Our Delight in Destruction
2 hours ago
Your arithmetic checks out. The problem is that the health care bill does not use Federal tax dollars for abortion.haystack on March 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm
As Timothy Noah explains (http://www.slate.com/id/2246905/), any plan available through the health exchange set up by the bill cannot use Federal tax dollars to fund abortions.
The exchanges may have insurance plans available that cover abortion, if the state where the exchange is located allows it. But money used to pay for those abortions must be collected from policyholders and kept separate from any Federal funds.
If you don’t want to contribute to funding abortions, you simply choose an insurance plan in the exchange that does not cover abortion. As Noah points out, “Under the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if Stupak wanted something in exchange for his “Yea” votes. But he’s not sacrificing the unborn to get it.
We disagree. Tax increases charged to all of us will go into the general coffers. Where Fed money is used to offset coverage for folks that don’t have enough (including abortion), we will collectively be paying…ostensibly through having allowed this bill to become law.Φ on March 24, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Whatever plans we may opt in to or not…the tax money will get redistributed wherever the heck the Fed wants to redistribute it. It’s not as simple as just “opting out” my friend.
All right, fair enough. But perhaps I am missing something. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Federal money will subsidize the purchase of insurance plans that cover abortion. But that’s not the same as subsidizing abortions. As I understand the law, all the money used to cover abortion will be segregated from Federal dollars. Money used to fund abortions must come from the policyholders themselves, not the Federal government.haystack on March 24, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Now, you seem to believe that the law will be violated and that “the tax money will get redistributed wherever the heck the Fed wants to redistribute it.” Well, why should I believe that? Do we have reason to think that that will happen, especially given the long-established ban on Federal funding of abortion, and the seriousness with which Americans approach this issue? I’m afraid I’m not buying it.
Not sure how you can say this:kx59 on March 24, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“Federal money will subsidize the purchase of insurance plans that cover abortion. But that’s not the same as subsidizing abortions”
Of course is’s the same thing. And separation of dollars? You have much more faith than I about restraint and fiscal management from the Feds. As I said, where policyholders need assistance from the Fed to PAY for their policies, fed dollars-indirectly or not-will be going to pay for those abortions. MY money and yours and everyone else’s will make up those funds for the folks that need our help. I don’t have time to research the numbers for you, but the most likely people to actually HAVE an abortion are the very same folks in the demographic that will be unable to pay for their policies without Federal help-poor are much higher abortion buyers than rich…I think you are aware of that.
I enjoy this exchange…it has made me take a little time and look a few things up in greater detail. I thank you for keeping me honest.
I think one thing we CAN agree on here is that there is something amiss about whether, where, and to what extent the Fed is getting involved in abortion in this context…if that weren’t true, the Stupak amendment would have been put in place, kept in place, and none of this discussion would have been necessary. Here’s the pointer to the text of the Stupak amendment:
If everything you say is true, this amendment should NEVER have been pulled…after all, as you say here:
“Do we have reason to think that that will happen, especially given the long-established ban on Federal funding of abortion, and the seriousness with which Americans approach this issue?”
Given what we know now about Stupak…I absolutely DO believe Fed. funding of abortion (directly or indirectly) is buried in this mess somewhere. The Executive order, which is not legally binding OR superior to the legislation passed through Congress, will do nothing to prevent it either.
“If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Federal money will subsidize the purchase of insurance plans that cover abortion. But that’s not the same as subsidizing abortions.”Φ on March 25, 2010 at 10:20 am
Really? ‘splain to me how that’s not the same. Does the money somehow become sanitized?
As I understand it, policyholders who have insurance plans that cover abortion will all pay $1 per month out of their own pocket to the private insurance company. The company will pool all of this money, and all money that is used to reimburse abortion providers for abortions will be drawn from this pool. It is thought that even the poorest among us can afford $12 per year. That’s how you can subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion without subsidizing abortion.haystack on March 25, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I also appreciate this exchange, because now you’ve got me thinking. Under this new law, there would be no direct Federal funding of abortion. You haven’t convinced me otherwise. But would taxpayers be funding them indirectly, as you suggest? After all, a person without insurance might not get an abortion. But if taxpayers subsidize their premiums, they might. So, while taxpayers wouldn’t be paying for abortions, they would be making them indirectly possible through the subsidy.
On the other hand, there is reason to believe that making insurance affordable might actually reduce the number of abortions, since pregnant women wouldn’t need to worry about being able to afford medical care for their future child. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html.)
This is a complex issue.
