Sunday, March 21, 2010

Health Care plan written to skirt Hyde Amendment: selfish demand for public funding of "private choice" intrudes on policy debate

USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) President of U.S. Bishops says cost is too high, loss is too great for Health Care Bill not to be revised

The health care act before the House of Representatives today creates new funds and mechanisms to skirt the simplicity of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Federal funding for abortion.

Those who say that the government should "stay out of private choices" also want taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles.

If abortion is a "choice" in which the government should not interfere, the government has no business taxing the public to subsidize it. "The power to tax involves the power to destroy," wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in an 1819 decision.

Ironically, creation of a new funding stream for abortion opens the possibility of court challenges, "Executive Orders," legislative tinkering and other unintended consequences that could help undermine Roe v. Wade itself.

"Elections have consequences," said the President. So does taking Federal money. It will be interesting to see if abortion entitlement advocates unwittingly expose their project to future restrictions.


caheidelberger said...

Thin reasoning from health reform opponents. The claim that this legislation opens the door for federal funding of abortions is about as solid as the claim that sending astronauts to the Moon could lead to war with aliends from the Andromeda galaxy. The proposed legislation does not call for spending federal dollars on abortion. See my commentary and the links therein.

caheidelberger said...

(By the way, you can ask the GOP governor candidates what they think of health care reform and whether they will sign on to state lawsuits to stop it at a candidates' forum Tuesday! Forum begins 7 p.m., SF Convention Center!)

TLF+ said...

I'm not sure it's thin - but thanks for posting those links so people can arrive at a decision via info.

I cite the RC bishops' material because they are supportive of quite a bit of Democratic social policy - in fact, they are largely in favor of reform IF the simple position of the Hyde Amendment is affirmed unequivocally - which is not happening and that's a big communication problem.

Selfishly, I have a vested interest in reform (although my understanding is that it is going to take years to implement). I work a second job because of the cost of health care. It is sometimes exhausting and certainly impacts my work as a pastor. So affordable health care, and the removal of "preexisting conditions" hurdles for my disabled wife and autistic son, could actually improve my daily quality of life.

And why are you hiding the fact that scouts from the Adromeda Galaxy routinely land in Lake Herman? (I saw them from the bottom, remember.)

Stephen said...

So, you don't want to subsidise "pricate choices". Most of what we do in this life is a private choice. I may not utilise the neighborhood park, but I see the positives of having one. I may not attend your church, but I don't mind subsidising it in terms of lost taxes on the buildiings and lands on which they are located. I may not take part in dangerous activities, such as X-treme sports, but if you get injured and need hopital care, I am glad you are not thrown out in the street still bleeding, even if I must subsidise your care. We must forever be vigilant against intolerance in this country. We see it in the world around us and rightfully disdain those governments which deign to strip its citizens of their rights, and individual freedoms.

TLF+ said...

Stephen - you are missing the import of Justice Marshall's comment. Once gov't collects money to subsidize something, it takes power to regulate it as well.

As a Christian, I live with the reality that I must choose to do (or not do) some things, regardless of the law. I can simply say, "Elective abortion is morally wrong" whether or not the civil law supports my position - although I consider the civil law barbaric on this point.

We are live with the absurdity that fetal life is, in many places, considered human if it is destroyed because the mother is murdered, or that it can gain citizenship even if the mother is not a legal citizen. Yet it can be aborted for no reason other than convenience.

Abortion advocates continue to harp on "rights and freedoms" but will not address the very real question: at what point is life in the womb entitled to those rights and freedoms?" Roe v. Wade is now junk science - only a flat-earth buffoon would say that "there's no human life in the first trimester." If your position is that what is in the womb is not human, say so - and tell the rest of us when it reaches a stage that "rights and freedom" attach and must be protected. Otherwise, your assertion of human rights is meaningless.