account for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start-up funding . . ." [Page 119]

The bill then authorizes and appropriates $2 billion in general Treasury revenues to start the "public option" (supposedly to be repaid within 10 years). Again quoting directly from the bill [p. 120]: "In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment."

All of these funds are appropriated directly by H.R. 3200; they have nothing to do with the HHS appropriations bill or the Hyde Amendment.

April said...

Once the "public option" is fully underway, it will receive funding from two main sources. One of these is the proposed new federal premium-subsidy program ("affordability credits"), which will be funded largely by different types of taxes; this program is discussed further in the next section. The second funding source for the public option will be payments from enrollees, referred to in the bills as "premiums." Once these funds are received by HHS, they are "federal government funds," which is to say, they are public funds. (See the CBO and GAO glossaries linked below.)

As confirmed by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in a memorandum dated August 31, 2009, here, H.R. 3200 itself provides all the legislative authority required for all of these funding sources; no appropriations in a future HHS appropriations bill will be involved. The CRS memorandum states:

"Section 222(b)(1) of H.R. 3200 creates in the Treasury an Account 'for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start-up funding' provided in Section 222(b)(2). Based on the authorities provided to the Secretary, as described in the above paragraph, it appears that the Secretary would be able to credit any premiums to the Account, and make payments from the Account, without any subsequent legislative action, such as a further appropriation in a subsequent act."

Because there will be no "subsequent legislative action, such as a further appropriation," the Hyde Amendment, as a limitation to future appropriation bills, cannot possibly apply to the funds that will flow to and through the public option.


Aside from the public fund, H.R. 3200 creates a new premium subsidy program to help tens of millions of Americans buy health insurance, referred to as "affordability credits."

Funds for these subsidies will be kept in the "Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund," which is an account in the U.S. Treasury, created by the bill for this purpose. The funds in the Trust Fund are federal government funds, as the term is defined in official usage by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (see the definition of "Budget Authority" on page 20 of the GAO document, and the definition of "Budget Authority" in the alphabetical CBO glossary).

The Trust Fund will be administered by the "Health Choices Commissioner," a new federal office created by the bill. (As we explain in a separate memo, none of the funds in either the public option of the affordability credits program are correctly described as "private" funds.)

Under the bill, when a person who qualifies for the new subsidy enrolls in the public plan, the subsidies will be sent by the Health Choices Commissioner from the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund to the Secretary of HHS [see p. 129], who is the official in charge of the public option [see pp. 12, 118]. When a person who qualifies for premiums chooses to purchase private health insurance, the subsidies will be sent from the Trust Fund to the insurer.

H.R. 3200 provides that the "affordability credit" program will be funded entirely by general funds from the Treasury, as well as special new taxes. A memorandum by the Congressional Research Service, dated August 28, 2009, here, explains as follows: The bill "appropriates to the Fund amounts equal to three specified taxes . . . In addition, Section 207(c)(2) appropriates to the Fund amounts equal to the difference between the payments made from the Fund . . . and the amounts from the three specified taxes." In other words, whatever amount is spent from the Fund that is not covered by the special taxes will be paid from general revenues.

April said...

After further discussion of the various funding provisions in H.R. 3200, the CRS memo concludes as follows:

"In summary, Section 207 of H.R. 3200 creates a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, appropriates amounts to the Fund, and requires payments from the Fund. If enacted, all of these actions would be authorized without any further legislative action, such as a further appropriation in a subsequent act."

Thus, since funds for the premium-subsidy program would not flow through a future HHS appropriations bill to which the Hyde Amendment might again be attached, the Hyde Amendment cannot possibly apply to these subsidies. Therefore, the subsidies will flow freely to insurance plans that cover elective abortion."

If you get on the website, the documents mentioned all have links for you to verify for your own convenience.