I worry about your argument that the bill will use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, regardless of what it says. Suppose that the Senate had attached a Stupak amendment to it (which they couldn’t since the reconciliation process wouldn’t allow it, but just suppose). Why would that give us any more reason to think that taxpayers wouldn’t be paying for abortions? Both the Senate bill’s language and the Stupak language ban federal funding of abortion. If the bill as it is wouldn’t reassure us, why would the Stupak Amendment? You do say that Federal funding of abortion is buried in there somewhere, so Stupak’s language would be reassuring. But I can’t believe that it’s buried in there until someone shows me the language. The Senate bill has been around since December, so you’d think that someone would have found it by now.
I think that the Senate bill language was the result of politics. They needed to get pro-choice senators on board to pass this thing, and they just couldn’t stomach any Stupaking. but the pro-life Dems couldn’t stomach Federal funding of abortion. So they made a truce and reached a compromise. As it is, the ban on Federal funding of abortion, the Hyde Amendment, is not permanent. It has to be renewed annually. If it is not, then the Senate bill would allow the Federal funding of abortion. By deferring to the Hyde Amendment, they said that they would not fight over abortion in the health care bill. The legality of Federal funding of abortion would be determined by the fate of the Hyde Amendment, not health care reform. I admit that I am speculating a bit here; I don’t have a source. But that’s my guess.
Sheesh-I replied a little while ago and now it’s gone!
I have had the opportunity to finally visit your website, and given what I’ve read there I happily extend a hand of “we disagree, fundamentally, but we can have civil discourse all the same” friendship…it’s nice to see ideological differences aired constructively and without all the shouting and sophmoric namecalling-I respect you for that.
Now, to your latest comment:
You may be right about the Senate bill…I haven’t finished reading it, having given up until the final final final version is released after tonight’s house vote (there are at least 12 iterations out there on Thomas). Until then I will give you a “maybe you are right” but no more…and this is because as the Senate bill was originally debated, pro-choicers were the ones appeased…THEY were against Stupak, and their wishes were granted in the Senate version. There is no ambiguity here on that point. Senate version was pro-choice in its funding schemes, contribution framework, and subsidization infrastructure. Stupak was summarily dismissed in the Senate version sent back to, and forced down the throats of, the House. Granted, that does not automatically mean fed funding is in there…but Stupak was summarily defeated in the Senate version…we just don’t know what the final text was/is.
And, admittedly, this is my recollection of the news stories of the day-I have not gone back to the December headlines to find links to back this up. Either way, though, we both agree the Fed should NOT pay (directly or indirectly) for abortion. At the very least, those of us who are against the practice should not be compelled by Federal law to subsidize it for someone else against our will…I think we agree on this point.
So, I grant that you might be right (until I can read the bill in its entirety) that the Senate would not use Fed. funds for policyholders purchasing an abortion needing to be subsidized by our tax dollars…your own last para, though, should give you as much pause as it does me-if you are even the least bit suspicious, cynical, and doubtful of the Federal Government’s overall intentions:
As it is, the ban on Federal funding of abortion, the Hyde Amendment, is not permanent. It has to be renewed annually. If it is not, then the Senate bill would allow the Federal funding of abortion. By deferring to the Hyde Amendment, they said that they would not fight over abortion in the health care bill. The legality of Federal funding of abortion would be determined by the fate of the Hyde Amendment, not health care reform.
I do not have enough trust in our Political heroes (from either side of the aisle) that, with all these 2000 plus page bills that none of them ever fully read, sooner or later (if not already as we have been discussing) this Hyde thing won’t just disappear and we find ourselves doing the very thing we should not be MADE to do by law.
Don’t forget-GWB, by EO, guaranteed no federal funding of expanded stem cell lines…and EO overturned it almost as soon as he was sworn in.
No trust, my friend…NO trust.
Figured you would catch on to sarcasm. You didn’t. According to the femiogynists it is consequence free sex because abortion is not, in their policy, a consequence, merely a hassle, like blowing your nose or having a wart removed.Nameless January 28, 2011 1:48 am
If completing a pregnancy is “merely a hassle,” then why do some women choose to abort and (allegedly) risk post-abortion syndrome?ant January 28, 2011 6:32 am
????? Again,work on the reading comprehension skills.Nameless January 28, 2011 11:42 am
I will charitably interpret your refusal to answer the question as an indication that you are thoughtfully considering it.ant January 28, 2011 5:45 pm
I said nowhere that pregnancy is merely a hassle. I’m saying pro-choice feminists consider abortion nothing more than an out-patient procedure to remove a parasite, just a hassle, as far as they’re concerned, with no negative consequences.Nameless January 28, 2011 7:27 pm
I have no idea why you would think that I’m attributing a pro-choice view to you. But I’m willing to try this again, and hopefully you won’t be able to misinterpret me this time.ant January 28, 2011 8:22 pm
If women who have abortions consider completing a pregnancy to be “merely a hassle,” then why do they choose to abort and (allegedly) risk post-abortion syndrome, which would presumably be more than a hassle?
If your answer is, “They don’t don’t believe that post-abortion syndrome exists,” then you are conveniently underestimating the reach and effectiveness of the pro-life propaganda machine.
I’m still looking for the part where I called “completing a pregnancy” a hassle. BTW, that’s a good joke about the reach and effectiveness of the pro-life propaganda machine. I guess that explains why so many networks ran that March For Life story. Oh, wait a minute…they didn’t.
BTW, people can “complete” a book report, a pregnancy will complete itself without any effort from another, excepting medical procedures.Nameless January 29, 2011 12:59 am
“I’m still looking for the part where I called ‘completing a pregnancy’ a hassle.”
Are you a woman who has had an abortion?
You’re not interested in a discussion. You’re just an asshole. I apologize for wasting your time.
Robert Blum, an expert on reproductive health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, did not work on the study, but he has worked in the field for decades.
"This is an extremely, extremely well done study," he said. "There is no evidence that abortion predisposes a woman to psychiatric and mental health problems."
"There is no post-abortion trauma, post-abortion syndrome, or anything of the like," he said.NPR reports in the same story that "[a]s many as 25 percent of new mothers experience post-partum depression."
While feminists sneer at the idea of post-abortion syndrome, it does exist. And if they actually cared about women, they’d admit that fact and would stop encouraging women to have abortions without disclosing the trauma that can occur to the woman.
It’s clear that they don’t care about the dead babies, but they also need to stop insisting that they are For Women ™ , when they most obviously are not. You see, feminists, an unborn baby is not just a clump of cells. Many women who abort their babies, therefore, suffer intense pain and immense guilt. Their entire lives.Clearly, Ziganto believes that abortion is wrong, and one reason why it is wrong is the damage it allegedly does to women. Therefore, Ziganto can be interpreted as supporting the following argument:
In a 2006 study, James Paulson, a psychologist at Eastern Virginia Medical School, assessed the parents of 5,089 infants and found that 14 percent of the mothers had signs of moderate to severe depression. And so did 10 percent of the fathers. Compare that with the 3 percent to 5 percent of men in the general population who are depressed (as well as the 8 percent or 9 percent of women).Abort for the men in your life, won't you? (You want to be careful. That there's dripping with sarcasm, and you wouldn't want to get any of that on you.)
"The question is -- and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer: Is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no," Santorum says in the interview, which was first picked up by CBN's David Brody. "Well if that person, human life is not a person, then, I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"According to The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta (and others), Santorum's comment is "consistent with the internal narratives of the contemporary abortion rights opposition movement":
Santorum was referring to Obama's comments at a 2008 forum with Pastor Rick Warren in which he said the question of whether a baby should have human rights was "above my pay grade." Obama later said his remark was too flip, but "I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."
Santorum took Obama to task for his position.
"Just about everything else in the world he's willing to do -- have the government do -- but he can't answer that basic question which is not a debatable issue at all," Santorum told Jeffrey. "I don't think you'll find a biologist in the world who will say that is not a human life."
Opponents of abortion in recent years have compared the status of fertilized eggs, even pre-implantation, to that of pre-Civil War slaves who were not considered fully human. For example, materials from the Illinois Right to Life Committee argue that "The court decisions on slavery vs abortion demonstrate an equivalent denial of personhood for two different categories of human beings, slaves and unborn children."That's why a black man is supposed to share Santorum's view of abortion, I suppose. (Since Obama's mother was white, does that mean that Obama should be only 50% pro-life? Just curious.)
BLOCK: You've got another vote there pending in Congress before March on whether to raise the debt ceiling, and I know Congress heard this week from the Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, warning about catastrophic consequences if that limit is not raised.
You have said that you see this as an opportunity to get the fiscal house in order. I wonder how you would do that and what it would take for you to be a yes vote on raising the debt limit.
Sen. McCONNELL: Well, it is an opportunity. I mean, we all know that the country is drowning in a sea of debt, and nothing underscores that like the decision to raise the debt limit. So it's an opportunity for us to work together and see if we can make some significant progress on spending and debt. So I think both parties ought to welcome that opportunity.
BLOCK: Would you be willing to risk, say, a government shutdown if there is no consensus?
Sen. McCONNELL: Well, we're not talking about that. What we're talking about is taking advantage of this opportunity to do something important to reduce spending and debt, and what better time to do it than when you're voting on raising the debt ceiling?
BLOCK: And what would your ideas be on ways to get there?
Sen. McCONNELL: Well, we'll be happy to discuss that with you at the appropriate time. But what is a better time to talk about addressing spending and debt when you're called upon to vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling? I think it's the perfect opportunity for both sides to come together and do something significant.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that's been going on this week -- the G20, here at NATO -- and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?Lori Ziganto, "Obama Administration and Democrats Kowtow to Other Countries While Scorning Those Who Have Died For Ours":
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.
Since attaining power, everything [Democrats have] done has been an attempt to fundamentally change our “defective” Constitution and country. They are trying to create a federal government involved in and in control of every aspect of our lives, even the foods we eat. They have attempted and continue to attempt to morally equate America with those who wish to kill us . They have actively tried to weaken our military and are attempting to further their belief that America is not special. We don’t need no stinkin’ Exceptionalism! Only, we do. And we are.Lori Ziganto, "Obama and His Administration Lament America’s Superpower Status":
Obama does not believe in American Exceptionalism and he is actively pursuing its decline.More on the big lie.
Mr. Obama gave a stunning rebuke to his own base who’ve engaged in a horrific blame game all week. . . .Notice that Erickson suggests that there is no connection between right-wing rhetoric and acts of violence. He says that attempts to hold people like Palin responsible for acts of violence is "disgusting."
Contrast that with what his supporters have been up to all week. It is disgusting. . . .
Yesterday, Governor Sarah Palin delivered a video address on the mess in Arizona. For a week, the left has blamed Palin, not Loughner, for the shooting. Then they attacked her for not responding. Then they attacked her for her response and using the phrase “blood libel,” a perfectly legitimately use of it given what she and the right have been subjected to this week.
But the left pounced.
All week long, the left has said Jared Loughner was persuaded to try to kill Congresswoman Giffords because of right-wing hate. We know that was not true. But here is what else I am sure of.
Out there somewhere is someone who would love to kill Governor Palin. God forbid they do it. But you and I both know there is some crazy MSNBC watcher and Media Matters reader who even now is dreaming of doing so.
At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot? . . . Were I in Washington State, I’d be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation.We don't know why Jared Loughner killed six people and injured 13 others in Tuscon last Saturday. But isn't it at least possible that the aforementioned kind of rhetoric could have incited his shooting spree?
Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, who’s honed being provocative – even outrageous at times – to a fine and lucrative art, is the focus of criticism for inciting violence.Surprisingly, one politician who appears to agree that speech can incite violence is Sarah Palin.
Specifically, his dozens of comments attacking the Tides Foundation are being linked to the attempt by a heavily-armed man to assassinate employees at the San Francisco-based foundation, which funds environmental, human rights, and other progressive projects. The attack in July was thwarted in a shoot-out with police in which two officers were wounded.
Since then, alleged attacker Byron Williams has said in jailhouse interviews that he wanted to “start a revolution.” He says Beck was not the direct cause of his turning violent. But he does say: “I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind.”
At various times, Beck has referred to Tides as “bullies” and “thugs” whose mission is to “warp your children's brains and make sure they know how evil capitalism is.” More recently, Beck (who describes himself as a “progressive hunter”) has warned the foundation “I’m coming for you.”
Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.Palin appears to be saying that the responsibility for a criminal act rests on the person who commits it and no one else, not even those who create "maps of swing districts." She is denying that she is responsible in any way for any act of violence. A mere two paragraphs later, however, Palin says,
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election (emphasis mine).
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible. (emphasis mine).Palin appears to be saying that journalists and pundits (on the left) are potentially responsible for acts of violence that they may incite through their speech. Sharon Angle was even more blunt:
Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people's Constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant. The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.Therefore, according to Palin,
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.Current calls by those on the left to take it down a notch and tone down the incendiary rhetoric are serious threats to our First Amendment freedom of speech, according to Palin. Is she serious? Think about it. Can't Erick Erickson voice his opposition to Washington's ban on certain dishwashing detergents without suggesting that beating a legislator to a bloody pulp is appropriate? If calling a Supreme Court justice a "goat-fucking child molester" is discouraged, have we really lost any important political speech?
Let me not be subtle here: the rules of this site apply no matter how long you have been here and your account will be disabled for violating the rules of the site. If you are going to go around accusing your fellow posters of being bots, liars, mobies, trolls, etc. just because they disagree with you, prepare to have your own access disabled.
As Rachel Slajda points out, when Erick Erickson writes about liberals, he tends to violate the old RedState bans on obscenities and insults. Mr Erickson called retired Supreme Court justice David Souter a "goat fucking child molester". With regard to the Tim Tebow anti-abortion Super-Bowl commercial, he tweeted: "That's what the feminazis were enraged over? Seriously?!? Wow. That's what being too ugly to get a date does to your brain". Another post's opening must be quoted in full to get the flavour:
Is Obama Shagging Hookers Behind the Media’s Back?I assume not. I assume that Obama’s marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbit on him should he even think about it, but I ask the question to make one simple point: Barack Obama, like Elliott Spitzer, is a creation of the liberal media and, as a result, could be a serial killing transvestite and the media would turn a blind eye.